Don't worry James - I'm quite used to people disagreeing with me about this.James Coleman wrote:It strikes me as being poor form (no disrespect intended Jonathan, just my opinion) to say that someone would not be justified in winning the title because of the strength of their opposition. As well as Ben's NFL example, there are many examples of athletes winning gold at the Olympics who would never have won had a "more deserving" competitor(s) not been injured, boycotting etc. Or did Federer never deserve to Wimbledon this year because all his opponents had to play Federer and he didn't ?
Stewart Reuben made the point elsewhere that the top rated player has the advantage of not playing him or herself - and that's something I'm happy to live with because it seems to boil down to the best player having an advantage because they are the best player.
The other stuff is a bit different to what I'm suggesting. What I'm asking about is does the system produce a 'deserving' winner amongst those who take part.