(Plumb Images/Leicester City FC via Getty Images; Elsa/Getty Images)
An irresistible non-NBA question began bouncing around over the weekend that we had to pose to you: Was Emma Raducanu's Cinderella run to the women's US Open title a bigger upset than Leicester City's fairy-tale ride to the English Premier League title in 2015-16?
I say yes.
I know the oddsmakers say otherwise. Leicester was a 5000-to-1 shot to win the league at the start of its dream season. Raducanu's odds at the start of the Open were "only" 400/1. But I frequently find myself quibbling with the way the sportsbooks make their calculations and I definitely do in this case.
Improbable (and magical) as the Foxes' achievement was five years ago to beat out all of England's big-spending clubs over the course of a 38-game season, they were already established as a legitimate Premier League team with multiple players known (or soon to be regarded) as elite for both club and country: Riyad Mahrez, N'Golo Kanté, Jamie Vardy and goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel.
Raducanu had won three top-level matches in her life before she got to New York — mere weeks prior when she reached the fourth round at Wimbledon. She had played only six tour-level matches total. She had to win three qualifying matches just to earn a spot in the main draw and then win seven matches in a row over the course of two weeks with no history of doing anything remotely close to what she just managed.
No matter how much the injury absence of Serena Williams and early losses sustained by Naomi Osaka and Ash Barty weakened the draw, Raducanu still had to win seven rounds at a level well beyond her résumé. She also had to overcome Leylah Fernandez in the final … after Fernandez eliminated Osaka and two more top seeds (No. 2 Aryna Sabalenka and No. 5. Elina Svitolina).
So let's hear it: Dive into the thread and let me know if you agree or disagree with me.
The Stein Line is a reader-supported newsletter, with both free and paid subscriptions available, and those who opt for the paid edition are taking an active role in the reporting by providing vital assistance to bolster my independent coverage of the league. Feel free to forward this post to family and friends interested in the NBA and please consider becoming a paid subscriber to have full access to all of my posts. Posts like this will be subscriber-only in the future to due to the resources required to produce distinctive and proprietary NBA reporting.
I'd plump for Emma. In a very simplistic way, she was one of 128 competitors (just the main draw, not even including the qualies). Leicester was one of 20. Emma was the 31st seed in the qualies!
I don't think we're ever going to see anything like those three weeks again.
I think it's Leicester cause it's a long league vs a single elim tournament argument. The fact it was over 38 games and several months of grinding out gritty wins and upsets, and also they were by no means an established legitimate premier league team since they were even projected to get relegated out of the league at the end of the season. The single elim tournament has the whole now-or-never mentality that really favors underdogs. Particularly in a tennis major over only 3 weeks wherein conditioning and mindset over that short period of time affects everything.
Point is, it's more improbable to me that a team expected to finish bottom ended up playing excellently over 9 months, than someone coming into a tournament in her best condition ever for 3 weeks and winning that said tournament on single-elimination matches. Both are crazy improbable and amazing feats, but I would always be more surprised when underdogs win whole leagues vs winning cups. After all, cups where designed for upsets like that wherein leagues are designed to prevent that.
Many excellent points. I still say 10 matches in 21 days is an insane grind, but it IS a knockout competition and that is the best argument for Leicester. They had to play everyone.
Maybe "established" was the wrong word choice but Leicester were in the Prem the previous season and, again, had much more accomplished players than Raducanu was. Remember: NEVER has a qualifier won a tennis major in the Open era.
Personally think it's impossible to compare across sports. Should be compared to Barbora Krejčíková's run at RG earlier this year, Iga Świątek's at RG last year, Sofia Kenin's at AO last year, or even Jeļena Ostapenko in 2017. Ostapenko is an interesting comparison as she was down a set multiple times in that run, whilst Emma never dropped a set. Barbora also was a very long shot and was someone who was known as a 'doubles specialist'. The rankings system in part is what caused the odds to be so long for Emma and I suspect we won't know the true answer to this question for awhile - was this a red line week for her, or is she capable of sustaining this run long term?
Not bigger than LC for me, there is a lot more parity in WTA. A lot of top names were missing or not fully there either. Ultimately you can only play who is in front of you though, and full credit to her for winning it in the end, but it has to be noted that in this run, Emma played 0 top ten players. Can't call that a bigger upset than LC in a 38 game season.
Tugh call but I don't think it is fair to look at the success of Leicester players after the fact. If Emma wins a couple more majors in the next year, do you have to look back and say she was better than we thought?
I'd plump for Emma. In a very simplistic way, she was one of 128 competitors (just the main draw, not even including the qualies). Leicester was one of 20. Emma was the 31st seed in the qualies!
I don't think we're ever going to see anything like those three weeks again.
How many pertinent variables are we up to now? 20? The calculations don't seem to be getting any easier.
I think it's Leicester cause it's a long league vs a single elim tournament argument. The fact it was over 38 games and several months of grinding out gritty wins and upsets, and also they were by no means an established legitimate premier league team since they were even projected to get relegated out of the league at the end of the season. The single elim tournament has the whole now-or-never mentality that really favors underdogs. Particularly in a tennis major over only 3 weeks wherein conditioning and mindset over that short period of time affects everything.
Point is, it's more improbable to me that a team expected to finish bottom ended up playing excellently over 9 months, than someone coming into a tournament in her best condition ever for 3 weeks and winning that said tournament on single-elimination matches. Both are crazy improbable and amazing feats, but I would always be more surprised when underdogs win whole leagues vs winning cups. After all, cups where designed for upsets like that wherein leagues are designed to prevent that.
Many excellent points. I still say 10 matches in 21 days is an insane grind, but it IS a knockout competition and that is the best argument for Leicester. They had to play everyone.
Maybe "established" was the wrong word choice but Leicester were in the Prem the previous season and, again, had much more accomplished players than Raducanu was. Remember: NEVER has a qualifier won a tennis major in the Open era.
Personally think it's impossible to compare across sports. Should be compared to Barbora Krejčíková's run at RG earlier this year, Iga Świątek's at RG last year, Sofia Kenin's at AO last year, or even Jeļena Ostapenko in 2017. Ostapenko is an interesting comparison as she was down a set multiple times in that run, whilst Emma never dropped a set. Barbora also was a very long shot and was someone who was known as a 'doubles specialist'. The rankings system in part is what caused the odds to be so long for Emma and I suspect we won't know the true answer to this question for awhile - was this a red line week for her, or is she capable of sustaining this run long term?
Not bigger than LC for me, there is a lot more parity in WTA. A lot of top names were missing or not fully there either. Ultimately you can only play who is in front of you though, and full credit to her for winning it in the end, but it has to be noted that in this run, Emma played 0 top ten players. Can't call that a bigger upset than LC in a 38 game season.
You probably hit on the true answer, Zain: It might be too hard to compare two different sports. But sometimes it's more fun to just ignore that.
Another great shout. Much more parity on the WTA Tour than the Premier League, which certainly boosts Leicester's case.
I say Leicester because of what you said above - they had to sustain that level of play for a 38 game season.
Winning 10 matches in 21 days is a grind of its own kind.
Tugh call but I don't think it is fair to look at the success of Leicester players after the fact. If Emma wins a couple more majors in the next year, do you have to look back and say she was better than we thought?
Agreed ... but I didn't do that. Of the four players I listed, all but Kanté had made their international debuts.
Didn't complete the thought: Mahrez, Vardy and Schmeichel were all internationals before the start of the 2015-16 season.