At 80/1 was Japan's win the greatest ever shock in sports history?

Make no mistake lads, this wasn't the biggest result in rugby history, it is the greatest shock in sport history IMO.

Can anyone think of a genuine result which matches this? Japan were 80/1. Their form leading up to this game was losses to a (probable) under strength Fiji, Tonga and the USA in the PN cup earlier this year. They beat Georgia a few weeks ago by 3 points.

Greatest shock in boxing history... Buster Douglas KO'd Tyson at 42/1.

Greatest shocks in Football... Senegal vs. France 2002, USA vs England 1950, Argentina vs. Cameroon 1990.. England winning the world cup in 66 (calm down, it was a joke).

Can anyone think of any others that even rival???

Fantastic, just what the tournament needed, now makes their pool look a lot more interesting...!

Plenty of 100/1 winners in the Grand National.

I'll be honest here and say 100/1 would have been short odds in my opinion. I literally wouldn't have gone near this as a serious bet at 500/1. Mind you, wasn't "Botham + Willis' Ashes" 500-1 at some point
?

Done a quick bit of research on this.

Goran Ivanisevic was 150/1 to win Wimbledon in 2001.

Greece were 150/1 to win the European Championship in 2004.

Shaun Murphy 150/1 to win World Snooker Championship in 2005.

I can't find the odds on FC Porto winning the Champions League in 2004 but I imagine it was something similar to the above.

Definitely the biggest upset in the history of sport. Rugby is one of the hardest sports to get an upset due to it being and incredibly physical team sport. Boxing is also a physical sport, but sometimes it only takes 1 punch for the underdog to win. In football minnows can take an early 1-0 lead then put 11 men behind the ball. Its harder to defend a lead like that in rugby as it's easier to score a try in rugby than a goal in football. Upsets are easy in tennis and golf as it only takes 1 man/ woman to have the game of their life. Japan's win is the biggest upset in the history of sport imo and the shot in the arm that rugby needs. Hopefully Japan, Pacific islands, USA, Georgia etc will now get more support and regular fixtures against the big boys. Promotion and relegation is needed in the 6 nations. Make the SANZAR tournament a 6 nations with each team playing each other once and promotion/ relegation. That's the only way rugby can become a truly global game.

If it's harder for an underdog to score a win in rugby union, the odds will already reflect this, otherwise you'd make a consistent profit betting on the favourite.

Artful_Dodger wrote:Done a quick bit of research on this.

Goran Ivanisevic was 150/1 to win Wimbledon in 2001.

Greece were 150/1 to win the European Championship in 2004.

Shaun Murphy 150/1 to win World Snooker Championship in 2005.

I can't find the odds on FC Porto winning the Champions League in 2004 but I imagine it was something similar to the above.

Difference in winning a match or winning a tournament though. The equivalent of the above would be Japan winning the World Cup. Those odds would a be a lot higher than 80-1

Historic odds aren't going to provide an accurate picture though as bookies seem to protect themselves from freak results with lower outside bet odds now. there have been many outsiders winning over the years and in a world cup you will always get fans betting a few quid on their nation regardless of if they have little to no realistic chance of winning.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:Done a quick bit of research on this.

Goran Ivanisevic was 150/1 to win Wimbledon in 2001.

Greece were 150/1 to win the European Championship in 2004.

Shaun Murphy 150/1 to win World Snooker Championship in 2005.

I can't find the odds on FC Porto winning the Champions League in 2004 but I imagine it was something similar to the above.

Difference in winning a match or winning a tournament though. The equivalent of the above would be Japan winning the World Cup. Those odds would a be a lot higher than 80-1

On the other hand though, rather than a one off freak result the above examples were even bigger shocks because the winners had to over come being huge outsiders repeatedly.

Mind you, I think Robin Soderling, having achieved the square root of nothing on clay. Having been dispatched 6-0 6-1 by Nadal on clay two weeks earlier. Him being the first (and until three months ago, only) man to beat Nadal in Roland Garros would probably run this close.

all those things people mention as in horse racing etc.. multiple fields makes odds far more uncertain... in one on one sport its literally unheard of.

Shaun Murphy in 2005 is a good one.

I think the manner of shocks can often be the deciding factor in them becoming legendary.

Let's say SA had two players sent off for 10minutes within minutes of each other and played absolutely poorly for the full 80 - and Japan won.  Yes, it would have been newsworthy, but would that have been a total shock?

The events of the this game told the full story of the shock.  The shock of little lads often beating back the SA giants in contact.  The shock of everytime the SA's scored, the Japanese were determined to fight back to parity.  The shock that SA were scoring quite solidly and clinically and yet the Japanese were virtually mimicking them all the way through.  The shock that SA, despite the game they had just had, elected for 3 points towards the end.  They were booed for the 'miserliness' and then paid the eventual price for their assumption that those 3 points were enough and would be probably the last points scored.

So the game was an epic because it played out as an epic, not simply because Japan won.

Connacht bottom of the Pro 12 at the time win at Toulouse was a great upset but they were "only" 20/1.

SecretFly wrote:I think the manner of shocks can often be the deciding factor in them becoming legendary.

Let's say SA had two players sent off for 10minutes within minutes of each other and played absolutely poorly for the full 80 - and Japan won.  Yes, it would have been newsworthy, but would that have been a total shock?

The events of the this game told the full story of the shock.  The shock of little lads often beating back the SA giants in contact.  The shock of everytime the SA's scored, the Japanese were determined to fight back to parity.  The shock that SA were scoring quite solidly and clinically and yet the Japanese were virtually mimicking them all the way through.  The shock that SA, despite the game they had just had, elected for 3 points towards the end.  They were booed for the 'miserliness' and then paid the eventual price for their assumption that those 3 points were enough and would be probably the last points scored.

So the game was an epic because it played out as an epic, not simply because Japan won.

Excellent explanation of the manner of the victory. There is also its context, with Japan not winning a RWC game for 24 years etc

in terms of elite rugby it's the biggest upset, but among the lower nations has there been a big upset? like a team ranked 90~100 beating a top 30 team? would that be as big as Japan beating South Africa?

I wouldn't personally think so dallym, as the graph of abilty would I feel be shallow enough until you get to about the top 15 or so... it rises steeply then with the level of professional training, tactics and science involved.

cheers for the response. you're probably right. it would be a big upset if that occurred, but in terms of disparity between teams, what Japan did is the more amazing

I think what surprised me most was that Japan took South Africa on up front and won. It's not like previous world cup shocks where teams like Wales and France were stupid enough to play beach seven man rugby against Island teams and came unstuck. Japan took them on up front and behind and scored more points.

I have no idea whats wrong with this South African team though. There is a lack of urgency and spirit in their team. Results have been totally dire, crushed by Ireland, beaten by Wales, defeated at home by Argentina, and now by Japan. Personally I think that 24-20 loss to Australia in July has smashed the confidence in the Springboks, results since have been dire.

Heyneke Meyer needs to be given the sack after the tournament though, he's the South African equal to what Gareth Jenkins was to Wales.

i'm a general sports fan. I can't remember another upset receiving as much media coverage. Although I was too young to remember Tyson vs Douglas and some of the other upsets mentioned were before the social media age.

Tyson vs Douglas was one half of the front cover of at least one paper when Mandela was released.

The only thing I can think of was Bangladesh beating Australia in cricket back in 2004 I think of,but even that doesn't seem to be the same.

Boris Becker entered Wimbledon in 1985 at 400-1. You could also have had very good odds on the 1981 Ashes, and at one point Evander Holyfield was 50-1 against Mike Tyson, which is ridiculous for a two man contest.

But in terms of sporting upsets, this was a great one because it's brought the RWC to life. That pool is wide open now. It's rare that a single game changes a tournament so completely .

Shifty wrote:I think what surprised me most was that Japan took South Africa on up front and won.  It's not like previous world cup shocks where teams like Wales and France were stupid enough to play beach seven man rugby against Island teams and came unstuck.  Japan took them on up front and behind and scored more points.  

I have no idea whats wrong with this South African team though.  There is a lack of urgency and spirit in their team.  Results have been totally dire, crushed by Ireland, beaten by Wales, defeated at home by Argentina, and now by Japan.   Personally I think that 24-20 loss to Australia in July has smashed the confidence in the Springboks,  results since have been dire.

Heyneke Meyer needs to be given the sack after the tournament though, he's the South African equal to what Gareth Jenkins was to Wales.  

That's exactly it. On paper the boks should be a great team but they seemed a bit half-hearted at times.

It's taken me until now to get over it. What a stunner that was.

Ireland beating England at the cricket world cup in 2011?

Did we????

WEY! HEY!! HEY!!!!!

Poorfour wrote:Boris Becker entered Wimbledon in 1985 at 400-1. You could also have had very good odds on the 1981 Ashes, and at one point Evander Holyfield was 50-1 against Mike Tyson, which is ridiculous for a two man contest.

But in terms of sporting upsets, this was a great one because it's brought the RWC to life. That pool is wide open now. It's rare that a single game changes a tournament so completely .

I agree. The impact of that game is far greater than throwing the pool open. It's changed the way smaller nations are approaching games. Uruguay started brilliantly against Wales, and I think the Japan effect is partly why.

Also, are you sure Holyfield was 50-1? That's crazy given what he'd achieved and who he'd beaten to that point.

Hard to know what is best ever, worst ever, or whatever.  But it was grand (unless you are a BOk supporter).  And it has certainly changed the perceptions of the openning weekend of the tournament.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Boris Becker entered Wimbledon in 1985 at 400-1. You could also have had very good odds on the 1981 Ashes, and at one point Evander Holyfield was 50-1 against Mike Tyson, which is ridiculous for a two man contest.

But in terms of sporting upsets, this was a great one because it's brought the RWC to life. That pool is wide open now. It's rare that a single game changes a tournament so completely .

I agree. The impact of that game is far greater than throwing the pool open. It's changed the way smaller nations are approaching games. Uruguay started brilliantly against Wales, and I think the Japan effect is partly why.

Also, are you sure Holyfield was 50-1? That's crazy given what he'd achieved and who he'd beaten to that point.

Yup. I remember both Becker and Holyfield clearly , because if I'd had the guts to bet on them I'd have had much more cash to spend at uni!

Poorfour wrote:Boris Becker entered Wimbledon in 1985 at 400-1. You could also have had very good odds on the 1981 Ashes, and at one point Evander Holyfield was 50-1 against Mike Tyson, which is ridiculous for a two man contest.

But in terms of sporting upsets, this was a great one because it's brought the RWC to life. That pool is wide open now. It's rare that a single game changes a tournament so completely .

Boris is for a tournament (8 games?), Holyfield and this game only for a match.

Not really sport related but the bookies don't always get it right - a mate of mine who gambles quite a bit follows various betting bloggers and at one point early in the Labour leadership contest he got a tip that the lowest odds were on Andy Burnham at 5-1, with Corbyn at 30-1.
So given that he couldn't lose he put £100 on each candiate !

South Africa has a really bad habit of underestimating so called weaker teams. Leading up to this game all the talk re Japan was of their excellent maul. It was like as if SA hadnt seen the memo.

Also if you consider that Argentina beat them in SA and SA have lost 6 of their last ten games it doesnt look like as much a shock.

Pieter DeVilliers doesnt look like such a bad coach now.

Irish Londoner wrote:Not really sport related but the bookies don't always get it right - a mate of mine who gambles quite a bit follows various betting bloggers and at one point early in the Labour leadership contest he got a tip that the lowest odds were on Andy Burnham at 5-1, with Corbyn at 30-1.
So given that he couldn't lose he put £100 on each candiate !

The risk with that is that they can refuse to pay out at the advertised odds if it's clearly incorrect, and you're left with a losing bet and a winning bet at much lower odds than expected.

obviously wasn't born then but I recall reading about North Korea beating Italy in the 1966 world cup.. and qualifying for the QFs.

FerN wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Boris Becker entered Wimbledon in 1985 at 400-1. You could also have had very good odds on the 1981 Ashes, and at one point Evander Holyfield was 50-1 against Mike Tyson, which is ridiculous for a two man contest.

But in terms of sporting upsets, this was a great one because it's brought the RWC to life. That pool is wide open now. It's rare that a single game changes a tournament so completely .

Boris is for a tournament (8 games?), Holyfield and this game only for a match.  

7 games. But I think they're comparable. Winning a game of tennis against a much higher ranked opponent is a lot more common than winning a rugby match against a much higher ranked opponent. Winning a tournament requires the kind of consistency that's needed to win a game of rugby.

Poorfour wrote:

FerN wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Boris Becker entered Wimbledon in 1985 at 400-1. You could also have had very good odds on the 1981 Ashes, and at one point Evander Holyfield was 50-1 against Mike Tyson, which is ridiculous for a two man contest.

But in terms of sporting upsets, this was a great one because it's brought the RWC to life. That pool is wide open now. It's rare that a single game changes a tournament so completely .

Boris is for a tournament (8 games?), Holyfield and this game only for a match.  

7 games. But I think they're comparable. Winning a game of tennis against a much higher ranked opponent is a lot more common than winning a rugby match against a much higher ranked opponent. Winning a tournament requires the kind of consistency that's needed to win a game of rugby.

He was ranked 20th at the time mind. On the way he beat the 8th, 7th and 5th seeds but missed chaps like Lendl, McEnroe, Connors etc who were the 1, 2, 3 at the time. Wasn't simply this out of nowhere kid.

Tournament success in 1 on 1 is as much to do with your success as well as the success of your peers.

A ever cross sport comparison is not always easy/relevant, and calling this the greatest shock in sport history is highly subjective. However, I viewed Japan's victory as Rugby's Belo Horizonte moment, when a full strength England boasting Matthews, Finney and other of the finest footballers this country has produced lost to USA in the 1950 World Cup.

I think this one has a big impact because such shocks are rare (I know, contradiction in terms), or rather we don't get as surprised to see them in football. This one is has really registered beyond the immediate scope of its own rugby world.

I think this is the biggest wake up call that the establishment in World Rugby can have about the merits of expansions and looking again at having tier-2 and tier-1 teams playing each other more regularly. Top not do so will hold Rugby in a lot of these countries back.

Bradford were 460/1 to win against Chelsea after being 2-0 down, of course that isn't from the start of the game.

Back in the days before football turned into Wendyball this was a great shock. And I was there!

I think when they face Scotland they may get a dose of reality and people will realise how amazing this was.

Thats said..

England vs. USA 1950
North Korea vs. Italy 1966
Argentina vs. Cameroon 1990
Senegal vs. France 2002

Its right up there say with footballs greatest.

In terms of rugby I think the last great upset was France vs. NZ in 1999. Yes France were a good side but they were 15 down vs. the ABs well past halfway.

when you reflect, some of them are 1 off shocks, some of them, the team just turns out to be better than anyone thought... north korea had a good tournament, cameroon turned out to be a quality side... roger milla ripped england apart and we rode our luck.

to some degree it also depends on when you take the odds. The odds quoted for headingly '81, were those offered when england were in dire straits before botham and dilley started swinging.

Grass court tennis has thrown some curveballs down the years. Ivanisievic had a hell of a serve. Becker came out of nowhere... until queens that year... and he turned out to be a top player for years.

Buster douglas was known in the game to have plenty of talent but questionable training and resolve. The tragedies he had in the run up to that fight gave him the resolve - for one night... and it coincided with tyson starting to go off the rails.

Often there's a story beneath that makes it less of a shock with the benefit of hindsight. You could say with this one, that the boks had looked rusty... but so have plenty of sides in warm up games, and the japanese had shown nothing to suggest they had this in them.

Greatest ever? Well there's a lot of competition for that. I think, as superfly mentioned earlier, that what was exceptional about this was as much the compelling drama as it unfolded as the result itself.