I think the World Cup shows the value of winning over consistency.

If you value winning, then Italy and Uruguay quite rightly have 3 points each.

If you value consistency, then England, who have been better on average in the 2 games, ought to be above Italy and Uruguay, who have been abject in 50% of their matches.

Applying the F1 points system (assuming the winner gets 25 and second gets 18 - I'm not sure what happens if there's a dead heat in F1 because it never occurs but from memory I think the points for the win and P2 are aggregated and shared equally, so we'll say it's 21.5 points for a draw). Costa Rica would have 50 points, Italy and Uruguay 43 each and England 36. But looking at the permutations for the final group games, Italy and Uruguay would each be guaranteed to finish on a minimum of 61 points, but at least one of them would have to finish on more points than that whatever happens when they play each other, and Costa Rica would be guaranteed to finish on a minimum of 68. England would only be able to finish on a maximum of 61, thereby finishing behind Costa Rica and either Uruguay or Italy (or possibly behind all three).

Which is a long-winded way of saying that the system which is maligned for valuing consistency over winning and for rewarding drivers for finishing second, would produce the same outcome as the system they use in the World Cup, which you say favours winning over consistency. You get a lot more points for winning in F1 than for finishing anywhere else. People who don't win races don't generally get anywhere near winning the title.

**Edited by redreni, 20 June 2014 - 23:21.**