Hmm that is an interesting statement.

On first reading it is counter-intuitive, even on second reading...but it cant easily be argued against either way since any argument will become circular- ie the best side won because it was best, or the worst side lost because it was worst. Either way, you argue is based on assumptions of fact that one or other was best or worst and the result of the battle follows, but it works in reverse that the result of the battle tells which side was best/worst. I'm not sure the argument would be too productive!