All the men on both sides did heroic things because men in power were stupid and greedy. Making an analogy to football doesn't take away from any of these men's bravery.
If you only have x many planes, let's say 50, if you only have 50 fighters than placing them in a bad tactical position so they get shot down is not a wise position. If the target is your airfield then any flyable aircraft should be scrambled, all other aircraft, fuel trucks etc should be dispersed as best they can. Holes in a runway can be repaired, if you get your 50 irreplaceable fighters shot down then you are defenseless. Defending a carrier is a different matter, if it's sunk you have nowhere to land.
I am only defending the Zero here, but I'm having to attack the Spitfire to do it. The Spitfire was more or less equal to the Me109 until late in the war when the Spitfire really surpassed the me109. They traded spots several times but were more or less well matched opponents from 1939 to late 1943 or early 1944. After the Spitfire IX was introduced, I believe it was the same with the FW190. The problem with the Spitfire V fighting a Zero is it had no ace in the hole. If I had to fight a Zero over Darwin, I would have chosen an ME109 over a Spitfire because it could dive. Climb up to bomber altitude, make a gun run, split S and dive away. The Zero couldn't counter that move, it is essentially what the US fighters did. Am I super biased for American planes? Well let's see, a P39 or P40 couldnt even get to 28,000 feet, it would take an F4F-4 about 35 minutes to get to 28,000 feet (Guadalcanal pilots reported 40 minutes to 30,000 feet) and that leaves at that time, the P38 of which there were about 0 available for that area. So, looks like I'm calling it down the middle, American fighters at that time were too heavy and underpowered to even consider this interception except for the P38. The only other options to me would be F4F-3 which were out of production and probably all used up, or the P43 Lancer which needed armor (easy fix) and actual fuel tanks instead of wet wings (not really doable at all without a whole new wing).
So, in closing, do I hate the Spitfire? No. Do I respect the Zero for its abilities from introduction until mid 1943 when more powerful US fighters arrived (hellcat Corsair more P38's)? Absolutely
One last time, as per here http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero the Darwin MkV's and A6M's were both rated at 334 Mph, yet here Spitfire Mk.VB (Tropical) AB.320 Report a trop MkV fitted with the Merlin 45 was faster than the A6M and the Darwin MkV's at 337 Mph with a 90 gallon drop tank fitted, this spec MkV ticked every box in regards to fighting over Australia, with 4 20mm cannons this standard MkV was 40 mph faster Spitfire Mk.Vc AA.873 Report. As you can see, judging the MkV on just the Darwin battle is not a true indication of its performance.