Well Musket I would suppose it would all depend upon what you accept as being "Well Led"

1914: A tiny force outnumbered and attacked by a force outnumbering them 2:1 that managed to delay that attacking force not just once but twice and yet stayed intact as a fighting force to turn and join up with the French to fight on the Marne and stop the German master plan in its tracks? I would say that that force would have to have been well led and well handled or it would have ceased to exist at the first encounter.

The tiny force that was the BEF of 1914 was rapidly expanded so that by 1916 it had over 2 million men in France - Are you honestly attempting to put forward the argument that such a feat can be accomplished by an Army that is badly led and organised?

Those 20 yards you slowly paced out, did you run the thousands of yards made initially and then slowly pace back the yardage lost in the numerous and costly counter-attacks launched by the Germans?

The assaults of 1916 at Verdun and on the Somme that succeeded in bleeding the German Army on the western front white would seem to indicate that it was the Germans who were badly led? Correct me if I am in error here but at the end of 1916 it was the Germans who replaced Falkenhayn, their Army Commander. In 1916 it was the Germans who first began to whisper about the need to sue for peace, not the Entente powers.

Innovation and Generals such as Monash, Plumer, Rawlinson, evolved a completely new way of fighting that broke the deadlock of trench warfare. Is that possible in an Army that is badly led? The Germans, with every apparent military advantage on their side, had been trying to do that since August 1914 - and they had totally failed at every attempt. It was this supposedly badly led British Army that succeeded.

From 1916 onward the Germans knew that every bite the Entente powers took out of their line the Entente powers would hold. Only the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 allowed the Germans to briefly regain the initiative on the Western front and mount one last ditch effort. What is it they say about repeating your mistakes Musket? Something about the idiocy of repeating something you know doesn't work yet expecting a different outcome? That is precisely what the Germans did in the Spring of 1918, and once again the British and French Forces before them fell back intact, and in good order, to absorb the blow, only to go on the offensive themselves 21 days after the German effort was totally spent. That campaign, called the "100 days offensive" ended the war. Now you tell me which of the two sides was better led in 1918 - the Germans who charged to failure or the British who charged to victory?