Led Zeppelin = eight studio albums in a decade, with a lost year-plus in there when Robert Plant's son died.
CODA is an outtakes album.
The Who = eight studio albums in fourteen years.
My point - which I didn't build out on fully, I know - is that I feel that the Who were phoning it in as a band could possibly be after QUADROPHENIA. Those last two records with Keith Moon are pretty weak stuff and don't do their legacy any favors.
And please tell me when the Who called anything quits.
For the record, THE WHO SELL OUT is one of my ten favorite albums easily.
CODA is pretty solid for an "outtakes" album, even though Jimmy Page was kinda deceptive about the origin of some of the tracks on it. But the fact that he was able to pass off some "live" tracks as "studio" productions is actually a testament to his skill as a producer and the guiding hand of Crowley in his dark sonic wizardry or whatever

... and I'll even go on record as being a fan of "Bonzo's Montreaux". Hey man, it's much less of a time commitment than "Moby Dick".
The equivalent "outtakes" album in the Who canon is "Odds and Sods", which has some cool stuff but is a lot more scattershot. And the fact that it came out as a sort of stopgap after Quadrophenia is telling ...
But to put some arguments forward in favor of the Who ... in the beginning portion of their career, they were still kind of in that era when bands were judged more on the basis of singles, as opposed to albums.
Also, people tend to say that live albums "don't count" in these kinds of debates ... but I'd still put forward that "Live at Leeds" is one of the greatest things ever. At least I felt that way when I was 13. But yeah, it still works for me.
And I think Daltrey was ahead of Plant with the open denim jacket/curly blond locks thing, for whatever that's worth.