What Is Better: A Team With Great Chemistry or A Team With Great Players?

[open365]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Hinds and Gayle have a very good record opening together. The reason they aren't opening together is because Daren Ganga has batted better than Hinds lately and deserves his place in the team more.

I believe you pick your best players and try to develop chemistry and synergy within a team. However, to argue that such synergy is not vital to a successful team is utter rubbish.

And to argue that "if Hinds and Gayle are such a good opening partnership, why aren't they opening" is even more rubbish, because Hinds and Gayle are a proven effective partnership. They've played together for Jamaica and it shows. The stats don't say it alone. Anyone with eyes can see it too.

I don't say it's not completely useless, i'm sayingb the world 11 lost because they had no pride and weren't motivated enough, not because they didn't git together.

[Turbinator]

Originally Posted by open365

I don't say it's not completely useless, i'm sayingb the world 11 lost because they had no pride and weren't motivated enough, not because they didn't git together.

I agree.

[silentstriker]

Best 11 players will develop chemistry eventually. You can't develop talent that doesn't exist.

So I'll take 11 best players and I bet if they are playing for SOMETHING, they will be world-class within a year.

[adharcric]

Exactly. Individual talent is the basic requirement for success, but team chemistry is the vital finishing touch.
With a foundation of individual talent, team chemistry can develop without too much difficulty. The reverse does not hold.

[tooextracool]

I think one only has to look at the records of Pakistan in the 90s to know the answer to this question.....

[Perm]

Not a bad thread here Turbinator. Hhere is a saying that I am quite fond of and I think it somes up this thread nicely.

A Star Team Will Always Beat A Team of Stars

[Slats4ever]

the question has too many "what if's"... Basically you're better off asking how important is team chemistry in cricket.

I'll argue not really that important. I think team chemistry comes from the captain in cricket and if you have a good captain good chemistry will follow. I think it's safe to argue that NZ have the best team chemistry in world cricket because they have the best captain, whilst it's also quite safe to say that the Pakis have the worst team chemistry cos of their over bearing captain.

[open365]

Originally Posted by Slats4ever

the question has too many "what if's"... Basically you're better off asking how important is team chemistry in cricket.

I'll argue not really that important. I think team chemistry comes from the captain in cricket and if you have a good captain good chemistry will follow. I think it's safe to argue that NZ have the best team chemistry in world cricket because they have the best captain, whilst it's also quite safe to say that the Pakis have the worst team chemistry cos of their over bearing captain.

That's not fair to say at all!!

A)It's very hard for an outsider to accurately judge the state of happines/chemistry within a side

B)I think inzy's quite well respected in the Pakistan side

[pietersenrocks]

A team with great chemistry

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by open365

It's too hypothetical a question to answer.

I agree with Michael Atherton, team spirit/chemistry is an illusion caused by winning.

Using the super series is a bit of a rubish example seeing as the players weren't playing for a country, they lacked pride and they lacked motivation, they didn't lose because they lacked chemistry.

Very interesting reply. You might have a point. I also liked silentstriker's answer.

The problem is that the question as phrased isn't that interesting. Most people will instantly say they'd rather have a team a "little" less talented but with a strong degree of chemistry over a great group of players with none. It's a bit of a sports mantra with coaches, because the prioritisation exists to try and instil that attribute into the team, 'cause it's more desirable to have it than not, even just in terms of everybody getting along and enjoying spending so much time with each other.

Basically, I think that chemistry develops through playing together consistently, and trust within the player group that they will perform well in their roles, and that's why winning teams often display it - 'cause winning generally means your lineup is more consistent and you have the opportunity to develop that trust. You can certainly have a bunch of guys that really get along that will still suck if their skill level isn't high enough to compete with the best.

[PhoenixFire]

When it comes down to it, someone doesn't edge the ball because they don't like another member of the team, it is because they have technical issue or have faced a good ball etc.