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

[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]

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™]

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.