As a simple idea that everyone kind of knows but can't keep a good handle on, the idea that superstars don't make the team great is often forgotten. Not literally forgotten, as everyone instantly remembers it when their team loses but there is
something of a blind bias going on with regards to the hype surrounding individual players. The biggest single (often glazed over) fact about our game is that it's a team game. Great players can improve a good team, but they do nothing for a bad team.
something of a blind bias going on with regards to the hype surrounding individual players. The biggest single (often glazed over) fact about our game is that it's a team game. Great players can improve a good team, but they do nothing for a bad team.
The latest, and greatest examples of star players meaning very little to teams are the fortunes that have come to Seattle and to New England over the last season. Seattle looked strong throughout the year, but played most of their season without their top receiver in Sidney Rice, and without one quarter of the Legion of Boom (their defensive secondary), Brandon Browner. They ultimately won out over other teams with equal or worse loses in their roster. The Broncos were missing linebacker Von Miller for the important end of the season, while the Patriots (who made it to the AFC Championship game) had their receiving corps gutted before the season, leaving Tom Brady with the unenviable task of winning without any big time players out wide (or as the kinder analysts put it "no targets").
Sure, this is a cherry picked bunch from the last year of competition but it only goes to enforce the belief that the game is based on what you can achieve without those star players than what you can achieve with them.
Another great example (from a different sport) came up recently during the NCAA "March Madness" championship. The hot favourites to make it to the "Final Four" stage (Duke), were pitted against the barely-qualified underdogs (Mercer). The Duke team was obviously the more talented, but they were much less "the team". The Mercer line-up was composed of five seniors, whereas Duke had one. The difference was in the team, great individuals are just that but they can't match a team that has played together for four years and know each others game inside and out. So often through the game Duke came up against roadblocks and couldn't find a way over them, the talent was there but the team wasn’t.
This is a perfect illustration of the hypothesis that the team is greater than the sum of its parts. At least three Duke players seem a lock to become NBA players, whereas none of the Mercer squad could claim the same distinction. The individuals are applauded despite their apparent difficulty handling what should have (on paper) been a victory, and an easy one at that!
This then leads to the logical question of what makes a team. Why are some teams wildly successful without star players? Why do some systems need them to succeed?
The key to it all is to have a plan. To have an idea of what you want to achieve and then to build the plan backwards from that point, and most importantly to get back to that goal at the end of the day. A lot of teams think that their problems can be solved by hiring a new coach every year, or by dropping their quarterback after his rookie season. These things may be what's needed, but not alone. Unless there are severe and evident problems (read: Jamarcus Russell) then it's rarely that simple. It is often a combination of factors, and more crucially about the fit of players and coaches.
In my best estimation, it seems that star talent provides a spark that may otherwise be non existent in the locker room. These players provide hope, and the odd spectacular play. However, they need not be the core of your team. As with any players, the fit of the player to the team is much more important than any prior accolades.