Chemistry is overrated in the sense that if you don't have talent, the team chemistry isn't going to lead to too many wins.
(The 2008 Lions, for example, played hard, never gave up, etc. and went 0-16. The team really didn't start cracking visibly until the next season.)
That said, talent without chemistry has flamed out so many times that I could write a book about champions on paper that never manifested.
There's a balance a team has to maintain, and it's not always the same key to every player or every team. The Pats, for example, were experts at finding "toxic" "team cancers" that were really just tired of losing and dealing with inept coaches and imbeciles in the front office.
(The 2008 Lions, for example, played hard, never gave up, etc. and went 0-16. The team really didn't start cracking visibly until the next season.)
That said, talent without chemistry has flamed out so many times that I could write a book about champions on paper that never manifested.
There's a balance a team has to maintain, and it's not always the same key to every player or every team. The Pats, for example, were experts at finding "toxic" "team cancers" that were really just tired of losing and dealing with inept coaches and imbeciles in the front office.
Comment