.jpg)
I cited the As and Yankees 70s teams off the top of my head. I probably could name a few others in support of my point.clement wrote:But can't those examples you cited be exceptions? The conventional wisdom is that you need a strong bullpen, an ace, a deep rotation, lots of power in your lineup, some speed, etc. to be a championship calibre team. But every so often a team will win despite not having one or more of the above. So good chemistry, good relationships, or good teamwork (or whatever you want to call it) is just one of many factors that lead to success. If you have it, your chances for success are better. If you don't, it doesn't automatically mean failure, it just means you lack one piece of the puzzle to winning.doe_boy wrote:Chemistry is only talked about with winning teams. The term is usually applied in retrospect. You never hear someone say, 'Hey, that team sure sucks, but they have great chemistry.
The Oakland A's of the 70's hated each other with a passion and, in spite of that, won two world series. Later, the 'Bronx Zoo' Yankees proved that a disfunctional clubhouse can still walk out on the field and win.
Guess it all boils down to what is meant by the word. Chemistry sometimes produces explosions and flames. Other times, it produces less volatile events.
I guess I see it more as teamwork than whatever this term "chemistry" means. I work with teams all the time, though they aren't sports teams. Sometimes I'll see teams put together that have the most individual talent, but will produce very poorly. Other times teams that don't look too good on paper do exceptionally well. That doesn't necessarily mean that the teams that perform well are the ones that just get along well. Conflict, if managed well, can be very functional. I realize that teams in a professional/business setting doesn't translate directly to sport, but I think some parallel is at least possible.
And yeah, sometimes there are teams that feel that they work really well together and have that "chemistry" that simply don't perform well. It could be that they have the chemistry, but lack the other things needed (perhaps talent?). Just because we (or the media) don't talk about the good chemistry on losing teams doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.
The points you make are valid as well.
No talent and bad chemistry is probably the worst possible scenario.