The team game law

On March 16, 2010, in Leadership laws, by Neculai Fantanaru

The probability for one player to obtain excellent results is directly proportionate with the quality and level of his teammates' performances.

I still remember an episode that happened many years ago, when I started to attend faculty. I was training together with my colleagues. We had our team, we had been playing for quite some time together, we got well together on the field. Like almost always, several teams in the faculty participated at the trainings. We would play by rotation by the rule: “ten minutes or two goals”.

Suddenly, the main player of one of the adverse teams injured himself. Not being able to continue, his team mates had to borrow a player from another team that was not playing. And, as they were inpatient and they had an intense desire to win, they didn't chose by chance. They chose Danut, the captain of one of the teams that wasn't playing, an exceptional player, whose talent was recognized and appreciated by all of us. Now, they thought, they will win the game and maybe even those that will come.

Whoever said that things can go well only if you have on your team an exceptional player was wrong. On that day, the respective team lost all the games. And in every game he played for that team, Danut played very poorly, much under his usual level, much under the expectancies of his team mates. And then I wondered: why?

The answer was obvious. The game style practiced by Danut was a lot different from that of his new team mates, and to which they couldn't adapt at all. Danut played a more running game and attacked more, more alertly, with many fast and short passes, on the ground, few dribblings, attacks in the middle and many distance shots, while his team mates practiced a cautious defense game, more primitive, with high and long passes, rarely making brave counterattacks, keeping their energy, not being able to build anything interesting.

The attitude of each player changes according to the performance of his entire team.

No progress can be made by a team which doesn't have a single, united, totally developed game stile. Only playing as often as possible together will players be able to develop a common and performing game style, based on teamwork and understanding, not on competition, a game style that would impose a certain rhythm, defensive or offensive, which would make the best advantage. You must not forget the fact that each player's attitude changes depending on the performance of the entire team. For a team, just like for only one player, nothing is more difficult to bear than the permanent uncertainty given to the lack of unity in order to make a perfect game.

Without very good team mates, a player, regardless of his talent, will always lack energy, determination and he will play reluctantly. Under no circumstance will he be just as self-confident, and this will make the others be, at their turn, uncertain of his performance. The success of a team doesn't depend on the best player, unless the team is very united. As a matter of fact, the team is everything, and if the other team mates' abilities and aptitudes are below his level, he won't be able to excel and continuously perfect himself.

Never rely on the best player, it is not mandatory that his performance will bring a team's success

When another person comes to a team's leadership, everything is taken from the ground up. When Danut was co-opted for the new team, the entire game should have changed. His performance level obviously being way better than the other players', it should have been an alarm signal for them, a signal which should have put them all on guard, wake them, detach them from the chain of routine, motivate them to play a lot better and mould by his game style.

But he couldn't do that because it was impossible in such a short time to make them be aware of the benefits which they could obtain if they would practice his game style. Danut couldn't guarantee the success of his new team not because he didn't succeed in integrating himself in it, but because his team mates, who were net inferior to him as far as value and game quality performed are concerned and they couldn't adapt to the alert rhythm which he imposed right from the start.

Do you hit an invisible wall, called experience?

Danut's team mates felt the taste of victory before having it, but they ran against an invisible wall called experience. They were able to identify a potential leader, but they couldn't play the game, they weren't able to follow it in the direction he set. Their average level of experience, their lack of practical abilities didn't allow them to adapt to the game style imposed by Danut on the go. And on his own, he didn't have the power to change the final result.

The performance and success of a team depend both on the leader, as well as on the members of the team. They all must make and act in tandem: it's no use if a leader is very good if doesn't have anyone to work with. The reverse is also valid: it's useless if a weak leader has a very good team. Any disagreement or dissension between them will result in a failure, even if everyone had the best intentions.