|
|
Post by Defcord on Mar 1, 2017 10:13:24 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry.
My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry...
...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes?
I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Mar 1, 2017 10:25:59 GMT -6
We've only been successful once in this regard and it was the worst season I have ever coached. I was working with a group of 7th and 8th graders in a youth league and they had no chemistry. Lots of in-fighting between the kids, the coaches and the parents. We just happened to have superior talent across the board. We won several games by 50 points but I was so p-ssed at those kids because they bickered and showed no effort. We looked like absolute crap on both sides of the ball but made plays because we were so much more athletic. We won the league championship and I couldn't have been happier the season was over.
I did coach a high school team that started off with bad chemistry because of three kids that were toxic. We benched them two games in because of their attitudes and the season turned around. One of the three learned his lesson but the other two quit. We would have been a great football team if those kids would've pulled their heads out of their a--es as they were studs but they were arrogant and their parents were worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 1, 2017 10:27:30 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry. My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry... ...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes? I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success. I think it might be hard to recognize such issues, because generally winning big might keep those bad chemistry issues in the closet. Those things tend to really explode when a team is not doing well. That said, I could see it happening at schools competing in classes with smaller enrollments, where a team with just one next level player can have a great impact and two can make a team tops in the class. |
|
|
|
Post by **** on Mar 1, 2017 10:36:44 GMT -6
I'm assuming by 'win big' you mean win a state/national title. In this case I only have one championship on my record. IMO to win a state/national title you need a perfect storm to happen (in most cases). The year we won we had DUDES, nobody got hurt, everybody got along, they were coachable, had a great scheme, and at times we got lucky. Other years we would have 5/6 things and we'd be a top team in the state but couldn't go all the way. I think in most cases you have to have all of it go right to win it all. I can't imagine a situation (in HS up) where you win a championship with bad chemistry. Maybe a small HS just because of what coachd5085 said |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 1, 2017 10:40:25 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry. My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry... ...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes? I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success. Define "bad chemistry". |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 1, 2017 11:21:13 GMT -6
We had some guys on a state team that I would say didn't run in the same circles off the field and out of school. But they got along and there was very little BMW or infighting when they hit the locker room and field. They knew what they had to do to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluboy on Mar 1, 2017 11:33:25 GMT -6
We had one team that had a number of different cliques OFF THE FIELD, but knew they would not win if they did not play together.They were definitely together between the lines, but scattered once they left the locker room. They worked together well enough to win a state title.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 1, 2017 11:40:23 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry. My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry... ...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes? I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success. Define "bad chemistry". Yeah I think "bad" is such a relative term that it is going to make it difficult to pin down what you are looking for. That being written, I think it is easily possible to win with bad chemistry at the HS level, where talent is so varied. I have a buddy who won back to back titles at a mid sized school (approx 2,000) a few years back who said they had awful chemistry. A handful of superstars were big timing it and rarely worked (although not all the studs), a bunch of kids who would get suspended constantly from school, cliques in the locker room, drug problems, some criminal element at a school that traditionally did not have that, etc. Basically a lot of the generally accepted examples given in regards to "bad chemistry". But, they had a ton of D1 and D2 guys on the team and a few who ended up in the league. For as much as we try to teach our players to be good men, and rightfully so, that doesnt always translate to wins on the field. Thats why TO will end up in the HOF and Rudy Ruettiger only got in a couple of plays. On a side note, the most successful season I ever had coaching (in regards to winning state) came on what many would consider a coaching staff with bad chemistry. But talent wins games. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Mar 1, 2017 11:40:40 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry. My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry... ...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes? I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success. Define "bad chemistry". I definitely do not have an exact definition. I would say examples would include players that don't get along at practice, players that are reluctant to accept coaching, or things of this nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Mar 1, 2017 11:43:21 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry. My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry... ...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes? I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success. I think it might be hard to recognize such issues, because generally winning big might keep those bad chemistry issues in the closet. Those things tend to really explode when a team is not doing well. That said, I could see it happening at schools competing in classes with smaller enrollments, where a team with just one next level player can have a great impact and two can make a team tops in the class. I agree with you. The teams I have been part of that have won the most and had the most success have had very little issues. I just wondered if anyone had a team that had won championships that they thought had bad team chemistry. Just thinking out loud a little on a slow March day. |
|
|
|
Post by eaglemountie on Mar 1, 2017 11:46:19 GMT -6
I've coached on only a few (1 or 2) teams that had bad chemistry. One team won a conference championship the other was around .500. I'd say the conference championship team had the ability to win more and the poor chemistry got in the way of that group but the .500 group was probably average at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Mar 1, 2017 14:26:46 GMT -6
I've seen it in a few cases. If a team has more talent than its opponents and the issues aren't directly affecting performance then it probably won't be a huge difference-maker.
I think there's a few problems with the analysis, the biggest of which is the post hoc hypothesis. He talks about the chemistry differences after knowing the results, so he's apt to remember (in the absence of a solid measurement of chemistry) things to fit that reasoning.
As was mentioned above, winning can suppress chemistry issues, and winning can even improve chemistry, in the sense that they may learn to like each other at least on s transactional level. Conversely, losing could be creating chemistry issues. They're not independent variables.
All things being equal I'd rather have better chemistry than worse, but it's probably overrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbs72 on Mar 1, 2017 14:31:57 GMT -6
Team I was DC for a few years back had some of the overall worst team chemistry/ morale I've ever seen. Wound up runner up at state that year. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by aceback76 on Mar 1, 2017 14:40:13 GMT -6
I was reading an old clinic manual last night (Nike COY 2005) and one of the topics was team chemistry. The speaker was the coach from Linfield College. He talked about how they had won games in years prior to winning the 2004 D3 national championships, but they didn't win it all until they had good team chemistry. My questions is has anyone on here won big with bad team chemistry... ...or a handful of key players with bad attitudes? I like to study character and team building so I am curious if it anyone has overcome a deficiency in this regard and still had success. Pinocchio might make that claim! |
|
|
|
Post by coachthomason on Mar 1, 2017 17:15:12 GMT -6
I've had physically better/mentally weaker players with "bad" attitudes loose a lot and physically weaker/mentally tougher teams go much farther (No State Championships yet, but a couple of League Championships).
I'm still waiting to get the physically tough/mentally tough team to show up. Next year... Please...!
|
|
