Does Chemistry create Winners or does Winning create Chemistry?

[TheSoftballZone]

You often hear it said, that team is a winning team because of the team chemistry.

But on the other hand you hear many coaches of winning teams say, that chemistry came after the team started winning games.

From a Coaches point of view would you prefer chemistry first and winning second or would you want your team winning first and then worry about developing chemistry second?

What method have you used to create chemistry? Some say chemistry doesn't really matter on a short terms basis anymore, due to the ever changing rotation of girl softball players moving from Team Team during tryout season!

But chemistry is a key ingredient for long term success in Girls Fastpitch Softball at the elite level of the game.

Similar to the question what came first the Chicken or the egg?

What come first Winning or chemistry?

 

[coachjwb]

Great topic for discussion. In my opinion, there's not an absolute answer. There is no doubt that great team chemistry promotes winning, or that winning can help build team chemistry. We've all seen teams that have been successful despite a lack of team chemistry, and other teams who've had great chemistry, at least early on, who just didn't have the talent to win. A team that has a good foundation of chemistry, and which does win, can really have that chemistry build even further and help a team overachieve. I would cite this year's Cleveland Indians as an example of that.

In girls fastpitch softball, there's unfortunately another element which sometimes comes into play. I coached 2 teams over the years which had amazing chemistry between the players, and who I thought were overachieving, but a few of the parents destroyed that chemistry, which caused those teams to go into tailspins. The parents tore down the coaches in front of their daughters in some cases and, in other cases, pitted the players and parents against each other. It's the primary reason I no longer coach.

But there is no doubt that chemistry is a really important element of the game ... it can overcome a talent gap, as long as that talent gap isn't too wide and that parents don't tear it down.

 

[spartansd]

If a coach is waiting for the team to win to have Chemistry then they are probably not much of a coach in my opinion.

Winning is a result of a lot of things coming together and chemistry is just not really crucial to winning......it can be but chemistry is not needed to win. But it helps.

With that said. A good coach creates good team chemistry through getting the players to focus on the team and its accomplishments. Once that is done the winning will happen. And you can as a coach effect and create great team chemistry. The issue many coaches have (especially male) is that the perception that the winning is the most important thing. And if you win then you are doing it right and that the players will be happy. What I have found to be true is that most coaches use the fact that they are winning to justify their coaching methods and decisions while often winning is a result of just having superior talent. And then they win and the coaches perceive it as everyone is happy and chemistry is great. And when they start losing and chemistry goes to shite and they correlate good team chemistry to winning......and hence the chicken or egg comment.

Good team chemistry is not created by winning. But winning will often create the illusion that you have good team chemistry.

So to answer your question. 90% in my experience it requires great team chemistry to win at the highest level (championships...). But that winning does not mean you have great team chemistry nor is it required all the time. And true team chemistry is created without the need for winning.

Many teams at least in female sports that win will often say things like " I just loved playing with this team and we just wanted to win so we could play another game together". They are not playing for a championship but rather for the love of each other and the team. And that does not require winning at all. But as I said above it helps.

And a second answer is that I would always want to have chemistry first.

 

[DoubleTheFun]

You also may have heard people say "you can't create good team chemistry" or "it just happens", or "you either have it or you don't".

When I have observed good team chemistry it wasn't usually preceded by winning but rather preceded the winning.

It usually was where there was a team-first attitude, all players (and families) knew and embraced their roles, team-wide goals were clearly articulated by the coaches and supported by players (and families), and win or lose, the team competed well.

You may also have heard people say that "winning cures everything" and while I don't hold personally agree with it, it has been used as the cure-all for teams with bad chemistry.

 

[CARDS]

Goes back to something Sue Enquist said in one of her mental toughness seminars...Girls need to feel good to play good...When they feel good abut themselves it shows on the field of play and in the interaction within the team or Chemistry...

IMO, Talent generally super seeds team chemistry and is a larger contributor to success or winning. Thus, the perception occurs that winning teams have good to great chemistry and that is not so in all cases especially;male sports.

As spartansd and Coachjwb stated: There are teams where the ladies feel playing is just as important as winning so just playing is winning to them... and team chemistry or environment can be influenced by other factors outside of the players and coaches winning, overachieving or loosing

In the end I think if you line up 10 coaches, parents and players you will most likely get 10 different answers as to what team chemistry means to them and how they define their success...

 

[spartansd]

Totally agree with Cards.

Especially the part about what does good team chemistry mean to 10 people likely being different for each one.

 

[KillingMeSmalls]

A wise ol Coach once told me that chemistry is not necessarily a requirement for success, but it certainly enhances the opportunity.

i

 

[wow]

Chemistry creates winning.... Here is why. There is arguably better talent out there, but if you cannot create a winning culture with the best talent you can find maybe its not the talent. When you are younger 10-12u pure athletes dominate the game. At 14-18 most of the weaker kids are gone and now talent is more abundant. The team chemistry has to know how to W/L together.

Don't mistake my position here. Talent is gonna always be a primary driver of team success, its chemistry which dictates how far that success goes.

I would also argue loosing creates chemistry as there is much more reflection and struggle with the inverse.

Team chemistry can be summed up by placing the needs of the team above your own. Too many times individual players want what's best for themselves and not the team.

 

[CARDS]

Here is a good article: http://www.nfhs.org/articles/talent-vs-attitude/
http://www.nfhs.org/articles/talent-vs-attitude/

In Youth sports winning can be described with/by growth....Not necessarily tournament championships or Ws...
I have seen teams like COACHJWB eluded too where they overachieved their talent. The team may have been a .500 club but had growth and the team had a good coach, parent and player relations or "good chemistry".

With that said, I have also seen youth teams that struggled with parent, coach and player relationships that could overcome these chemistry issues because of pure talent resulting in a win or the ability to compete for championships.

As the article states coaching is key in winning, loosing and team Attitude / Chemistry. A good coach gets buy in from his players as it relates to the common team goals. The coach will challenge players to set personal goals and each teammate should support every player in the quest to achieve team and individual goals. Players may not be best friends or even friends but they share a common goal a some mistake this for team chemistry.

The coach has to be realistic on the team he has and must schedule the events the team can be successful in. This will help in building the team attitude or chemistry.

I have seen situations where a coach had his/her team play lesser competition so they could compete or win and those that decided to play a more challenging schedule where they may be sub .500. Depending on the parents perception... one may say 'we had great team chemistry" because all the ladies got to play, there was lot of cheering from the dugout, the team all ate lunch at the park together or, went out after the games for dinner. After the games the girls all went to the pool at the hotel, the parents hung out till 11pm playing cards etc,,,All the above are contributors to what one may consider good or bad TEAM chemistry...

I also think that there can be chemistry outside of a complete team chemistry between say, pitcher/catcher, outfielders, middle infield, catcher 1st/3rd where a group of players not necessarily the whole team have a knack of being in the right spot at the right time and have a comfort level to go beyond making routine plays...

To go back to the original post... does chemistry make a winner or does winning make chemistry ...lots of good view points however; I still think a less talented team can have success/chemistry if the coach gets them in the right events and is a good motivator but if a team is playing in elite level events the talent must match the level of play to compete or win.

 

[klinder]

Great coaches have the ability to help foster great team chemistry. It is hard to win a championship without great team chemistry and yet chemistry is an aspect that is in constant state of change depending on where the team is in their stage of development. I have seen teams not get along early in a season and come together later in the season as players learn to accept their roles, leaders evolve who can become the glue to hold the team together or because a team has gone through some adversity that changes the focus from me to we and the team puts their attention on working together. I believe good coaches have a feel for where the chemistry is and can do little things in practice on a daily basis to help develop communication and trust among team members. Team chemistry is about players trusting each other and trusting the coaches. We also have the added challenge of having parents trust the coaches as well. Communicating your philosophies and mission with kids and parents is the key to developing the foundation for good chemistry. Reminding them all of what you are working toward and doing fun interactive activities in practice will help maintain chemistry as long as everyone feels they are contributing to the mission.

Yes winning helps chemistry but without chemistry it is hard to win a championship. You can win games but you're not going to win a championship. Listen to any player or coach being interviewed after winning a national championship or a world series and they always talk about how close the team was and how they believed, loved, and trusted one another. A great coach creates that culture on a daily basis. Winning and having talent alone is not enough. Chemistry is developed through culture which is developed through fundamental values and philosophies.

 

[ech92]

I would take a somewhat talented team with great chemistry over a very talented team with not much chemistry any day! I've never had the most talented teams over the years but the years I had teams with great chemistry we beat some of the best teams out there and I guarantee you if you went position by position they were more talented then us at every single position!