Team versus Stars

Our expert shares his insight on how having too many star players in the same team is not really a blessing.

It’s a question we have often asked ourselves. How important is it for a team to have a lot of stars in it? And what exactly is the role of the star?

The final of the Idea Cup provided an answer we perhaps knew all along. India were without Tendulkar but Sri Lanka were without the three players who had virtually shaped their side in the decade gone by; Murali, Vaas and Jayasuriya. For once, the conditions didn’t play a big part but Sri Lanka easily outplayed India. It showed that there is always something beyond individual skills that matters. If that wasn’t so, all you would have to do is create an individual index, add the numbers for the eleven players taking the field and determine the winner!

And therefore here is an interesting thought. In history, are there teams which do not have really standout individual indices yet which punch well above their weight? Meaning, is the team’s success index out of proportion to the sum of individual indices? And if we can indeed generate such numbers can we look at instances in a team’s history where this might have happened and at others where it might not have?

To my mind, this will provide very interesting insights into leadership and team bonding. Was there, for example, a period where they had a strong leader? Was there a phase when a development programme suddenly bore fruit? I can think of some examples from the top of my mind. India, at various times and Pakistan, at most times (except when Imran Khan was captain) would have had lower team indices than the sum of individual indices. Maybe, New Zealand would be an example of the team doing better. And Australia in its turnaround phase under Allan Border.

It is also my hypothesis that having a lot of stars is not just unproductive but sometimes, counter-productive. Maybe such indices can provide answers to this theory as well!