Together we Stand

I was always under the impression that more often than not, if teams were close, they had a greater chance of being successful. To me close means getting together off the court, on weekends, and even in the summers. I recently realized that this doesn't really do anything for the team's culture unless they are unified. I think being close and unified are two very different things. Often confused to be synonymous, being close means you have inside jokes, you like each other, and you share your lunch with each other. Being unified means having a clear objective with a clear road map on how to get there, with the understanding and willingness to make sacrifices. This road map must be revisited weekly, if not daily, and must be constantly monitored, revised, and updated. A unified team can have problems, drama, and setbacks, but they use it to propel themselves forward. A close team laughs it off over beers, and goes back to practice the next day with no change or sense of urgency. I’ve been on both teams and I would choose unification 11 times out of 10. Now that’s not to say unified teams aren't close, in fact more often than not, they are, but closeness does nothing for performance and results if there is no unification. 

You know when you're watching a very systemic team and every situation that presents itself they seem to have a calculated response for. It’s poetry in motion. I think the same can be said for a unified team if you look at them throughout the course of a season. Close teams look like they’re having fun but if you peel back that layer of fun I think you'll find lots of holes in their team culture. I think you’ll find a lack of understanding, a lack of effort, and a lack of answers when things get tough. Winning cultures are unified cultures, not close cultures. 

J