#1 ·
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we judge "great" teams. We always get obsessed with that one flashy player who can win a game on their own, but lately, I've been more impressed by the groups that just seem to have no weak links. It’s like they have a built-in insurance policy because even if their star goes down, the replacement is basically just as good.
I remember watching a few seasons ago where a team would fall apart the second their captain or main playmaker got a minor injury. It was painful to watch. Now, it feels like the most successful setups are the ones where the bench is almost as scary as the starting eleven. It makes you wonder if the "superstar era" is actually being replaced by a "system era" where depth is the only thing that actually matters for long-term success.
Do you think it's better to have three world-class players and a bunch of fillers, or a squad where everyone is an 8/10?
I remember watching a few seasons ago where a team would fall apart the second their captain or main playmaker got a minor injury. It was painful to watch. Now, it feels like the most successful setups are the ones where the bench is almost as scary as the starting eleven. It makes you wonder if the "superstar era" is actually being replaced by a "system era" where depth is the only thing that actually matters for long-term success.
Do you think it's better to have three world-class players and a bunch of fillers, or a squad where everyone is an 8/10?