This past Thursday we saw the Dallas Mavericks overcome a 15 point deficit in the 4th quarter to steal game 2 of the NBA Finals. It was an epic comeback and a brilliant effort by the Mavs as a team. The interesting thing about this series is that it once again brings up the debate between if championships can be bought by building a team full of superstars versus having a team that plays together as a unit.
We’ve seen championships won by spending the most money in other sports, such as soccer in Real Madrid and Manchester City, in baseball in the Yankees, and more recently in basketball, culminating with the Miami Heat with James, Wade, and Bosh. In this way, these NBA Finals are more than just a chance for redemption for the Mavericks, but also further proof between the right way to win: teams or superstars?
I think everyone appreciates a good team, its the romanticized way of achieving greatness, but in this day and age we see the philosophy has shifted towards focusing on the superstars, not the role players. The media has blown up the value of the individual over that of the team, which simply isn’t good for a sport that is so team oriented. Sure enough, every team needs a leader, and even the Mavericks have theirs in Dirk Nowitzki, but without the rest of his team, he knows they wouldn’t be where they are. I get the feeling the Heat don’t have the same mentality.
I believe the same ideas apply to the business world. Its the entire organization that os driving success for some of the top companies, yet all we hear about are the Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of the world. Now this is of course just from what I can see from the outside and things may be very different behind closed doors. Even so, individuals working together, respecting and trusting one another, can achieve much more than any individual can on their own, and I hope that its this team chemistry that triumphs over the superstar mentality for these 2011 NBA Finals.