it's almost exclusively winners; we don't often, if ever, read about leaders who lead bad teams. leadership is a by-product of success. they're very nearly mutually exclusive. i don't necessarily disagree with any of this. there are certainly people on teams and/or groups - tenured people with clout, not unproven rookies, btw - who set a standard. but that, in and of itself, is a guarantee of absolutely nothing; yet, many, many, many people treat it as some magical intangible that produces tangible results. i'm sure michael jordan set a high standard in chicago; but was that really what made those bulls teams great? or was it a combination of him setting such standards with a group of talented, unselfish, agreeable players who happened to have the same drive/work ethic, if not the same degree of talent? would anyone talk about jordan's leadership if he had brought the same standard but with radically different results playing for the [fill-in crappy NBA team]? again, leadership is almost exclusively a by-product of success. and the idea of it has been further corrupted by lazy members of the media. i've cited this often, but we saw a slew of "jeff garcia's a leader "pieces at the tail end of last year as he helped the eagles make the playoffs. we'll see them again this year as it looks like TB is going to go to the playoffs, as well. i defy you to find any that stated the same thing while he played, and lost, with cleveland and detroit.
good leadership is when someone says, "let's go", people simply follow. bad leadership is when someone says, "let's go", but the people have to pushed or pulled.
Well, it certainly weren't the same degree of talent. Nobody--and I mean nobody--could carry Jordan's jock on those teams. Pippen was clearly a tier below. Then you have a bunch of role players. Kerr? Rodman? Pick-a-center? This is categorically, fundamentally, and utterly incorrect. There *have* been great leaders on teams who lost. The fact that you don't hear about them is due to the phenomenom you've already correctly and eloquently pointed out to us more than once: lazy journalism at its finest.
We've heard quite a bit about Schaub as a leader. I wouldn't say he's particularly on a winning team right now.
... and his leadership skills have not affected the bottom line, which calls into question the efficacy of his leadership.
Heck, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are regarded as two of the greatest leaders of their generation--yet they lost in spectacular fashion. So did the guys at the Alamo. Leadership has a definite, though difficult to measure, value--but it guarantees nothing. This is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.
You don't hear about it because it's not an interesting story to talk about the leader of the 8-8 team. You hear about the ones that also get results. Every team of any kind (sports or not) has a leader or leaders. Some are good; some are not. But they all influence the results of their teams in ways that the followers do not. Leaders come in all shapes and sizes and experience levels. Rookies are less likely to be leaders, mostly because the tendency of a new guy is to follow, but there's certainly no reason that has to be the case. In the case of VY, the comments of the players in training camp addressed exactly that - that they were surprised and impressed by his level of presence and willingness to speak out when there were problems and basically "not act like a rookie". That's certainly true - but it doesn't dictate whether or not leadership exists and influences the game. Certainly it's overblown by the media, but that's a separate issue. Any team, unless it has an overwhelming talent advantage, isn't likely to win without some type of positive leadership - either from the coach or the players. So it is a critical factor. If you can get that leadership out of a QB-type position on the field (QB, catcher, point guard, etc), its that much better since they are involved in so much of the action that those traits are that much more impactful. It was certainly a combination of that. No one has ever claimed that leadership is a replacement for talent. No one would talk about him because it wouldn't be an interesting story to talk the great leader on the crappy team.
