Who says that players on the same team together for a long time make good chemistry? Did Kobe and Shaq have better chemistry after a long time together, or did they just make more inflammatory raps about each other? I agree that players could understand each other better and as a result play better together, but this could be counterbalanced by teams with players having poor morale because they can't stand each other anymore. Winning has more to do with chemistry than how well players play together.
He's not talking about personal chemistry. He's talking about team chemistry.IMHO, this would add a positive dimension to the game. It would provide an incentive to keep the same core together instead of rebuilding every month, because let's face it, that's not realistic. It would force managers to choose between team experience or breaking up your unit for long-term improvement.
He's not talking about personal chemistry. He's talking about team chemistry.IMHO, this would add a positive dimension to the game. It would provide an incentive to keep the same core together instead of rebuilding every month, because let's face it, that's not realistic. It would force managers to choose between team experience or breaking up your unit for long-term improvement.It will also make the game next to unplayable for new teams who have to develop relatively rapidly.
They're also not the only ones having to frequently revamp their roster.
They're also not the only ones having to frequently revamp their roster.Actually it's almost universally true that lower-league teams, if managed correctly, will revamp their roster exponentially more often than a well-established DI team.
That's why new players start out in lower-leagues, so that they can get a chance to develop before getting promoted.