I agree with the reasoning in principle, but I think the 2006 Canadian Olympic hockey team.
The Canadian hockey team is a bit like the US basketball team. When we take the ice, it's highly likely we're going to win.
In 2006, the coaches decided to build the team from players who never really got a fair shot. The thinking was that we have the great coaches, and these players just never got a shot.
We (Canada) lost in the quarter finals, and when asked why, the coaches said that even though the players had as much talent as the A team. They didn't have the commitment to win. They didn't show up to practice, or practice as hard.
These were the "marginally successful", that just needed a bit of help.
Sure, it's only one anecdote, but an interesting reference point.
"They didn't showing up to practice. If they did show up to practice, they weren't practicing hard. If they did practice hard, they didn't have the commitment and drive to win. Trust us, we did everything right, it's the players (we chose) who let everyone down."
Yeah, this sounds like a coaching staff trying to prove that they don't need high-end talent bailing them out, only to find out otherwise.
Sounds a little like victim blaming. You had a proven formula which includes people whos job it is to make critical assessments, change 1 variable, then blame the variables you didn't change when the experiment goes poorly?
The Canadian hockey team is a bit like the US basketball team. When we take the ice, it's highly likely we're going to win.
In 2006, the coaches decided to build the team from players who never really got a fair shot. The thinking was that we have the great coaches, and these players just never got a shot.
We (Canada) lost in the quarter finals, and when asked why, the coaches said that even though the players had as much talent as the A team. They didn't have the commitment to win. They didn't show up to practice, or practice as hard.
These were the "marginally successful", that just needed a bit of help.
Sure, it's only one anecdote, but an interesting reference point.