Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Why don't we just call it what it is, then? A team with "identity" is one that is highly competitive and tough to play against. I don't see why we would make it any more complicated than this: good teams are difficult to beat.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
|
No. It’s not that. Part of identity is what you do, and then there is that you go about doing it consistently
Have you read Gillis’s document? It describes wanting to play a fast transitional game, staying out of the box, avoiding icing, encouraging brains over brawn.
They formed a meritocracy and had a leadership group that they relied on. Shipped out Naslund because it was required to shape the culture.
Piece it together with Bieksa’s remarks about level of internal competition as well as conditioning.
Guess what? The team had an identity
A style of play, leadership behaviours, expectations, etc
Good teams know what they are and there are lots of teams with good players that are worse on the ice than on paper
Honestly, I will defer to athletes who understand the concept of identity and how it contributes to team success over all of the posters here who want to oversimplify or dismiss the concept