Moving Target

Now let us continue with the sporting analogy. In soccer, the aim of the game is pretty straightforward or so it seems. The team that scores the most goals wins the game. Consequently it wouldn't be a long stretch to assume that in a league, the team that scores the most goals throughout the course of the league wins, right? Wrong because there is the other side of the coin which is that a team not only has to score goals it equally has to prevent the opposing team from scoring the most goals. So now we are getting somewhere. A team has to a) score goals b) limits goals. Is that all it takes to win? If so then the correct strategy for winning a league is to a) assemble the most prolific goals scorers combined with the most stingy of defenders. Common sense dictates that such a team would inevitably win. But is that the case in real life? Some of the most expensively assembled teams go through seasons without winning any silverware. And if you assume that expense equals talent then our conclusion above should have been sacrosanct. Why then the disconnect. Well because the game is actually not static. Each team brings it own particular flavor which changes the game. So a one size fits all does not work for a league in which you are playing 20 different teams with 20 different characteristics. The teams then that win are the ones that read each game correctly and align their strategy accordingly. This may involve changing players depending on the opposing teams strengths, and may even include sacrificing some of those prolific scorers or defenders! For a team to win the league then is no small feat. It becomes even harder for a team to win multiple seasons. The analogy to successful corporations is unmistakable. Strategy can not be static but must be fluid, changing with the ever evolving landscape and relative moves of its competitors.