In other words, there's no such thing as team chemistry affecting play, and we have to wait until the end of the season to see who won to then go back and apply the label of good chemistry or bad chemistry. Someone should consult a social psychologist (not necessarily you, goony). It's certainly not my area of expertise, but I don't doubt the existence of "chemistry" having an impact on performance. I suspect that, if it exists, it's a multipolar function. That is, good chemistry can make a team perform worse and bad chemistry can make it better. Or, if you want to define "good" as improving performance, guys who don't like each other and guys who do can both result in improved performance It seems a pretty futile discussion