Talent Isn't Enough: The Ashes, and the Psychology of Playing as a Team

Prior to the start of this Ashes series, Stuart Broad said: “it’s probably the worst Australian team since 2020 when England last won, and it’s the best English team since 2010”. This was a bold statement, but one I think many agreed with at the time. On paper, England looked strong, their individual players perhaps better, and there was real hope from England. I had the privilege of watching the Adelaide test with a bunch of West Londoners, and I think we all felt rather sheepish about our mislaid hopes when Australia won so convincingly after just three tests.

I personally thought Australia had some underrated players – Scott Boland being one – but ultimately it wasn’t individual talent that won them the Ashes, it was because, when it mattered, they functioned better as a team.

This isn’t a new story in sport, but it’s on we still resist. I think back to Gareth Southgate’s decision in

Euro 2020, to bring on two subs specifically for penalties. This felt like an attempt to “cheat penalties”. We assume that talent pays off, if you collect enough individuals who are talented, good performance will follow. Euro 2020, and this Ashes series, remind us, that this assumption does not hold under intense pressure.

At elite level, almost everyone is good. The margins of actual, pure, ability, are tiny. So, what separates teams is whether players can perform together and consistently. Sport psychology has a theory for this, called collective efficacy. Studies show that collective efficacy relates to team performance over the long term, it’s a key performance variable, particularly as pressure rises. It is defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organise and execute the actions required to achieve a desired level of performance.” The key element is the shared belief.

Crucially, efficacy is not the same as confidence. England often looked like a team with strong individual belief, but Australia always looked like a team with a strong shared belief in the plan, and belief that the plan would hold even when things got tough. Anyone can look cohesive when things are smooth, but when your vice-captain/arguably best batter/sensational slip catch suddenly can’t play shortly before the game is due to start, collective efficacy shows up. Smith pulling out could have been a big issue for Australia, but they seamlessly put Khawaja in his place with the bat, and Labuschagne in the slips – both were phenomenal, and the catches, had a massive impact on  Australia’s ultimate success.

Fielding more than anything is a collective efficacy amplifier because it’s so visibly “team”, it demonstrates that outcomes aren’t carried by one hero, they’re produced by interconnected roles. We all know that drops are contagious, and England showed this. In the same way, Australia were near faultless in the field.

Collective efficacy is not “we feel confident”, it’s “we know what to do when it’s chaotic, and we trust each other to do it.”

England didn’t lose because they didn’t try harder enough, or because they didn’t want it enough, or because of the presence of “weak men”. And Australia didn’t win the Ashes by being extraordinary in every moment, they won by being collectively reliable. Talent doesn’t scale - cohesion and coordination does. When times are tough, teams don’t rise to the level of their best player, they fall to their level of their shared belief. And that is why talent on its own is never, and will never, be enough.