This English idiom is certainly a symbolic semantic to the nomenclature which says a team is as good as its weakest link. It is to profoundly contemplate and comprehend that it is not absolutely true or not wrong either. In certain cases yes we must persuade what deems to be the actual reality but simultaneously the phrase is not coherent for every given situation. we can’t deny that a team is as good as the competency of every individual it comprises of, but it is not to be discarded that the difference in skills, thinking ability, different style of pursuing different operations is what makes us unique beings. After all, working in cohesive coexistence by helping one another, by covering one another’s mistakes and to mitigate the same is actually what makes a chain or the team more efficient, successful, and achiever.
we may also look over to many instances in various purview where a team has made remarkable accomplishments despite having underachievers, incompetent individuals. we have already witnessed many games in sports purview where a player or two gets physically unwell and unfortunately, they end up with their omission from the game, even though their team eventually manages to occur victoriously.
we do agree that the dearth of skills and competencies of an individual may lead to great damage to the chain but it ultimately depends on the other links of the chain that how they cover it up, at the end it is the complete chain which has to perform not the particular portion.
so we conclude the phrase elaboration with our partial consent of accord that it may be true or it may not depends on the subject it is pertaining to, making a one side argument for the same is not pertinent.