The US Olympic team for basketball started using all-stars in the mid eighties (I think). When that happened, you had a bunch of high priced guys who were used to being the stars on their teams trying to play together. That doesn't work very well. Even if they are collectively the best athletes on the planet.
The Soviet hockey team from the mid 60s to 1980 were unbeatable. They all played together, some for as many as 15 years. Chemistry matters. Knowing that your team has your back, and make reasoned predictions about what you are going to do, and act before you need them to ensure success, matters. Hugely beneficial to have people who want to be part of a team not a bunch of people who are used to being individual standouts on teams.
The example is that just putting a bunch of the best basketball players on a team doesn't mean they will succeed - the 2004 USA Olympic team had some of the best basketball players in the world on it, and they still only got 3rd place.
The common thinking is that each superstar on the team wanted/was used to being in the spotlight and was unable to share/coordinate their efforts effectively.
