Re: Strategy vs. Execution
 

I'll actually say that strategy and execution go hand and hand. A good strategy is one that is easily executed by the robots on an alliance. Good execution during a match requires that you have a strategy that your robot/drivers can execute.

Granted, as we saw last year, a good strategy can be as simple as cycling. Because of that, if for some reason I'm forced to choose between driver practice and a strategy meeting, I'm picking driver practice.

Re: Strategy vs. Execution
 

Well, if you're a lower seed, you probably want to pick the team that performs at an extremely high level 50% of the time. If you pick a team that consistently performs well, but not good enough to beat the number 1 seed, chances are you will lose in the quartefinals (1v8) You want someone capable of beating them, even if it isn't consistent.

Re: Strategy vs. Execution
 

Watch the 2010 Einstein finals.
It was the closest to actually having this happen in practice you can get.

The 2002 finals however was 10/10 excution of the 10/10 strategy.

Re: Strategy vs. Execution
 

Execution over strategy for sure. A poor strategy doesn't affect the ability to score directly but rather affects the efficiency of reaching that score. Poor execution loses matches whether the strategy is good or bad (or if there is/isn't one).
An alliance that adopts the strategy to pass the ball back and forth across the field three times before scoring but does it perfectly every time will win events instead of the alliances that try to go straight down the field but drop the ball and spend the match chasing it around.
On a more realistic note: this applies to truss/catch. If you can't ensure you'll make the toss AND catch then don't bother. It would be better to run a lot of simple cycles rather than try to complete a task that you can't do successfully.