1) The Formula For A Great Team is The 60/30/10 Rule according to Po Bronson:

60 percent of a team’s success is “Who’s on the team?” And 30 percent of it is how you set up your team. And 10 percent, at most, is leadership.

That 60 percent means you want stars on your team. The notion of having a team of equals doesn’t really bear out in the science. In physics, basketball, immunology… stars rub off. Having to train and compete or work with stars, raises the whole team up.

If you clarify what everybody does, you get the most out of that 30 percent. The science of teams in a business context says that pretty much the number one thing you can do to improve a team performance, is to clarify roles. Ask each member “What’s your job? How do these jobs work together? Who covers for who? How do we handle it?” 

See the other three methods: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2014/01/wasted-effort/

3) The best teams are managed occasionally.

That's profound.

I feel the teams that share the credit and blame equally (or have a tendency to do so) come out ahead. They look out for each other and share the work-load without worrying about getting individual credit.

Ashish, I believe you're right. 

Looking out for each other and sharing the workload are characteristics of great teams.

I don't like the sources quoted in the article. They are all guilty of throwing up straw men. 

"The notion of having a team of equals doesn’t really bear out in the science. In physics, basketball, immunology… stars rub off. Having to train and compete or work with stars, raises the whole team up."

How about a team of stars? Is that a team of equals that will underperform? Is it the competition or is it the general level of talent that encourages us to raise our game? What if the people in the team have different skill sets? Can they be a team of equals in terms of general talent but none of them are equal to the others in domain? Lacks a general understanding and definition of the viewpoint they are knocking down.

Same here...

"So, there is curiously, an argument that in many cases, a really successful team needs at lest one person who is not a team player. Someone who’s willing to stand up to authority, to rock the boat. To not make everybody happy. To not pat everybody on the back. "

...and why is this person not a team player if they are looking out for the team by being the loyal opposition and pointing out issues that people are unwilling to do so? 

Tristan, I read it to mean that the "not team player" is not necessarily loyal in their opposition.

They truly are questioning assumptions rather than putting team interests first.