Quite an interesting read, but I think the reasoning is off because the author is comparing two types of games - one played face to face and one played online. As a chess amateur and someone who has played many tournaments both live and online, I can say that online play quality is far superior simply because people can consult chess engines and books and move the pieces about without having to load all the permutations in one's mind.
Just because Kasparov could have beaten Krush face to face easily doesn't mean Krush couldn't have put up an equally impressive battle if they were playing online.
Therefore, the surprising resistance put up by the World Team could have been due to the format (online) rather than collective teamwork.
Kasparov later wrote a book about the event, and states in the book that he expected to win the game relatively easily.
In particular, he had a number of significant advantages that make the game quite different from an ordinary online game, and which make the world team's performance more impressive:
(1) he could see the world team "thinking", as they discussed in public their possible options, an advantage he exploited extensively; and
(2) he expected that the world team would be unable to form a coherent strategy, but rather would be pulled in multiple directions.
