Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I think most of us here have jumped aboard to ranged is superior to melee in 5e bandwagon and for good reason. Good ranged characters typically have:
#1 Higher Initiative
#2 Better ability to focus fire on enemies
#3 Nearly the same damage output as melee builds
#4 Ability to kite enemies / kill them before they get into their effective ranges
#5 Much rarer to lose an action because no foe in range.
#6 Better fighting style for applying damage.
#7 Similar/better feats then melee (depending on weapon choice)
#8 Better able to target foes with Concentration to force checks.
#1 More melee characters better spreads damage around. Spreading damage around saves lives. This is accomplished both by proximity and the threat of opportunity attacks.
#2 Opportunity attacks can cause significantly more damage if enemies choose to take them.
#3 Typically higher AC or other damage reduction abilities so even if they are being attacked they tend to last longer than their ranged brethren
#4 Slightly higher damage
#1 This assumes that foes aren't trying to focus fire and dogpile one, and aren't willing to accept an OA in order to do so.
And that the foe doesn't have ranged combatants, whom as you mentioned have an easier time focus firing.
#3 This just isn't true. A character attacked 3 times with a 40% chance to be hit and resistance will still take more damage then a character attacked one with a 50% chance to be hit and no resistance. Without Resistance or HAM it's even more different.
And this ignores characters like rogue or monk or are relatively squishy.
Mind you, I think front line combatants are an important role -- one I frequently play. But not because melee is "superior", but exactly as you say it's a team game. Front liners are needed for tactics to work, for the team to be able to function at high efficiency. A mixed group of front-liners and ranged with do better then a group of only one type - and that's before bringing in casters to be protected.