what is constructive .... ?

[Doctor DOOM]

hehehe ... dear karshenas,
I think it is a good idea to read the original post, once more.

I dont think everyone trivialize TM's weaknesses and bad form with "we suck" kind of statments.
the Q is valid, as many rise up in arms to defend branko or X or Y, as soon as someone mentions a defect about the team !!!

intor ke nemisheh !
this is NOT dialogue.
there ARE weaknesses and defects in the team.
why shd ppl suddenly get heat up over any fan bringing up these issues and talking about them?

so my suggestion to you is, read the first post again, and if you can answer, we all would appreciate it.

[maij]

I think it is a valid question Peyman Jan.

I cannot claim to have an accurate answer, but the issue I take with your criticism, is that the majority of your topics, points, key issues and so forth is negatively pointed against Branko. There is an element of injustice and unfairness in it.

That can not be true nor constructive, because it is becoming an obsession or as if there is a personal vendetta. I certainly hope that there is no such thing , but it certainly looks like it!.

The other point about constructive criticism , is the magnitude or quantity of such critique. Simply, one can not claim to make a constructive criticism, if he repeatedly points out to imaginary shortfalls or personal preferences.

[Doctor DOOM]

maji jan,
I guess it goes back to personal priorities here.


before going googaah over the few positive moments , I'd rather talk about our weaknesses so maybe somehow , through some miracle all this discussion would reach the right ears.
or at least by discussing these , maybe I'll get to see WHY they occur so often and continuously.

so I dont think the words "unfair" or "injustice" are valid here.

MY priorities are to see our team find solutions for its many defects.
THAT , to me is far more important than saying good job on keeping kaabi as right back, or VH back to striker role.

it IS a matter of personal preference.

with the games looming closer and closer, I'd rather see the team iron out all its troublesome spots , than anything else.

is it "unfair" to ask why our left back problem hasnt been solved in all these years?

is it "injustice" to ask why our left flank is so dead that the right side players ought to wear a black band around their arms in mourning for the left side?

is it "unfair" to ask why in 5 years mirza's mistakes repeat with every game he plays?

is it "injustice" to enquire about mirza's motivation to improve and why we still dont have anyone in mind as his alternative?

na digeh, bro.
injoori nemisheh.
if MY asking these things are unfair, then what would you call what many friends say to anyone who asks questions?

and leave that. it's not important.
what would you call persisting of many defects in the team for more than a year , and some years ?
shall I propose:
catastrophic?
appalling?
disasterous?
Mind-boggling?
extremely disturbing?
......... .
you take your pick, bro.

======================

as for the magnitude and frequency:

1- frequency:
the frequency of criticism IS dictated by the frequency of occurence of mistakes and amount of deficiencies observed in the team.
I dont think ppl suddenly get up one morning and criticise spain's forward line for thrashing slovakia 5-0.
do they ?

2- magnitude:
many factors to consider;
a- the more the same defects and weaknessea are obsserved, the more tha criticism will gather strength.
b- the closer we get to the WC , the more intense it'll become.


and THIS is unfair to expect ppl to not say a word and keep quiet at the face of repeating deficiencies in the team some of which have persisted for years !

am I not right ?

[maij]

Well.....like you said ...it is about personal preference.

Thi is why it is difficult to come up with a reasonable resolution.