TM Coaches vs. Public Opinion

[Martin-Reza]

then, going by the above, another person could have written the very same post, but with a different headlines, like which coaches had which issues. right ?

but seriously, if this is purely statistical, then I'd delete that last sentence of the OP coz that is leading and gives a whole new meaning to the post and is contrary to what you just said above here.

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

as for which was valid, which wasnt, I can tell you MINE.
would u like that?
I think I've repeated them many times.

but which ones were valid adjudged by majority of experts , then we have to make a long list for each coach and go over each point to see which ones were discussed by those experts and were deemed problematic and which ones werent ( and count the number of experts , pluz the media coverage and the number of fans and public opinion voiced over each issue to assess and get a feel for it !!!)

First of all, thanks for this reply. I must say this is one which seems absolutely fair without any agenda behind it. I think this is very good for any discussion, because it helps that we simply can exchange ideas sometimes instead of having to choose every word carefully in order not to be nailed down on it.

On the topic name, I would say yes, basically the other headline would have been better. But you know, one has to attract some attention for the thread .

I agree the last line is not really unbiased, on the other hand we all are not, so instead of trying to look unbiased, why not put the cards on the table sometimes? I mean if I pretended not to be a fan of Branko's work or don't think most of our past coaches were critisized too heavily, would that make me more unbiased? We all have our views, so I think it's sometimes more honest to directly let it out.

About the valid and not valid issue, what you said is what I was up to. Each of us can only explain his view on the validity of the different claims. We have no "truthometer" showing us what's wrong or right. So I thought I simply put a list of the most frequent points of critisicm, without adding my views on each of them. I didn't meant to imply that if one of them was wrong, all of them have to be wrong.

I think it is somehow helping us to look at the discussions of the past, to lead discussions in future. Looking back at issues like the Azizi one, also allows us to see it in a more unemotional context and may help us to learn something.

I for my part must say I have realized I was far too harsh on Ghalenoei. I was partially doing the same to him that I am and was critisizing others for doing to coaches I liked.

I personally think I was in no way right to critisize GN for not brining in Kazemian against Korea or playing Khatibi or Enayati.

Hopefully each of us can maybe draw more conclusions from thinking about the past attacks on former coaches.

[Doctor DOOM]

^ lol.
matey, so my others posts had "some agenda behind them" ????

[zzgloo]

Among all coaches TM has ever had !

......which coach made Fans realize " the power of the coach " , the most ?
......which coach used its Authurity to the Max ?
......which coach backed up his claims the least ?

[kaz]

Coaches make mistakes and fans have opinions. The problem is, coaches that have "no" mistakes are only the coaches that have succeeded. Meaning every critique a fan may have given is seemingly justified by themselves if said coach didn't qualify for WC/AC or didn't do well in WC/AC. Regardless of the fact that whether the problem being criticised existed or not in the first place. For example, a lot of people thought Ivic's defense was way too weak and because of his hammerings in the pre-WC friendlies we fired him. It's only after we learn from the players that if it were not for Ivic we would not have had our improbable success at the WC. He put them through torturous fitness regimes to get them upto speed and the result of which was seen after he had been fired.

Still, there are times when glaring problems exist where if a coach succeeds can also be glossed over, regardless or not that the glaring problem impeded us to our eventual success. Take Branko and his GK agenda. The guy played his favourite Mirzapour so many times, despite all his faults, and his fans (himself too) would tout Mirzapour as the right choice, disregarding the fact that we qualified INSPITE of his poor keeping. So just because we qualified they wanted to hush that under the carpet.

My take on it is: criticism is good. It should always be welcome. Now, don't confuse this with unintelligible propaganda motives which Ala and his like result to. But concerned criticism with merit.

No two coaches will think alike and neither will any two fans. This is just the reality.