what is constructive .... ?

[Doctor DOOM]

could anyone tell us what is "constructive criticism" according to many who rise up in arms as soon as someone says the team plays bad or has this weakness or that defect ?

if a fan is allowed to criticise "constructively", then can anyone tell us what are the outlines of this ?

and what do you mean by "constructive" ?
does it mean we can enumerate the deficiencies and then come up with "solutiuons" ?
then some friends will say "you are not a coach , so you cant do this".

and if we limit it to merely enumerating and going over the weak points of the team .... some friends will not only say the above, also say "you are not helping !
or this is not right".
or this is not "constructive" criticism.
some even take it a bit TOO far and say "you are hurting the TEAM" !!!!

sometimes, one can be forgiven to think the meaning of this "constructive criticism" is NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL !!
maybe ... !!

so what is it ?

we all know the team is NOT performing ( take your pick ):
1- well
2- as well as they shd be considering branko's loooong tenure
3- even at the level it used to do a year or so back ( around AC2004 ) !!!!

so should we talk about it or not?

does only an ambiguous "branko shd do something" qualify as "constructive" criticism ?

[Martin-Reza]

Good question. I think the main point is knowing we shouldn't take influence in personal discussions as we are not really competent for that. As long as it is saying what we like and don't like it's fine, but as soon as we think we must save TM from destruction (by radical approaches) because we are cleverer than anyone else involved, it is not constructive critisizm anymore.

[Doctor DOOM]

therefore , in other words, if we restrict ourselves to enumerating the team's problems and .... , and demand solutions for it from the staff of TM, without trying to say "branko shd do this and that" , then it shd be fine.
right ?

would that be "constructive" criticism ?

for example, why our left back position and its choices are never convincing, and we get hit time and again from this side.
but even then, we dont see any change in the players appointed for the role, in the next game.

now, I am NOT offering who shd do what.
I am merely saying this problme has been crippling our team .... FOR A LOOOOOONG LONG TIME NOW.
and it is within my rights to demand a proper solution to it.

I guess this shd be construed as constructive, as I am not saying what to be done, and am bringing up ONE of TM's weaknesses and issues.

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

btw, did you guys know that in Iran, some IFF officials and supporters , label whoever that criticises branko as "racist" & "unpatriotic" ???

cant you believe that ?


isnt it utterly absurd ?

[Dr.shark]

therefore , in other words, if we restrict ourselves to enumerating the team's problems and .... , and demand solutions for it from the staff of TM, without trying to say "branko shd do this and that" , then it shd be fine.
right ?

would that be "constructive" criticism ?

for example, why our left back position and its choices are never convincing, and we get hit time and again from this side.
but even then, we dont see any change in the players appointed for the role, in the next game.

now, I am NOT offering who shd do what.
I am merely saying this problme has been crippling our team .... FOR A LOOOOOONG LONG TIME NOW.
and it is within my rights to demand a proper solution to it.

I guess this shd be construed as constructive, as I am not saying what to be done, and am bringing up ONE of TM's weaknesses and issues.

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

btw, did you guys know that in Iran, some IFF officials and supporters , label whoever that criticises branko as "racist" & "unpatriotic" ???

cant you believe that ?


isnt it utterly absurd ?

no no Doctor Doom
constructive criticism means that when Iran plays a bad game like with
Macedonia we should say:
well thank GOD that we have Branko God of football to save us we should have lost by 20 goales but because we have him siting drinking his tea we only lost by one goal.
Now that is what I.R.I.F.F. and Branko and Vaheed e Bache nane and........ call constructive criticism.

[khabalood]

Guys forget about this criticism thing. Despite the fact that our criticisma are correct and the fact that tm has become crippled as a result of the weaknesses which have not been fixed as we had pointed out years in advance, apparently we are all amatuers with absolutely no understanding of football or analytical skills at all whatsoever. So practice after me... baah baah baah, speaking out is wrong and it is time for all of us to becoame sheep.

[TM homeboy]

I think constructive criticism is
Coming up with solutions that you are criticising and making sure the solution is not based on what ifs and maybees..... one needs to have hard facts in order to critcise a person like Branko as the TM coach because we all know that he knows alot better than you and I what talent he has at his disposal and what scheme fits the team that he has coached for 4 years

[fsec]

Constructive criticism is when you have something positive to contribute that could help change (in this case) TM for the better.

Unfortunately we hear the same gibberish and dribble from the same people over and over again even after the coach, the assisstant coach and the player shave come out and explained it, they stick to their own notion. They have done it for so long in such an illogical way that to agree with the experts in charge of TM, they would lose face and their stupidity would be apparent for all.

We have many of them here and a few have already done khoshmazeeh baazi in their ensuing posts.

sometimes, one can be forgiven to think the meaning of this "constructive criticism" is NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL !!

Sometimes one can be forgiven to think that to have a go has become an obsessive compulsive paranoia.

BUT, in this case, I think not saying anything is as bad as repeating the same dribble over and over again. Constructive is the key word. There is a difference between constructive and destructive.

Constructive is when you support and try to help in improving.

Destructive is when you criticise and try to destroy the setup as in. so and so should go and this one and that one should take over the reigns of TM' as we see in some signatures. That is destroying the setup.

But, you will not agree and we have to live with it.

[Doctor DOOM]

1- dear TMhomeboy, the moment one tries to ( and I Quote you : ) "Coming up with solutions", ppl will say you are not the coach and dont have coaching certificate , so you shd not say what shd be done.

so what you are thinking may sound fair to you, but it is clear that many dont think so.

===========

dear fsec, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

if you have something to say, plz say it DIRECTLY, and dont beat around the bush.

if I ( and I quote you : ) "have something positive to contribute that could help change (in this case) TM for the better.", you along with some others are the first to ask for my coaching certificate.


as for repeating the matters, just as I told martin jan, when we see the EXACT SAME mistakes repeated continuously at TM , then you better expect the same criticism being repeated.

when we stop seeing these repetition-of-errors , then I am sure a huge lot of us are going to stop repeating the crticisms on the matters.

unless one belongs to those whom khabalood refers to, who will bow down to anything and accept any dirt thrown at them, making all sorts of sounds.
that is anyone's prerogative and rights to "be" what they want to be.
but do NOT expect everybody else to have such mentality.


construction. destruction. !!!
when we prove to be so incapable of any sort of criticism, and behve in a crass manner, then thaat is half the battle lost !!

while some 16 year olds may get intimidated easily with such tactics and cave in and change face with slightest of nudges, we shd not expect everyone to cave in and "get in line" .

paranoid are those who just cant bear to see even the slightest of hints at criticism, those who just cant bear to see ppl critical of sustenance of mediocrity and denial in the team.

not that I'm saying you are one.

[fsec]

Aaaah, yes, side step the issues and repeat the same thing again.

Criticise all you want. I do too, but why be khaleh kherseh? Why throw the baby out with the bath water unless you hate babies and never wanted one in the firat place. That would explain it.

As someone said, if your kitchen tap leaks, why knock down the house?

[Doctor DOOM]

actually it wasnt "ME" who sidestepped the issue.

I asked for what is construed as "constructive criticism" and I get ............. !!!!

maybe you ought to read the original post agaion, my friend

[ARYA]

Interesting to see that one would open a thread labeled "what is constructive criticism?" and be attacked.

The question is not that hard really!! A simple opinion without personal attacks and name calling would suffice. Perhaps some have forgotten their manners.

[fsec]

Interesting to see that one would open a thread labeled "what is constructive criticism?" and be attacked.

The question is not that hard really!! A simple opinion without personal attacks and name calling would suffice.

It certainly is interesting when one opens a thread to attack under the pretense of an innocent question. Criticism was questioned. It was answered. The answer was rejected by using the same old dribble.

And some get fooled easily, hence the original poster has achieved his aim of subtle mischief.

Perhaps some have forgotten their manners.

Yes, perhaps it is so.

[Doctor DOOM]

It certainly is interesting when one opens a thread to attack under the pretense of an innocent question.

AHA !
what "attack" ?
I asked a simple Q to know the guidelines for "constructive criticism", and you took it into the offensive mode.
where was the attack?
in fact the whole purpose of the thread is to make sure our comments are NOT construed as an "attack" !

now, if you are not the person to clarify these guidelines, it is ok.
you have your duties and I'm sure you will attend to them.( "Scorpion Security", or "Defense Department", .... or whatever ! )
but at least direct this Q to the person whose duty IS to clarify the guidelines.
maybe you shd have waited for him/her to answer.



maybe as the "head of security and defense services" you mistake ANY "questioning" as an attack !
you are surely an overzealous bouncer here.
but then dont be surprised if some ppl come and claim you ppl have become so hyper in regards to TM, that the most benign enquieries get you all flared up and you rise up in arms !

Criticism was questioned. It was answered.

that was the answer?
to accuse ppl, is to answer the Q ?

just as I said, you may have jumped in where you shdnt , in the first place.
maybe we shd wait for the right person to answer the Q.

cheers

[ARYA]

To have an opinion of ones own should not be perceived as mischief. You as an Iranian of all people should understand this. One of the few rights our society has been searching for in the past well I guess since Daryous's era is freedom of opinion and speech.

I for one am not afraid to speak my mind, but perhaps some of us are not ready for this concept and assume that if we are not on the same wavelength that we are there only to rock the boat.

[fsec]

To have an opinion of ones own should not be perceived as mischief

And who said otherwise? To muddy waters and mirepresent by taking quotes out of context is mischief making. As the Persian saying goes 'fishing in muddy waters' is what is happening here, and as an Iranian you should understand the meaning behind the quote. Since when have I ever said having an opinion is mischief making? But you can misquote me anytime if it suits your purpose.