You can be hyper-critical of results without resorting to these cliches. I'm hyper-critical of the wasted chances we've had to win games. I'm frustrated in the stand every time we throw away a good scoring opportunity. But I always defend the team/Rosenior against these repeated, tired accusations of being too negative or too slow. It's totally inaccurate. I'm not sure I can ever remember us playing a more progressive, attacking style, but for some reason a narrative has caught hold among our fanbase that playing it on the ground is defensive or risk-averse. At the same time though people also complain about the risk involved(!).
We need to focus on what the actual issues are. Majority of the time it's missing opportunities to score, whether it's a missed chance or a wasted final ball. Even at Ipswich where we had our worst performance, the stats on chances were very close between the two teams and according to Google we had 2 big chances to their 0. I know the statophobes will struggle to cope with reading those words but it gives some perspective. Even on our worst day and when we're playing a team who supposedly blew us out of the water and played so much more direct and fast, in reality, factually, they didn't actually create that much at all. Couple of brilliant finishes and you win a game comfortably. And that's where we fall down. If people who want to be critical focused more on criticising that clinicalness that we really do lack, and less on churning out the same cliches after every disappointing result regardless of how the game actually goes, there'd be less opposition to it.