NRL finals system V AFL finals system

[Dan26]

yep thats a pretty good way of putting it. the current finals system provides a good balance in my opinion. revenue and "maintaining interest" considerations make, say, a final four unviable. they way it is setup now basically gives the top 4 after the h & a season two shots at playing off in the final 4. 5 to 8 play off for the right to challenge to play off in the final four

home finals (sometimes meaningless) and weeks rest add to balancing of advantage towards the teams that finished higher in the h & a

whether double chances are a good or a bad thing is surely subjective. it appears that most people are quite happy with double chances a few dislike them and one grade a knob hates them. HATES THEM.

there is surely no case for change

Double chances will stay, because lets face it, the majority of the public are incapable of accepting change, because they've had the stupid concept imposed on them since 1931, so they don't know any better.

The very fact that Geelong and Hawthorn can be eliminated after one loss this week (which is totally fair) is the very reason why the whole double chance concept needs to be disposed of.

But it won't be disposed of. Because, generally, people have no idea. Footy fans are a conservative lot, who wouldn't know what's good for the game if it bit them in the ass.

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

Double chances will stay, because lets face it, the majority of the public are incapable of accepting change, because they've had the stupid concept imposed on them since 1931, so they don't know any better.

The very fact that Geelong and Hawthorn can be eliminated after one loss this week (which is totally fair) is the very reason why the whole double chance concept needs to be disposed of.

But it won't be disposed of. Because, generally, people have no idea. Footy fans are a conservative lot, who wouldn't know what's good for the game if it bit them in the ass.

Geelong and Hawthorn are only one win away from playing off in a Grand Final.

If the top team were to be eliminated in the first week of finals, it would effectively render the Home and Away season uselesss.

Thats why they call the double chance games "QUALIFYING FINALS", because to win would give them a clear advantage in going straight to the prelims, bypassing the second week (where they cant be eliminated as they arent playing obviously!) and getting a fortnights rest. They still have to earn it though, playing quality opposition.

Teams 5-8 have to win 4 games in row, as they should as they werent good enough to make the Top 4. Nor should they get a home final past week 1, regardless of how well they play in the finals. Dont like it? Well they should have made the Top 4 then.

 

[Dan26]

Geelong and Hawthorn are only one win away from playing off in a Grand Final.

If the top team were to be eliminated in the first week of finals, it would effectively render the Home and Away season uselesss.

If Geelong or Hawthorn are eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final it effectively renders the H&A season useless.

If Geelong or Hawthorn are eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final, it effectively renders the H&A season useless. What's your point?

Thats why they call the double chance games "QUALIFYING FINALS", because to win would give them a clear advantage in going straight to the prelims, bypassing the second week (where they cant be eliminated as they arent playing obviously!) and getting a fortnights rest. They still have to earn it though, playing quality opposition.

I know how it works.

Any system that concludes with a knockout GF and a knockout PF should be knockout all the way through, for obvious reasons.

I have no problem with Double Chances if they are used all the way through the finals like the old Argus system (used up until 1930). In that Argus system, the top team got a double chance, and they could use that second chance, even if they lost the Grand Final.

Do we do that? I say no.

The excitement of finals is the sudden death nature of them. Performing on the day. Not getting a second chance if you lose. That's what they're about. Having your season on the line. It's not about fairness. The Grand Final isn't fair; it never has been. If it was about fairness, we'd give the premiership to the team on top of the ladder.

The NFL do it right. They have a Grand Final (Superbowl) and Preliminary Finals (called conference finals) just like we do. But they have no second chances in the first week. It's total knockout. And it works beautifully.

 

[Father Jack]

If Geelong or Hawthorn are eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final it effectively renders the H&A season useless.

If Geelong or Hawthorn are eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final, it effectively renders the H&A season useless. What's your point?

It doesn't, they have had their opportunities, they have to take them. They had the extra life to get to the prelim, they now have to perform. Their performance over the H&A gave them that advantage and they have the upper hand going into the prelim. They still have to perform though. Obviously if they don't win the flag/make the grand final they will have failed, but the H&A is far from useless. Just ask North Melbourne or the Crows.

 

[m0nty]

I think that saying that the Storm should have been eliminated this week is completely dumb. Imagine the same situation in the AFL this year: Geelong with a 21-1 record playing Collingwood with a 12-10 record, undoubtedly at the MCG (Collingwood's home ground, incidentally). Couple of early injuries to key Cats in a knockout game and suddenly that 21-1 record means absolutely nothing after the first week.

Dan26, you really need to get over this obsession of yours.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

The excitement of finals is the sudden death nature of them. Performing on the day. Not getting a second chance if you lose.

I find the qualifying finals to be exciting. There is a huge difference in winning and being able to jump straight to a home preliminary final or losing and having to win a semi final to get to a preliminary final.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Double chances will stay, because lets face it, the majority of the public are incapable of accepting change, because they've had the stupid concept imposed on them since 1931, so they don't know any better.

The very fact that Geelong and Hawthorn can be eliminated after one loss this week (which is totally fair) is the very reason why the whole double chance concept needs to be disposed of.

But it won't be disposed of. Because, generally, people have no idea. Footy fans are a conservative lot, who wouldn't know what's good for the game if it bit them in the ass.

people don't agree with my point of view therefore "they're incapable of accepting change.... don't know any better.... have no idea.... and wouldn't know what's good for the game if it bit them in the arse" - you seriously need to grow up.

have you gone through the process of reflecting on your own position and considering it may be based on your own prejudices and subjective bias?

Hmmm, sorry, I forgot who I was talking to....

 

[Dan26]

I think that saying that the Storm should have been eliminated this week is completely dumb. Imagine the same situation in the AFL this year: Geelong with a 21-1 record playing Collingwood with a 12-10 record, undoubtedly at the MCG (Collingwood's home ground, incidentally). Couple of early injuries to key Cats in a knockout game and suddenly that 21-1 record means absolutely nothing after the first week.

Dan26, you really need to get over this obsession of yours.

Do you think Geelong losing this week and being eliminated is completely dumb? Or in the Grand Final? Finals are about performing on the day. if Storm couldn't beat 8th on their home ground, why do they deserve a second chance???? These are FINALS. Finals are about performing on the day.

Imagine the situation. Geelong with a 22-1 record, playing the Bulldogs at the MCG. Couple of early injuries to key Cats in a knockout game, and suddenly that 22-1 record means absolutely nothing.

There is no difference. Geelong can be knocked out in the PF or Grand Final after one loss after suffering key injuries.

Getting second chances are not what finals are about, and the Grand Final, and Preliminary Finals thesmelves are the perfect examples of this.

NFL teams that are top seeded can be eliminated after one loss after their first play-off game. That's the way it should be,

If you don't think it's fair to be out after one game, then give more recognition to the minor-premier (which I'm all for), but the finals matches themselves should obviously and logically be totally knockout.

 

[Dan26]

people don't agree with my point of view therefore "they're incapable of accepting change.... don't know any better.... have no idea.... and wouldn't know what's good for the game if it bit them in the arse" - you seriously need to grow up.

have you gone through the process of reflecting on your own position and considering it may be based on your own prejudices and subjective bias?

Hmmm, sorry, I forgot who I was talking to....

I'm sorry, tht I'm not a lemming like you, young fella. Trying having a forthright opinion on something, for once. Anything. You might enjoy it.

I've gone through this issue numerous times over the years. I remember when I was about 15 writing to the AFL with a finals system, with double chances and all the hoo-haa. I thought I was pretty top shit at the time too. I was wrong, lol. I've gone through all the positives and negatives over the years. I can tell you the probabilties of winning for every finals system that has ever existed. I can tell you how the seedings work for every system that has ever been used.

I know this stuff like the back of my hand.

I can assure you I didn't always have the opinion that I currently have. It took many years of assessing the rights and wrongs, the backs and forths to come to the conclusion that double chances are money making trash, that have no place in what is essentially a knockout system.

Asking me, "have I gone through the process of reflecting on my position?"..... *sigh*..... if you only knew. I've reflected far more than I should have and devoted far more time than I should have over the years I can assure you.

 

[Dan26]

I find the qualifying finals to be exciting. There is a huge difference in winning and being able to jump straight to a home preliminary final or losing and having to win a semi final to get to a preliminary final.

Techanically, the winner of the QF goes form having an 18.75% chance of winning the flag to a 25% of winning once they get to the Preliminary Final.

So, by winning th Qualifying Final, their chances go up the huge amount of 6.25%.

The loser of the QF goes from having an 18.75% chance of winning the flag to a 12.5% chance in the semi-final. So, their chances drop by 6.25% Not much.

Before the QF begins both teams have to win 3 games to win the flag. The loser of the QF still has to win 3 games, so not much changes, from that point of view. The Qualifying Final is not as important as you are making out.

The following hypothetical example won't happen, but it's interesting to ponder.

If a team finishes 4th they know they have to win 3 games to win the flag, right? If they win in the first week it means they have "match, bye, match, match"

If, instead, they drop all 22 players for the QF and give them a rest, and play a reserves team, and that team gets thrashed, then essentially they have had a bye, right?

So, under that situation, to win the flag, they would have, "bye, match, match, match"

It's the same thing. One bye, and three matches, just in a different order (I'm not taking into account home ground advantage here or anything).

The Qualifying Finals are not that important. 16 times out of 18 the loser of the QF has ended up in the Prelim anyway, which is where they would have been had they won first up.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Dan26, when I was a "young fella" I was an opinionated fool. Had opinions on everything and was convinced anyone who didn't agree with me was an idiot.

At some point I looked at people much older them me who were still opinionated fools and thought you loser, you sad sad loser. how do you live with yourself?

Anyway, i could see how, to maintain that stupidity, you'd need to wrap yourself up into a ever greater web of self-delusion...

So yeah, I still have opinions, some I hold stronger than others. Difference is now I have an awareness as to how these come about, how this is affected by my prejudices, and how everything is ultimately subjective.

I wouldn't be posting here if i didn't. Though you won't see me as being so pathetic as to suggesting everyone else is stupid and backward because they don't agree with me. Or, perhaps more pathetically, claiming some kind of authority on a purely subjective matter based on some faux process of critical thought for more indpeth than all the idiots who don't agree with me.

I've called you the king of the fools before. I won't this time as I've just had an infraction for abusing another one. Just be sure that whatever you "think" of yourself, all real thinkers think the opposite

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

The Qualifying Finals are not that important. 16 times out of 18 the loser of the QF has ended up in the Prelim anyway, which is where they would have been had they won first up.

And in 13 out of 16 times the team that won the QF went on to make the grand final

And on each of the three times this hasn't happened (though admittedly not suprisingly the way its structured) the teams that made it after losing the QF played the team that beat them again in the GF

great system, great system

 

[Kram]

The finals are good with the current system

 

[Dan26]

Dan26, when I was a "young fella" I was an opinionated fool. Had opinions on everything and was convinced anyone who didn't agree with me was an idiot.

At some point I looked at people much older them me who were still opinionated fools and thought you loser, you sad sad loser. how do you live with yourself?

Anyway, i could see how, to maintain that stupidity, you'd need to wrap yourself up into a ever greater web of self-delusion...

So yeah, I still have opinions, some I hold stronger than others. Difference is now I have an awareness as to how these come about, how this is affected by my prejudices, and how everything is ultimately subjective.

I wouldn't be posting here if i didn't. Though you won't see me as being so pathetic as to suggesting everyone else is stupid and backward because they don't agree with me. Or, perhaps more pathetically, claiming some kind of authority on a purely subjective matter based on some faux process of critical thought for more indpeth than all the idiots who don't agree with me.

I've called you the king of the fools before. I won't this time as I've just had an infraction for abusing another one. Just be sure that whatever you "think" of yourself, all real thinkers think the opposite

Don't come on here with an ego and have a go at me. Save that for a private message. I had nothing bad to say about you, until you come on here with all guns blazing, and decide to take personal attacks. What did I say to you in this thread before you stuck your nose in? NOTHING. I said nothing to you.

You can say what you want about me. I may be opinionated (which is a good thing) but I never sledge people first. You shouldn't either. Grow up, and stop sticking your nose in.

And I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced that the public "as a whole" knows whats good for them. They don't. That's why other people make decisions on their behalf. That doesn't mean everyone is like that, but a lot of people have no idea. Hell, the people of this country voted in Kevin Rudd. What does that say?

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Don't come on here with an ego and have a go at me. Save that for a private message. I had nothing bad to say about you, until you come on here with all guns blazing, and decide to take personal attacks. What did I say to you in this thread before you stuck your nose in? NOTHING. I said nothing to you.

You can say what you want about me. I may be opinionated (which is a good thing) but I never sledge people first. You shouldn't either. Grow up, and stop sticking your nose in.

Haha, you're tragic

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

And I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced that the public "as a whole" knows whats good for them. They don't. That's why other people make decisions on their behalf. That doesn't mean everyone is like that, but a lot of people have no idea. Hell, the people of this country voted in Kevin Rudd. What does that say?

It says we better not start on politics!!

I'll no doubt give you another slapping, and you'll no doubt cry again

I've seen you venture into economics with the same cluelessness, you politics are surely just as rabid

 

[Paddywhackers]

I've called you the king of the fools before. I won't this time as I've just had an infraction for abusing another one. Just be sure that whatever you "think" of yourself, all real thinkers think the opposite

hehehe that made me laugh.

 

[red+black]

If Geelong or Hawthorn are eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final it effectively renders the H&A season useless.

The excitement of finals is the sudden death nature of them. Performing on the day. Not getting a second chance if you lose. That's what they're about. Having your season on the line. It's not about fairness. The Grand Final isn't fair; it never has been. If it was about fairness, we'd give the premiership to the team on top of the ladder.

The NFL do it right. They have a Grand Final (Superbowl) and Preliminary Finals (called conference finals) just like we do. But they have no second chances in the first week. It's total knockout. And it works beautifully.

NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB teams have home ground advantages, only 2 AFL teams do. That fact alone justifies not having a pure knockout finals system. Most play-offs are not sudden death. The Celtics and Lakers for example could afford to lose their first final to their respective 8th-seeded conference opponents, heck they could each afford to lose their first 3 finals. The #1 Celtics (66-16) managed to just defeat the #8 Atlanta Hawks (37-45) 4 games to 3, and they went on to win the title against the Lakers. Perhaps the Celtics should have had a single knockout game against the Hawks in Boston. If Boston lose, bad luck, they're out! Perhaps Boston were not worthy NBA Champions given that they struggled against Atlanta.

And AFL teams do not get to play finals where they would otherwise choose to. That fact also justifies not having a pure knockout finals system. Geelong can't play in Geelong, St Kilda can't choose to play at Docklands, North Melbourne can't choose to play at the MCG, Sydney can't even choose to play at the SCG. That leaves the Brisbane Lions as the only AFL team that has a true home ground advantage in that they do not share the GABBA, they only have one home stadium, and all of their finals leading up to the Grand Final will be played at the ground where they play all of their home games.

Do you think Geelong losing this week and being eliminated is completely dumb? Or in the Grand Final? Finals are about performing on the day. if Storm couldn't beat 8th on their home ground, why do they deserve a second chance???? These are FINALS. Finals are about performing on the day.

Imagine the situation. Geelong with a 22-1 record, playing the Bulldogs at the MCG. Couple of early injuries to key Cats in a knockout game, and suddenly that 22-1 record means absolutely nothing.

There is no difference. Geelong can be knocked out in the PF or Grand Final after one loss after suffering key injuries.

Getting second chances are not what finals are about, and the Grand Final, and Preliminary Finals thesmelves are the perfect examples of this.

NFL teams that are top seeded can be eliminated after one loss after their first play-off game. That's the way it should be,

If you don't think it's fair to be out after one game, then give more recognition to the minor-premier (which I'm all for), but the finals matches themselves should obviously and logically be totally knockout.

Geelong and Hawthorn had a week off. Many followers of AFL including the clubs themselves would consider that a fair trade-off for losing the double chance. I would argue however that 1st should play 4th in the prelim rather than 3rd. To entertain your theory though, perhaps 1st and 2nd should get a free ride into the preliminary finals and 3v6 and 4v5 play in FW1 for the right to meet 1 and 2. Pure knockout, no double chances, less meaningless finals, everyone's happy (except the AFL).

You can say what you want about me. I may be opinionated (which is a good thing) but I never sledge people first. You shouldn't either. Grow up, and stop sticking your nose in.

And I'm sorry, but I can't be convinced that the public "as a whole" knows whats good for them. They don't. That's why other people make decisions on their behalf. That doesn't mean everyone is like that, but a lot of people have no idea. Hell, the people of this country voted in Kevin Rudd. What does that say?

I've got news for you mate. You come on here pontificating that the public is stupid, bigfooty posters are stupid, we're all conservative followers scared of change, we need to be told what to do and what's good for us, we all need to be spoon fed, we can't think for ourselves. Your arrogance disgusts me absolutely. You may not curse or resort to name-calling, but what you say and how you say it is no less disgusting and despicable, in fact it's worse, far worse.

You do not have opinions in the true sense of the word. You carry on as if you have tested all of your theories and solved them by mathematical induction (Q.E.D.), it's black and white, you're right, everyone else just doesn't get it. We are a bit slow aren't we, and you know it, as you like to constantly remind us.

You are not able to debate. You belittle people that disagree with anything you say, but not all of us seem to realise that everything you say is how things should be. And don't bring politics into this, you only make yourself look like an ever bigger fool.

PS: And I tend to agree with some of your theories (on football not people). But you have a real lousy way of responding once someone else has put their hand up and said "Hey, but what about ... Have you considered ..."

 

[m0nty]

Do you think Geelong losing this week and being eliminated is completely dumb? Or in the Grand Final? Finals are about performing on the day. if Storm couldn't beat 8th on their home ground, why do they deserve a second chance???? These are FINALS. Finals are about performing on the day.

Imagine the situation. Geelong with a 22-1 record, playing the Bulldogs at the MCG. Couple of early injuries to key Cats in a knockout game, and suddenly that 22-1 record means absolutely nothing.

There is no difference. Geelong can be knocked out in the PF or Grand Final after one loss after suffering key injuries.

Getting second chances are not what finals are about, and the Grand Final, and Preliminary Finals thesmelves are the perfect examples of this.

NFL teams that are top seeded can be eliminated after one loss after their first play-off game. That's the way it should be,

If you don't think it's fair to be out after one game, then give more recognition to the minor-premier (which I'm all for), but the finals matches themselves should obviously and logically be totally knockout.

I think finishing first has to have some sort of reward in the finals other than just getting home ground advantage for a knockout final. Particularly in the AFL, where home ground advantage often means exactly nothing. In the NFL the top seeds get the week off, which is of course its own double chance.

Dan, you keep bringing up the NFL as a shining example, but there are a huge amount of problems with that system - teams with 8-8 records making it, teams with 10-6 records not making it, one conference being clearly better than the other resulting in mismatched Super Bowls. It's not perfect either.

Also, the double chance makes sense early in the finals but it does not make sense late. We grew out of the challenge system decades ago. Having two knockout prelims means a more even grand final, which is good for the game.

 

[Dan26]

NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB teams have home ground advantages, only 2 AFL teams do. That fact alone justifies not having a pure knockout finals system.[/I]"

That's not a reason for not having pure knockout. The top team can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final, so where does that leave your argument then?

That's the point. The finals series essentially IS knockout. Apart from the bastardization in the first week. But in 2 of the 3 finals the minor-premier play they can be eliminated. So, why not all the way through?

Most play-offs are not sudden death. The Celtics and Lakers for example could afford to lose their first final to their respective 8th-seeded conference opponents, heck they could each afford to lose their first 3 finals. The #1 Celtics (66-16) managed to just defeat the #8 Atlanta Hawks (37-45) 4 games to 3, and they went on to win the title against the Lakers.

I don't consider this a relevant example. The NBA schedule consists of 82 games, and they play every third day. Because of this, they can fit in "best of 7" series for their play-offs, as they can with MLB. The football codes play once a week, and these are the sports that have knockout (or in the AFL's case, virtual knockout) systems.

And AFL teams do not get to play finals where they would otherwise choose to. That fact also justifies not having a pure knockout finals system.

Yes, you're right, they don't get to play on the home ground, but that is not a reason for not having a knockout system. Otherwise you'd argue that Geelong must get a second chance this week if they lose to the Bulldogs.

If it's good enough for them to be eliminated after one loss this week, it's good enough for them to be eliminated after one loss at any stage.

Geelong and Hawthorn had a week off. Many followers of AFL including the clubs themselves would consider that a fair trade-off for losing the double chance. I would argue however that 1st should play 4th in the prelim rather than 3rd. To entertain your theory though, perhaps 1st and 2nd should get a free ride into the preliminary finals and 3v6 and 4v5 play in FW1 for the right to meet 1 and 2. Pure knockout, no double chances, less meaningless finals, everyone's happy (except the AFL).[/I]"

That's the final-6 system I would use. It's the same as the final-6 the NFL uses for each Conference. It makes sense, and is logical. But in a 16 team or 18 team comp, I think 8 teams is ideal in the finals. Perhaps 9 for an 18 team comp, because it means half the teams make it.

I've got news for you mate. You come on here pontificating that the public is stupid, bigfooty posters are stupid, we're all conservative followers scared of change, we need to be told what to do and what's good for us, we all need to be spoon fed, we can't think for ourselves. Your arrogance disgusts me absolutely.

I'm just being honest. Most people out there don't know what's good for them. It doesn't mean they're dumb, it's just that they don't have the knowledge of everything to make informed judgments. I'm the same. I know about some things, but not everything. That's why I don't decide how much I get taxed. People more learned than me decide that. Most people don't know what's good for them. That's not arrogant. That's just the reality.

You do not have opinions in the true sense of the word. You carry on as if you have tested all of your theories and solved them by mathematical induction (Q.E.D.), it's black and white, you're right, everyone else just doesn't get it. We are a bit slow aren't we, and you know it, as you like to constantly remind us.[/I]"

No, mate. If I fel a certain way about something, then that's my opinion. I'm not going to change that opinion so someone else can say "Oh, look he changed his mind, what a guy!" You don't change yours and I'm not going to criticize you for it.

I really don't care about any of this personal stuff, anyway. I don't engage in it. I couldn't care less about it, or what people think of me. Who cares! I am interested in the thread and the discussion of double chances.

I have quite an interesting history with this stuff dating back about 17 years, and if anyone bothered to pick my brains about it, they might learn an alternate view about one of the few things I have some "expertise" in.

 

[Dan26]

It says we better not start on politics!!

I'll no doubt give you another slapping, and you'll no doubt cry again

I've seen you venture into economics with the same cluelessness, you politics are surely just as rabid

Actually, I'm quite moderate, funnily enough.

 

[FootyJunkie]

NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB teams have home ground advantages[/I]"

Except for ...

(NBA)
L.A. Lakers/L.A. Clippers = Stable Center

(NFL)
NY Giants/NY Jets = Meadowlands

not sure of any others

If Giants and Jets had to host conference title games in the same year, one would have to be played on the Saturday Night, the other on the Sunday Night.

 

[red+black]

Except for ...

(NBA)
L.A. Lakers/L.A. Clippers = Stable Center

(NFL)
NY Giants/NY Jets = Meadowlands

Yeah i know, but the vast vast majority of American professional teams have a true home court/ground advantage. In AFL, only the Brisbane Lions do (Gold Coast will be the 2nd) as WCE/Freo share a ground, Crows/Port share a ground, Swans can't choose SCG/Homebush to suit their opponent or time slot, Geelong can't play at Kardinia Park, and the 9 Melbourne teams share two grounds and can't be guaranteed to play at their preferred home.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

I've got news for you mate. You come on here pontificating that the public is stupid, bigfooty posters are stupid, we're all conservative followers scared of change, we need to be told what to do and what's good for us, we all need to be spoon fed, we can't think for ourselves. Your arrogance disgusts me absolutely. You may not curse or resort to name-calling, but what you say and how you say it is no less disgusting and despicable, in fact it's worse, far worse.

You do not have opinions in the true sense of the word. You carry on as if you have tested all of your theories and solved them by mathematical induction (Q.E.D.), it's black and white, you're right, everyone else just doesn't get it. We are a bit slow aren't we, and you know it, as you like to constantly remind us.

You are not able to debate. You belittle people that disagree with anything you say, but not all of us seem to realise that everything you say is how things should be. And don't bring politics into this, you only make yourself look like an ever bigger fool.

Hear, hear! ,!