Since last night’s debacle in Portugal, the Arsesphere has been in ferment over who between Almunia and Fabianski is the better keeper.
It all feels a bit like debating who was the nicer Kray twin.
Isn’t the only relevant point that they’re both hopeless?
This sort of thing often happens in creative development research too.
The first concept is presented and gets a poor reception.
But then the second one is greeted with unreserved horror.
At which point the respondents revisit the originally maligned first option, and begin to see it in a new, more favourable light.
And the back-room dwellers convince themselves it was just the shock of the new, and they have got a winner on their hands after all…
How many bad ideas have ended up getting made purely because they were initially compared, either externally or internally, with a truly dreadful alternative?
There’s probably some scientific term for this dangerous phenomenon of misleading comparison.
If not, how about The Fabianski Effect?
