Yes we can win. And I think it will be a hotly contested game. Preparation the key for both sides and given Port were up for the Hawks game, it will be interesting to see if Port can be up for this.

And given Hinkley's a very astute and well planned coach I think they will be up for it despite possible non inclusions of Monfries and Hartlett.

Dees will have to be spot on with execution and efficiency with their skills. Dawes will be missed, but if Pederson and Gawn can contribute in the F50 like they did against Richmond, lookout!

I sincerley hope that Monfries doesn't play. As I will be watching the entire game on TV, having to put up with that dikhead on my screen for 2 hours would be quite painful.

Definitely in my Top 5 of my most disliked current players. A totally unjustified decision that I will happily stand by.

There is a fallacy in your stats. The game only resets after a goal is scored. Those stats at best show they are under constant pressure and keep missing. On the other hand it shows we have trouble clearing the defensive 50. Many of those behinds have been scored in sequences of more than two and as many as five in a row.

You have a point. although it's not a big one. I agree that Richmond in particular kicked sequences of points under pressure and scoring statistics don't include shots at goal that go out on the full so they are always flawed.

But if you really want to argue that a team with 65% goal kicking accuracy does not have a major advantage over teams with 33% accuracy then you've lost me.

You have a point. although it's not a big one. I agree that Richmond in particular kicked sequences of points under pressure and scoring statistics don't include shots at goal that go out on the full so they are always flawed.

But if you really want to argue that a team with 65% goal kicking accuracy does not have a major advantage over teams with 33% accuracy then you've lost me.

What I think is being said is that even though the scores/stats day:

Richmond 29 scoring shots at 33%

Melbourne 21 scoring shots at 65%

You need to take into account that of they scores at 65% they wouldn't have had 29 shots.

The game is about how many goal scoring opportunities you can generate. And we don't clear the ball well, so Richmond generated lots of shots in a row BUT only generate 1 goal for each of these opportunities.

Once they score a goal, the game reset to the centre bounce, where the game was even and Richmond struggled to generate shots.

For example, let's assume, every time they kicked a behind, they kicked a second then kicked a goal (33% accuracy). That means they got 3 shots at goal for each goal scored.

If they had 100% accuracy, one could argue you must reduce their scoring shots as well to 33% because, upon resetting to the centre, Richmond would not have had those extra shots.

We may have had more opportunities to take the ball forward from the centre.

What I think is being said is that even though the scores/stats day:

Richmond 29 scoring shots at 33%

Melbourne 21 scoring shots at 65%

You need to take into account that of they scores at 65% they wouldn't have had 29 shots.

The game is about how many goal scoring opportunities you can generate. And we don't clear the ball well, so Richmond generated lots of shots in a row BUT only generate 1 goal for each of these opportunities.

Once they score a goal, the game reset to the centre bounce, where the game was even and Richmond struggled to generate shots.

For example, let's assume, every time they kicked a behind, they kicked a second then kicked a goal (33% accuracy). That means they got 3 shots at goal for each goal scored.

If they had 100% accuracy, one could argue you must reduce their scoring shots as well to 33% because, upon resetting to the centre, Richmond would not have had those extra shots.

We may have had more opportunities to take the ball forward from the centre.

I get what you're saying but just to clarify, that 65% versus 33% figure is across the three games we have won. We kicked goals from two thirds of our

scoring shots against Carlton, Adelaide and Richmond, and collectively, they goaled from one in three of theirs.

I saw, along with you and AdC that we had real trouble clearing our back 50 against Richmond, but my point is that there is a pattern that has worked to our advantage in those wins.

It suggests to me that Roos has succeeded in his aim of keeping us in games for longer, win or lose, and when the opposition is not right on their game we are a real chance.

^{I am staggered they are playing this game in the hottest part of the day. Why was it not scheduled for night time?}

As has been posted already, it won't be particularly hot. I also suspect that there might not be TV quality lighting.

The saddest part about this Saturday's game, in an inexcusable action of his own making, Liam Jurrah won't be there to watch.

I get what you're saying but just to clarify, that 65% versus 33% figure is across the three games we have won. We kicked goals from two thirds of our

scoring shots against Carlton, Adelaide and Richmond, and collectively, they goaled from one in three of theirs.

I saw, along with you and AdC that we had real trouble clearing our back 50 against Richmond, but my point is that there is a pattern that has worked to our advantage in those wins.

It suggests to me that Roos has succeeded in his aim of keeping us in games for longer, win or lose, and when the opposition is not right on their game we are a real chance.

Against the Bulldogs it worked out the opposite for us. They scored far too many easy goals because our pressure was not as intense compared to the bookend games to that one. We could not tie them up. Then we started missing easy shots because the pressure went back on us to match them. Factors IMO were loss of structure once Terlich went off and I am sure the distraction of the Viney suspension hoopla took the edge of our game.

Edited May 26, 201411 yr by america de cali

I get what you're saying but just to clarify, that 65% versus 33% figure is across the three games we have won. We kicked goals from two thirds of our

scoring shots against Carlton, Adelaide and Richmond, and collectively, they goaled from one in three of theirs.

I saw, along with you and AdC that we had real trouble clearing our back 50 against Richmond, but my point is that there is a pattern that has worked to our advantage in those wins.

It suggests to me that Roos has succeeded in his aim of keeping us in games for longer, win or lose, and when the opposition is not right on their game we are a real chance.

I'm not quite sure what your point is about the accuracy. You seem to acknowledge the fallacy in referring to kicking accuracy (i.e. You can't claim "if they kicked straight they'd have 20 goals" because roast shots wouldn't occur) but then you seem to come back to "but we had better accuracy". I'm sorry but I don't quite get what you are saying.

It is an interesting analysis and something that if love to hear the coaching staffs take on it.

I'd also like to see stats regarding "shot difficulty" i.e. shot type (on the run/crumb/snap/set shot), angle, distance and luck (crazy bounces) and compare our scoring shots vs the opposition.

I suspect we'd have had the higher percentage shots over the games referred to.

I'd also like to see stats on "repeat shots" i.e. How many shots on goal, in a row without an opposition forward entry.

I suspect on this stat, we'd be close to 1, while our opponents would be closer to 2.

To me that is significant because it points to our poor transition from defence (read skill errors) and also potentially s lack of forward pressure generating repeat shots ourselves.

rd 17 2013 TIO we lost 56-84

rd 17 2011 TIO we won 113-92

rd 9 2010 TIO we drew 110 ea

Our record against port in the NT isn't too bad.

Looking fwd to it.

rd 17 2013 TIO we lost 56-84

rd 17 2011 TIO we won 113-92

rd 9 2010 TIO we drew 110 ea

Our record against port in the NT isn't too bad.

Looking fwd to it.

We actually won in 2010 by 1 point after being 40+ points up.

I think we can win this time but I doubt it. Port by 3-4 goals.

Edited May 27, 201411 yr by DemonWorshipper

We actually won in 2010 by 1 point after being 40+ points up.

Trengove's fist wasn't it?

Trengove's fist wasn't it?

Yep. And he showed great agility and speed to get to it.

I am surprised to be saying this, without Dawes we have no hope.

Port by eight goals.

Without Dawes we'll only scrape in by 17 points.

The boil over of the season will take place this weekend.

We're primed.

Port are due to drop an easy game.

These things happen.

The problem is that we make too many mistakes and they are full of frontrunners (who also at the moment defensively run so well done Ken...) and they will be unstoppable if we give up the ball with men committed forward.

Here's a question for the non Bail dees supporters

Who's the better player of

Nathan Jones Vs Travis Boak

Dom Tyson vs Oliver Wines

If we do win, we will play finals, ......I find it interesting that our line is only +37.5pts. We were +43.5pts against Richmond. On a side note Melbourne has beaten their line every week except against West Coast.

I think we can assuming Frawley plays and we have at least another forward target. Who would you play on Wingard? The kids a freak

we are NOT going to beat Port, hopefully we will stay within 20-30 points

Here's a question for the non Bail dees supporters

Who's the better player of

Nathan Jones Vs Travis Boak

Dom Tyson vs Oliver Wines

Jones and Boak even and Tyson better than Wines

CMON DEMONS!

I can feel another upset brewing based on all players pulling their weight and a makeshift Fwd line jagging a few with a good contest out of the middle..the backs & Mids can hold their own.

Port are playing very well...but they are not invincible...

Here's a question for the non Bail dees supporters

Who's the better player of

Nathan Jones Vs Travis Boak

Dom Tyson vs Oliver Wines

Jones and Boak are quite different players. I'd probably take Jones over Boak, because I feel he's more consistent, but Boak can be far more damaging than Jones.

As for Tyson v Wines - two very different players again. They are both stoppage machines, but Tyson has the awareness and calmness that I don't think Wines has. Wines is probably currently ahead if I'm being honest, but I think if Tyson continues to improve this season, he'll surpass Wines by the end of 2014.

Oh and this makeshift forward line everyone is talking about is never going to win the game for us off their own boot. It's going to be goals from midfield, a couple from the forwardline, but what is most important is contributions from the forwardline. They must run, tackle and chase their opponents, but also and crucially, provide targets across half forward and inside 50. If our forwards can take enough marks, that will go a long way to seeing us being competitive. If the ball keeps coming out of defence and our forwards and mids fail to apply frenzied pressure, it's going to be ugly.

Here's a question for the non Bail dees supporters

Who's the better player of

Nathan Jones Vs Travis Boak

Dom Tyson vs Oliver Wines

Jones over Boak.

Regarding Dom vs Oliver... Don't get me wrong, Wines is a very very good player and would love to have him at the Dees. However, there is a very rare breed of players that come through the AFL system that possess the poise, smarts, cleanness and game changing attributes which you'd be very lucky to land that player at your Club. This is where Dom Tyson fits that category to a tee. Wines isn't a rare breed of talent... someone of his talent and nature how he goes about footy can be found in any draft and we have our Wines in Jones & Viney. Consequently, this is why I would always want Tyson at my club.

In answer to the OP's orginal question:

I wouldn't of thought so...

In answer to the OP's orginal question:

I wouldn't of thought so...

I wouldn't have thought so either, but anything's possible.