I would think if we lose this we are mentally as fragile as we ever have been!

Even worse than 1970-72 and 79-81

This would be disastrous

DEES by 30 points!

LOL

Rightio mate

Chris Dawes will find it difficult to hold a mark tomorrow......

Chris Dawes will find it difficult to hold a mark tomorrow......

He finds it difficult in dry weather aswell

I would think if we lose this we are mentally as fragile as we ever have been!

Even worse than 1970-72 and 79-81

This would be disastrous

DEES by 30 points!

why dont you [censored] off with your negivtive attuitude

anyone know where to find average games played for the named 22s ?

Demons 81 v Dons 70*

Throw in Fletch for Laverde and the Dons jump to 88. Mean average probably not the most useful tool here.

*subject to potentially wild inaccuracies.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-07-10/fascinating-match-looms-watts-#sthash.Yml1x0IB.dpuf

We are going to lose.

Geeeeez is he bent over and ready to take it already or what?? Translation & Summary; "Let's see how they come to play & take it from there....."

Praha - I agree, the betting odds on Essedrug look VERY tempting.

Pathetic.

Think about this one from the Bombers side, rather than dealing with our own fear of succeeding. We are all so scared of success having never seen it in the last decade.

The Bombers are following up a record loss to an equally lowly team, and have lost their Captain and best player, and decided too blood 3-4 young kids who have been in questionable form in the VFL. Sound familiar? We have lived through this for years. Did any of us seriously think after someone smashed us we'd be cherry ripe the next week cause a Grimes was injured and replaced in the side by a very young Bail, Taggert and Gillies? That's what they are dishing up.

Dees by 32.

Brissy game much tougher because they have a midfield. Beams, Rockliff, Hanley and Redden are to be respected.

We need to demolish them in the middle of the park. Along with Geelong, they are the only 2 teams I can think of we can potentially get the better of in the middle.

we have been crap for years but we still manage to beat the bombers where ever they are, now we are playing better and they worse and everyones predicting gloom and doom. have some faith.

A wary and sober assessment of the game by Garry Lyon. http://demonland.com/index.php/index.html

Basically he says we have been crap for years but somehow managed upset wins against the bombers after we were thrashed the week before. He asks now that they are crap and were thrashed last week, can they reverse the tables and beat us? Players take note, he says!

He says win and we have shown improvement, lose and it might be so bad for players to deal with that a repeat of last year, where we win no more games, might happen.

I had to go and find the real paper to see who he tipped: Dees to win by 7pts. I guess that is a fair prediction as the weather and Roos' game style will ensure it is a low scoring game. But if we win, I don't really care what the margin is.

I'm feeling more confident about winning this one than any other game so far this season.So much so that I will be purchasing a poncho on the way to the MCG tomorrow so I can be up close to see us victorious.

I would think if we lose this we are mentally as fragile as we ever have been!

Even worse than 1970-72 and 79-81

This would be disastrous

DEES by 30 points!

Jeez, you talk poo.

Edited July 10, 201510 yr by AdamFarr

Still nervous.

We have to demoralise them in the first half, as if they are in with a sniff at 3/4 time, they are a chance of running over us. It will be a heavy track, they did sweet FA running last week while we were in Darwin, a place from which I don't think we have ever won after playing there

Still nervous.

We have to demoralise them in the first half, as if they are in with a sniff at 3/4 time, they are a chance of running over us. It will be a heavy track, they did sweet FA running last week while we were in Darwin, a place from which I don't think we have ever won after playing there

We beat Port a couple of years ago over there, from memory. 2010 maybe?

We beat Port a couple of years ago over there, from memory. 2010 maybe?

Thought we beat them in Darwin, haven't looked into it but thought we had always lost the week after playing in Darwin (and believe our opponents have lost a lot more than they have won - probably a more telling stat)

Judging our post-Darwin performances is as folly as judging our post-Etihad wins. We've been garbage regardless of the venue.

The correct stat to judge is indeed the post-Darwin results of our opponent.

Post-Darwin results over the last 10 years... read into it what you will. The average losing margin after Darwin games is 42pts.

2014: Fremantle defeated GWS by 76 pts.

2014: Melbourne lost to Geelong by 66 pts.

2013: Melbourne lost to North by 122 pts.

2013: Lions lost to Port by 9 pts.

2012: Bulldogs lost to Geelong by 20 pts.

2012: Gold Coast lost to Port by 48 pts.

2012: Melbourne lost to North by 54 pts.

2012: Port lost to Freo by 27 pts.

2011: Port lost to Carlton by 62 pts.

2011: Melbourne lost to Hawthorn by 54 pts.

2010: Melbourne lost to Geelong by 54 pts.

2010: Port lost to Richmond by 47 pts.

2009: Port lost to Geelong by 34 pts.

2009: Bulldogs defeated North by 22 pts.

2008: Port lost to North by 2 pts.

2008: Bulldogs defeated Melbourne by 31 pts.

2007: Bulldogs lost to North by 26 pts.

2007: Fremantle defeated Carlton 77 pts.

2006: Bulldogs defeated Adelaide 7 pts.

2006: Port lost to Collingwood by 2 pts.

2005: Bulldogs lost to Saints by 18 pts.

2005: Carlton lost to West Coast by 77 pts.

2004: Bulldogs defeated North by 30 pts.

2004: Port defeated Collingwood by 37 pts.

I'm inclined to think most of those results were more reflective of the ladder and quality of teams that year. Port, Melbourne and Bulldogs have all gone through periods of sustained mediocrity, with the Bulldogs coming off relative success between 2006-2009 (hence the wins).

Edited July 10, 201510 yr by Lamashtu

Demons 81 v Dons 70*

Throw in Fletch for Laverde and the Dons jump to 88. Mean average probably not the most useful tool here.

*subject to potentially wild inaccuracies.

I'm feeling a bit aggrieved that I went well out of my way to calculate the average games played for no personal benefit and without an abacus or even the slightest of acknowledgement. Can someone alert Curry & Beer?

Edited July 10, 201510 yr by Skuit

$11 for Dees by 60+ if you don't mind.

They should tell the players that all their end of season trip funds are invested on this result

Self interest can be a powerful motivator

They should tell the players that all their end of season trip funds are invested on this result

Self interest can be a powerful motivator

Or better still tell Essendon players their legal fees will be funded out of returns from this investment

Whatever it takes

$11 for Dees by 60+ if you don't mind.

I admit, a fool and his money were easily parted.

I admit, a fool and his money were easily parted.

This fool left a ton at sportsbet ..... again! FMD!!

This fool left a ton at sportsbet ..... again! FMD!!

You of course know that old one about fools and money Bbo

I would have thought a man of your intelligence would have realised by now never, never, never, never bet on the MFC to win.

This fool left a ton at sportsbet ..... again! FMD!

I feel your pain Bitter. The bet just had to be placed to make the win against these scumbags all the sweeter. It was a bitter cold day in hell

I feel your pain Bitter. The bet just had to be placed to make the win against these scumbags all the sweeter. It was a bitter cold day in hell

Just imagine if the game had been today.