Incredibly Sportsbet has Melbourne $1.83 Bulldogs $2.01.

Go figure?

I wouldn't have expected us to be favourites in the betting market but:

1. The game is at the MCG, where the Dogs are 1-1 this year, with a run of the mill win vs Collingwood and then a second-half trouncing by Richmond, and they haven't played there since Round 7
2. The Dogs aren't really in form - they're 4-3 over their last 7 games (we're 4-2-1 by comparison) and the only one of their 4 wins in that stretch of note was vs West Coast, who aren't in any form to speak of themselves (and there was no crowd at their game in Perth) - remaining wins were vs Fremantle, North and Gold Coast
3. Each of the last two weeks they've only generated 20 scoring shots (equal third-lowest they've had all year) and each of the last three weeks they've conceded 24 scoring shots (second-worst they've had all year)
4. They scored 100+ points in 6 of their first 10 games but since Round 11 (losing to us) they've only reached 100 once
5. We've already comprehensively outplayed them once this year

13 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I wouldn't have expected us to be favourites in the betting market but:

1. The game is at the MCG, where the Dogs are 1-1 this year, with a run of the mill win vs Collingwood and then a second-half trouncing by Richmond, and they haven't played there since Round 7
2. The Dogs aren't really in form - they're 4-3 over their last 7 games (we're 4-2-1 by comparison) and the only one of their 4 wins in that stretch of note was vs West Coast, who aren't in any form to speak of themselves (and there was no crowd at their game in Perth) - remaining wins were vs Fremantle, North and Gold Coast
3. Each of the last two weeks they've only generated 20 scoring shots (equal third-lowest they've had all year) and each of the last three weeks they've conceded 24 scoring shots (second-worst they've had all year)
4. They scored 100+ points in 6 of their first 10 games but since Round 11 (losing to us) they've only reached 100 once
5. We've already comprehensively outplayed them once this year

Love your efforts in sourcing those stats. Well done ? 

The Dogs have dropped off significantly since their early season form, and while most would point to Dunkley/Treloar as being reasons, i personally think it's Stef Martin. he was really giving them a big edge in the middle, and allowing English to stretch backlines, but English while talented, probably isn't in the top 6-7 ruckman in the comp, so they probably don't get first use quite as much as they did with Martin, and that's where they were really killing teams, out of stoppages. 

I think we will beat them again, but it'll be a tight contest. if we are at our best i'd say we win by 3 goals and it does really put us in a strong position for top 2 with games against the Suns, Crows, Eagles and Cats to come. we should win minimum 3 of those. 

I think that a key to our success this year has not to make knee jerk reactions at the selection table and try and get as much continuity between the playing group. 
 

We were bad against the Hawks, but fantastic against Port the week prior. The same players. It’s not selection that will make the difference, it’s effective application of our proven game plan. 
 

If we bring our high pressure game, the Dogs will struggle, as they don’t like it and start to bomb long (straight into our hands). I trust Burgess and Goodwin have a plan to get us into the finals and succeed in the finals. Week 19 doesn’t matter unless it’s part of the plan. 
 

On Viney. He is a work in progress - he also had 32 touches and 11 tackles. If he can get his efficiency and decision making right, he will be a major asset. 
 

Harmes in, Vandenberg out. Go again. 

1 minute ago, Dwight Schrute said:

The Dogs have dropped off significantly since their early season form, and while most would point to Dunkley/Treloar as being reasons, i personally think it's Stef Martin. he was really giving them a big edge in the middle, and allowing English to stretch backlines, but English while talented, probably isn't in the top 6-7 ruckman in the comp, so they probably don't get first use quite as much as they did with Martin, and that's where they were really killing teams, out of stoppages. 

I think we will beat them again, but it'll be a tight contest. if we are at our best i'd say we win by 3 goals and it does really put us in a strong position for top 2 with games against the Suns, Crows, Eagles and Cats to come. we should win minimum 3 of those. 

I agree re: Martin.

In our game last year English rucked the first half and we led at half time. Beveridge was so angry at the ruck situation he swapped English and Bruce. Bruce ended up doing better than English in the ruck (was a low bar to cross) and English kicked 2-3 goals and helped win them the game.

They're a better side with Martin first ruck and Naughton, Bruce and English in their forward line.

They're close to getting Libba, Wood and Vandermeer back from injury. I'm not 100% sure if Wood and Vandermeer are best 22 but I would have thought so. But Martin's not ready this week. Presumably they'll stick with a Naughton, Bruce and Ugle-Hagan forward line.

3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I agree re: Martin.

In our game last year English rucked the first half and we led at half time. Beveridge was so angry at the ruck situation he swapped English and Bruce. Bruce ended up doing better than English in the ruck (was a low bar to cross) and English kicked 2-3 goals and helped win them the game.

They're a better side with Martin first ruck and Naughton, Bruce and English in their forward line.

They're close to getting Libba, Wood and Vandermeer back from injury. I'm not 100% sure if Wood and Vandermeer are best 22 but I would have thought so. But Martin's not ready this week. Presumably they'll stick with a Naughton, Bruce and Ugle-Hagan forward line.

Seems they have some concerns about if Martin will be back at all this year, and personally i think they'll find it really hard to win the flag without him and Treloar, but not impossible. 

I'll be really interested to see if we try to tag Libba again or if we change things up against them. it's going to be a really simple equation for us though, if we bring our pressure and we're on defensively, we should be able to shut down their ball movement. 

Libba is a test to play for this week apparently (no, not a covid test). You'd assume they'll rush him back with Dunkley out tho.

9 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Seems they have some concerns about if Martin will be back at all this year, and personally i think they'll find it really hard to win the flag without him and Treloar, but not impossible. 

I'll be really interested to see if we try to tag Libba again or if we change things up against them. it's going to be a really simple equation for us though, if we bring our pressure and we're on defensively, we should be able to shut down their ball movement. 

Last time they belted us in clearances 36-27 (including 25-14 at stoppages), had 54 more disposals, 6 more inside 50s and, despite having more of the ball, they had 11 more tackles (57-46).

But we still won.

The confidence I take from that is that they got on top in areas they usually get on top in, but couldn't work out how to turn that into an effective method of scoring. 

31 minutes ago, adonski said:

Libba is a test to play for this week apparently (no, not a covid test). You'd assume they'll rush him back with Dunkley out tho.

He was rested.

He'll play.

25 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Last time they belted us in clearances 36-27 (including 25-14 at stoppages), had 54 more disposals, 6 more inside 50s and, despite having more of the ball, they had 11 more tackles (57-46).

But we still won.

The confidence I take from that is that they got on top in areas they usually get on top in, but couldn't work out how to turn that into an effective method of scoring. 

Definitely, they love when multiple players get drawn into the contest and they can have numbers on the outside with time and space, but we held our players out and didn't give them that, and it seemed to totally throw them. 

it's why i'm not sure if their game plan will stack up in finals, because they don't look like the same team under any sort of pressure, the Swans tore them a new one.

11 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Last time they belted us in clearances 36-27 (including 25-14 at stoppages), had 54 more disposals, 6 more inside 50s and, despite having more of the ball, they had 11 more tackles (57-46).

But we still won.

The confidence I take from that is that they got on top in areas they usually get on top in, but couldn't work out how to turn that into an effective method of scoring. 

Interestingly they also had a higher, albeit only slightly, pressure rating than us in that game. Something like 170 to 167.

I was surprises after the game when i saw that stat on fox as watching it live it felt like we we were applying far more pressure. Perhaps we just handled it better.  

to win this game it is important we:

• stop their fast transtion game from half back
• make sure their forwards have no clear lanes to lead into (which they wont if we make it hard for them to move the ball quickly) 
• minimise their scoring chances from center clearances  

Other teams have been doing these things pretty well in the last 6 weeks and they have struggled.

The key though of course is applying max pressure. I reckon their game plan is suspect under intense pressure becuase it relies so much on lots of quick handballs and precise kicks.

In the games against sides that have really applied crazy pressure and intensity - the tigers, the dees and the Swans  they have struggled to kick a competitive score and duly lost. In those games they could only score 55, 59 and 60 points respectively. 

 

I'd only have the 1 change this week and that would be Harmes for Vanders but if we lose this week we are in a serious form slump and Sparrow, Bowey, Melksham and others have to be considered.

No change

8 hours ago, bingers said:

Incredibly Sportsbet has Melbourne $1.83 Bulldogs $2.01.

Go figure?

Maybe Sportsbet already know who the umpires will be for the match - 'umpire assists' will therefore have less impact on the game? 

9 hours ago, WA Demon Boy said:

Lol how are we favourites for this game? 

1) bulldogs aren't in great form either 

2) bulldogs don't play the MCG often only playing there twice this year with a 1-1 record

3) we have a great record against top 8 sides and pantsed them 7 weeks ago on their home deck.

4) we are a very good team currently sitting on top of the ladder after 18 rounds and been there most of the year. 

5) likely wet weather which will nullify their strengths more than ours.

 

 

9 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Bulldogs paying $2 on ladbrokes

that seems rather generous 

I will take that very very generous

Need to redeem the 100 I dropped on the Hawks 

Close but no cigar

The Doggies are not a stand out team. The Suns brought the heat on the weekend and with a bit more class would have beaten them.

As long as we bring our pressure and intensity we'll win. We're not in great form at the moment but we've brought the heat for all our big games this year so no reason to believe we won't this weekend. 

I know it’s way too early to think about dropping Brown, but he’s on notice for mine. Yes, doing some good things, but if he doesn’t start clunking a few and kicking true I will start to question his spot in the team again

1 hour ago, GCDee said:

1) bulldogs aren't in great form either 

2) bulldogs don't play the MCG often only playing there twice this year with a 1-1 record

3) we have a great record against top 8 sides and pantsed them 7 weeks ago on their home deck.

4) we are a very good team currently sitting on top of the ladder after 18 rounds and been there most of the year. 

5) likely wet weather which will nullify their strengths more than ours.

 

 

Not sure about our wet weather abilities. I thought our fumbling of the ball last week in the wet was terrible. If hibbard gathered the ball at any stage in under three bites I'd be surprised. 

1 hour ago, BDA said:

The Doggies are not a stand out team. The Suns brought the heat on the weekend and with a bit more class would have beaten them.

As long as we bring our pressure and intensity we'll win. We're not in great form at the moment but we've brought the heat for all our big games this year so no reason to believe we won't this weekend. 

We've become untrustworthy. Who knows who'll turn up this week. Ollywood football or team first. It really is frustrating.

Harmes in for Vanders; Weed in for Jackson (needs a rest and recharge for finals)

Over the next couple of weeks, would be good to find a way to rest Rivers, Jordon, and ANB and bring in combination Jones, Sparrow, Melksham, Vanders to cover to be prepared for September

 

12 hours ago, BDA said:

Take a look at the ladder CYB. We're top.

Far out it doesn't take long for the defeatism to settle in around here. We've beaten all our Top 8 rivals this year remember including the Dogs. They were befuddled the last time we played them.

Saturday night was a shocker but we can bounce back. The coaching team will get a hold of the players this week and remind them how we got to the top in the first place. Roles and system.

We'll roll the dogs I reckon. 

BDA i wish i could have your optimism but our footy - or consistency to be more accurate - doesn't inspire much confidence in our ability to win. We are still a week-to-week proposition and don't know which Melbourne team will turn up. 

Im less concerned with things being attitudinal but if a team placed 17th can dismantle our gameplan then I think a mature, hard working and highly skillful team like the doggies will go to school and give us a good old reality check. 

12 hours ago, WA Demon Boy said:

Lol how are we favourites for this game? 

Because we smashed the Bulldogs last time, are on top of the ladder and haven't lost to a top 8, let alone top 4 side. That could be the reason...

10 hours ago, binman said:

Interestingly they also had a higher, albeit only slightly, pressure rating than us in that game. Something like 170 to 167.

I was surprises after the game when i saw that stat on fox as watching it live it felt like we we were applying far more pressure. Perhaps we just handled it better.  

to win this game it is important we:

• stop their fast transtion game from half back
• make sure their forwards have no clear lanes to lead into (which they wont if we make it hard for them to move the ball quickly) 
• minimise their scoring chances from center clearances  

Other teams have been doing these things pretty well in the last 6 weeks and they have struggled.

The key though of course is applying max pressure. I reckon their game plan is suspect under intense pressure becuase it relies so much on lots of quick handballs and precise kicks.

In the games against sides that have really applied crazy pressure and intensity - the tigers, the dees and the Swans  they have struggled to kick a competitive score and duly lost. In those games they could only score 55, 59 and 60 points respectively. 

 

I think any team under pressure of 180+ will struggle as we clearly did against the Hawks. In the end it will be boil down to desire and who is hungrier. I'm not buying into the attitude aspects just yet - yes there were some indications against the Hawks that some players were trying to do too much - i think that is a great mind set, it just needs to be fine tuned to ensure that energy and desire is better placed.