I could be wrong but if at 10pm Saturday night you look at the scoreboard and we have more goals than behinds, you'll most likely be singing the MFC song.

Accuracy has now had a direct result on 2 of our last 3 games of footy.

35 minutes ago, hardtack said:

If you’re implying that 3rd and 4th will be occupied by Brisbane and Port in whatever order, then I’d prefer we finish 2nd in order to avoid the added (mental) pressure of the expectations that go with being minor premiers.

Nah, 1st will play 4th and 2nd will play 3rd. The top 3 will likely be made up of us, Bulldogs and Geelong. It's that 4th spot that's up for grabs.

17 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

That's an interesting view, but don't you think there is also an argument that finishing second after having been on top of the ladder for most of the season will add mental pressure because of the disappointing finish to the home and away season? 

I suppose that’s a possibility, but if you look at the list of minor premiers in recent years, they more often than not, do not become premiers. Even Richmond failed to win the premiership in the year they were minor premiers (recently).

Can I just take the time to say that, even with our recent form, I've never seen so many posts predicting a win vs a team second on the ladder during my entire time on Demonland. 

What a time to be alive

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

If you’re implying that 3rd and 4th will be occupied by Brisbane and Port in whatever order, then I’d prefer we finish 2nd in order to avoid the added (mental) pressure of the expectations that go with being minor premiers.

Isn't it just outrageous that port is even discussed as a possible top 4 . Or even finalist for that matter. Huge for whomevet meets them in week 1.

5 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

Isn't it just outrageous that port is even discussed as a possible top 4 . Or even finalist for that matter. Huge for whomevet meets them in week 1.

Reckon Port (at full health) are better than the Dogs & Swans

Glad this game has been swapped.

Our record shows that we will bounce back. Dogs will be nervous.

4 hours ago, bingers said:

I don't have a good feeling about this match.  ?

I have a good feeling about this match 

4 hours ago, bingers said:

I don't have a good feeling about this match.  ?

I never have one with any of our games.

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I never have one with any of our games.

I've actually felt confident with a few games this season, first time in a very long time.  Coincidentally, we didn't win any of them.

So...it's probably all my fault.

Apologies

 

11 minutes ago, D Rev said:

I've actually felt confident with a few games this season, first time in a very long time.  Coincidentally, we didn't win any of them.

So...it's probably all my fault.

Apologies

 

How many shots at goal did you miss?

I think the Dogs HAVE to win this weekend.  Sure they've beaten Port in Adelaide, the Lions at Marvel early season and the Eagles at Marvel and Optus, but all of them are looking like 2nd tier contests.  They've failed the real acid tests vs MFC and Sydney at Marvel, the real Richmond at the MCG and Geelong narrowly at Kardinia Park.  They just have to win to put a stake in the ground and I think Beveridge is good at getting them up for a statement game so I think they probably will win. If they don't I think it's a major hit to their campaign.

I looked for some pattern in those wins and losses against contenders above. 

• They clearly won clearances in all except their win over Brisbane.
• They won contested in wins against the Eagles twice, the Lions and Port
• They lost contested in losses against MFC, Richmond and Geelong
• They did win contested in their loss against Sydney however

I think the superficial take away is: win contested against them and win the match

Looking for an explanation against Sydney - they lost uncontested in that match and were miles down on marks 67 - 123 which was the outlier stat as I cast my eye across the match.  However they regularly lose marks - they are in the negative in differential across the season, and in games they won against the Eagles they went 86 - 127 and the Lions they went 63 - 110 so I don't think that tells the story.

Find it strange that we are favs to beat the dogs but the Suns were favs to beat us in the first markets " when we were going to play them" 

3 minutes ago, Mr Steve said:

Find it strange that we are favs to beat the dogs but the Suns were favs to beat us in the first markets " when we were going to play them" 

Suns were faves? Surely not

2 hours ago, adonski said:

Reckon Port (at full health) are better than the Dogs & Swans

If playing on their home turf, I'd agree 

I would be surprised if we beat the Dogs twice within the H&A season

They will be really up and about for this game. It would have been a target on their schedule since they lost to us earlier in the year.

21 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I would be surprised if we beat the Dogs twice within the H&A season

They will be really up and about for this game. It would have been a target on their schedule since they lost to us earlier in the year.

What about three times? There's a reasonable prospect that we might meet again in September.

24 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I would be surprised if we beat the Dogs twice within the H&A season

They will be really up and about for this game. It would have been a target on their schedule since they lost to us earlier in the year.

Dogs refused to attack through the corridor last time we played. Constantly used slow boundary line play.

Will they do the same again.

15 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Dogs refused to attack through the corridor last time we played. Constantly used slow boundary line play.

Will they do the same again.

The couldn't use the corridor because we had used large numbers of players stationed in the corridor, forcing them to go long down the boundary or switch. Max , Lever or May were waiting for them,

They probably won't fall for that again but....how many times in the past had we seen teams beat us (like St Kilda) by playing a certain way EVERY time we played them,. Like clockwork you could pre-empt how they would pressure the ball carrier and get the ball to the outside where they would beat us with run. They won 17 in a row or thereabouts playing that way 

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The couldn't use the corridor because we had used large numbers of players stationed in the corridor, forcing them to go long down the boundary or switch. Max , Lever or May were waiting for them,

They probably won't fall for that again but....how many times in the past had we seen teams beat us (like St Kilda) by playing a certain way EVERY time we played them,. Like clockwork you could pre-empt how they would pressure the ball carrier and get the ball to the outside where they would beat us with run. They won 17 in a row or thereabouts playing that way 

14 in a row vs 4 different coaches Daniher, Bailey, Neeld and Roos - the first part of that does coincide with their most successful recent period under Lyon and the middle part with our lowest ever ebb under Neeld.

Since Goodwin took over we're 5-3.  3 of those wins at Docklands where we had lost 22 in a row.

Edited July 22, 20214 yr by Pollyanna

23 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Dogs refused to attack through the corridor last time we played. Constantly used slow boundary line play.

Will they do the same again.

I'm wondering, as well, how the umpires are going to assist the Doggies with their contested balls, 'observed' against 'accidently unobserved' free kick tallies across both sides, how they can combat the Dees getting ahead fairly comfortably early in the game and with this criterion, how whistle power can 'even up' the scores to ensure 'entertaining' footy to get the Doggies back in the game and ultimately across the line. These factors have affected all of our losses this year in one way or the other. 

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Suns were faves? Surely not

$1.85 to the Dees $1.96 

6 hours ago, BDA said:

I'm quite confident about this game despite our recent average form.

. Only thing that will thwart our chances is poor goal kicking. Not an outside possibility based on recent form.

Last time Tmac and Fritsch kicked 6.2 between them and we kicked 13 goals  9 behinds. The kicked 8  gls 11 behinds.

Replicate that accuracy and wer'e halfway there.

After 1/4 time Dees kicked 7   - 4  to Dogs 6  -  9. Again , repeat this and we win.

(After wasting the first 1/4 with 6 - 5.  to 2 - 2.)

6 hours ago, Smokey said:

Can I just take the time to say that, even with our recent form, I've never seen so many posts predicting a win vs a team second on the ladder during my entire time on Demonland. 

What a time to be alive

 

1 hour ago, Demon17 said:

Last time Tmac and Fritsch kicked 6.2 between them and we kicked 13 goals  9 behinds. The kicked 8  gls 11 behinds.

Replicate that accuracy and wer'e halfway there.

After 1/4 time Dees kicked 7   - 4  to Dogs 6  -  9. Again , repeat this and we win.

(After wasting the first 1/4 with 6 - 5.  to 2 - 2.)

The Dogs totally butchered their 1st qtr and turned the ball over big time trying to swtch across the backline