1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Watch a 15-5 pop up for them even in the wet.

Absolutely nothing surer.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

As long as we kick 15-6 I don't care Mr. Leg.

Well we can agree on that. 

20 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Absolutely nothing surer.

Well maybe one thing. They will get the best of the umpiring.

1 hour ago, old dee said:

As long as we kick 15-6 I don't care Mr. Leg.

or even 13.18

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

100 pts it often a de facto cut-off point when AFL score comparisons are made in the media/AFL for high/low scoring trends.

That aside, my post was highlighting the drop off in their fwd line performance both in terms of high scores ie > 100 and conversion in the most recent games.

To make the comparison clearer:

In the first 10 games bulldogs kicked 100 or more in 6 of their 10 games.  They won 9 of those 10 games and in each win they had positive conversion: more goals than points.  As per my post, since then they have kicked >100 in one of 7 games and positive conversion in two of those 7 games.

In the first 10 games they had 3 scores of 90+ and they have 3 since so no change there.

Interestingly, it is the last game we played which changed their scoring momentum.  Coincidence?

I don't fear their fwd line or their back line.  Tipping us to win.

I reckon one of the other reasons their scoring has dropped off is that their first 10 games weren't all that hard.

They opened the season with Collingwood, West Coast (in Melbourne), North, Brisbane (in Ballarat, at the end of Brisbane being unexpectedly stuck in Victoria for three weeks), Gold Coast, GWS, Richmond, Carlton, Port and St Kilda.

Since then they've had us, Fremantle (in Perth),  Geelong (in Geelong), West Coast (in Perth), North, Sydney and Gold Coast.

IMO, the latter 7 games have been against better quality sides and they've played a little bit worse as a result (it's all relative though, they're still 12-4!).

1 hour ago, —coach— said:

Purely for balance on the subject and for comparison purposes:

Dogs last 7 games as per your stats:

- 83 goals, 88 behinds (171 scores) (48.5% accuracy)

Melbournes last 7:

13.9 v dogs win

14.13 v lions win

9.9 v Coll loss

9.14 v Ess win

7.13 v Giants loss

12.14 v Port win

11.13 v Hawks draw

Total: 75 goals, 88 behinds (163 scores) (46.0% accuracy)

We definitely have a better defence than them, but would say on those numbers, their offence is better.

They've had 8 more scoring shots across 7 weeks. Barely one more per game.

All 8 of them were goals too, so they've scored barely one goal a game more than us over the same period.

So whilst technically yes it's been better, the difference is negligible.

Compare the pair... 

Dogs: 

13-4 

Against current top 8 teams 4-3 

Against current top 4 teams 1-2 

Against current bottom 10 teams 9-1 

Still to play in top 8, us, Port (h) and bombers 

 

Dee's 

13-1-3 

Against current top 8 teams 6-0

Against current top 4 teams 3-0 

Against bottom 10 teams 7-3-1 

Still to play in top 8, dogs, cats(a), Eagles (a)

 

Apart from their % being 10% higher than anyone else attributed to a combined winning margin of 239 points against norf and the saints they really haven't shown anything to suggest they are in the top 2 teams in the comp. Don't get me wrong they are a solid team with probably the best midfield in the comp but they have glaring weaknesses especially in defence which will suggest they won't be their grand final day. When the heat goes up their system can be weak as shown in their record against top 4 teams. I simply cannot see them beating 2 top 4 teams in a row to make the grand final because they rely to heavily on plan A relying on midfield domination to work. Once the elite teams gain dominance which will happen in finals they defence will break. 

This is why we win this week. 

 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

As long as we kick 15-6 I don't care Mr. Leg.

Or even 14.12. ?

There have been a number of disturbing rumours floating around regarding Bulldogs players.

I cannot verify if any of these have any truth at all to them, but among the ones I've heard only this week are:

Bailey Smith regularly prank calls pizza deliveries but only to his own house because that’s the only address he knows.

Tom Liberatore went and saw Mamma Mia because he thought it was going to be about Italian food.

Lachie Hunter is scared of ice cream.

Josh Bruce does the Abbey Road thing at every pedestrian crossing he sees until at least four cars beep their horn.

Caleb Daniel only volunteered to do talks at women’s prisons after seeing some [censored] on Orange Is The New Black.

Tim English has a tattoo of Winnie the Pooh holding a balloon.

Jack Macrae has fifteen cats and his house stinks.

Josh Dunkley got his Huawei phone stuck playing Girlfriend by Avril Lavigne and smashed it to bits in a rage. The Chinese spy monitoring the phone got a bit shocked because that song is considered a banger where he is from.

Aaron Naughton is allergic to lycra and every waking moment for him is pure agony.

Easton Wood is still banned from Myspace.

Zaine Cordy holds one-person pro-climate change rallies in his bedroom.

 
 

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I reckon one of the other reasons their scoring has dropped off is that their first 10 games weren't all that hard.

They opened the season with Collingwood, West Coast (in Melbourne), North, Brisbane (in Ballarat, at the end of Brisbane being unexpectedly stuck in Victoria for three weeks), Gold Coast, GWS, Richmond, Carlton, Port and St Kilda.

Since then they've had us, Fremantle (in Perth),  Geelong (in Geelong), West Coast (in Perth), North, Sydney and Gold Coast.

IMO, the latter 7 games have been against better quality sides and they've played a little bit worse as a result (it's all relative though, they're still 12-4!).

They've had 8 more scoring shots across 7 weeks. Barely one more per game.

All 8 of them were goals too, so they've scored barely one goal a game more than us over the same period.

So whilst technically yes it's been better, the difference is negligible.

One goal per game would mean we would have beaten both Adelaide and hawthorn and be 2 games clear at the top of the ladder. It’s not negligible.

7 hours ago, —coach— said:

One goal per game would mean we would have beaten both Adelaide and hawthorn and be 2 games clear at the top of the ladder. It’s not negligible.

It could also mean we smash Carlton by the magical 10 goals everyone's always wanting (but still lose to Adelaide and Hawthorn).

19 hours ago, Pollyanna said:

And listening to this - Bevo following the loss to Sydney a few weeks ago, he laments not having a stable forward line ...

https://www.afl.com.au/video/646698/bevo-we-were-dysfunctional-forward-of-the-ball-?videoId=646698&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1625993100001

He has 'blinked first' with with selections, is rolling the dice and flirting with his system.  Will be interesting to see if his selection gambles pay off.

In a way I'm surprised that he has left changes to his fwd set up this late as the trend was there before the Sydney game exposed by Dees and Cats.  Bedazzled by their big wins over Eagles and North perhaps.  

Dees to improve on last week we will win by 1 point.

18 hours ago, —coach— said:

One goal per game would mean we would have beaten both Adelaide and hawthorn and be 2 games clear at the top of the ladder. It’s not negligible.

Do you think that because the Dogs have been scoring one goal per game more than us, that the scoring difference between the sides is major?

It's mainly accuracy at any rate, given it's an 8 scoring shot difference and all 8 shots were goals.

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

Dees to improve on last week we will win by 1 point.

I'll never get used to this new optimistic old dee

5 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Do you think that because the Dogs have been scoring one goal per game more than us, that the scoring difference between the sides is major?

It's mainly accuracy at any rate, given it's an 8 scoring shot difference and all 8 shots were goals.

No I don't think its major, you stated it was negligible, I stated it was not negligible as scoring that one extra goal per game would have led to two additional wins to us. I did not say major.

I would agree with your second comment about scoring accuracy. We would have won both the games mentioned above with an even ledger of goals/behinds in those games.

In any event, can't wait for the game tonight. My wife follows the dogs and me and the 3 kids are all Demons members. Could get ugly at our house this evening!

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'll never get used to this new optimistic old dee

It is what it is LDC!

37 minutes ago, —coach— said:

No I don't think its major, you stated it was negligible, I stated it was not negligible as scoring that one extra goal per game would have led to two additional wins to us. I did not say major.

I would agree with your second comment about scoring accuracy. We would have won both the games mentioned above with an even ledger of goals/behinds in those games.

In any event, can't wait for the game tonight. My wife follows the dogs and me and the 3 kids are all Demons members. Could get ugly at our house this evening!

I maintain that it's negligible, but the more important point is that it's not a major (or indeed big) difference.

Goal accuracy (and efficiency forward of centre in general) is the main reason our form appears worse now than it was earlier in the season.