“We’re building the plane while flying it”.
At the start of 2023, Essendon faced numerous areas requiring improvement. Prioritising these was a priority in itself. Throughout last year, they assessed the best direction to take. Now, in 2024, they’ll delve into each necessary improvement, knowing that mastery won’t happen in just 13 games.
Cockpit.
Here’s the control of the aircraft, and this FMS (flight management system) for mine had a poor flight plan organised to begin with.
Kelly starting as a forward and moving into the midfield hasn’t worked this year and wasn’t going to work again here. Only three disposals in a half, with just two uncontested, is poor for this role.
This position effectively serves as an extra midfielder who starts forward and works up the ground. Along with Setterfield this week, it covers for Martin, freeing him from the responsibility of defending the Carlton half forward, who also moves up the ground.
This setup is too defensive for a position that should be more attacking. This role is better suited to someone who can link up in possession chains moving forward by hand or foot, posing problems for his matchup on how far to follow him up the ground and relocating him on the way back. In my opinion, this role is not being utilized effectively, and when it needs to be, Kelly is not the best fit.
Finally, the decision was made to have Martin play that role after halftime, and it was clear that this is a role more familiar to him and, most importantly, more favorable for the team.
In Essendon’s most dominant period, the third quarter, Martin had 10 disposals, nine of them uncontested, demonstrating his forward craft and ability to become a dangerous option by knowing where to position himself. He had five score involvements, including four shots at goal from two marks inside the forward 50, and gained 211 metres for the quarter, the second most of anyone on the ground in that period, and fourth most of anyone in any quarter. This hopefully proves to the flight deck that better plans will be more effective going forward, both figuratively and literally.
If I had my preference, I would have freed Ridley from the burden of manning up against Curnow. While Ridley improved as the game progressed in this matchup, if Kelly had been back to begin with, Laverde would have been my choice to free up Ridley to continue challenging the opposition’s coaching setup and structure up forward. Early in the game, not enough of these types of questions were asked, especially in the air, which unfortunately affected the tail assembly.
Tail assembly.
Here is the vertical and horizontal stabiliser, rudder, and elevator, all designed to provide stability.
I just wrote about issues that didn’t help down back, but much of the blame falls on the failure of the parts in this assembly. There are some horrendous numbers associated with this. Buckle up.
Essendon’s season average up to this game was to rebound the opposition’s inside 50 entries 37 times a game, a rate of over 73%. The 26 they registered here is eight less than the worst-ranked team of 2024, and the rate of 63.4% is over 8% worse than North Melbourne's average. Without the downforce pitch and control of the stabilisers, the plane will likely enter a full dive and break up.
To be honest, I don’t want to spend too much time on this part.
The Blues seven shots from 11 inside 50 entries at 63% effectiveness in 20 minutes isn’t a great start, but the 14 from 17, a rate of 82% effectiveness up to halftime, is so much worse.
To be even more honest here, Essendon did a tremendous job of stopping Carlton’s ball movement from the back half over the course of the game. The issue was, when the Blues got through, it went on the scoreboard, and it went on for maximum points.
Up to halftime, seven Carlton shots at goal from 14 began from the Essendon forward half, with all seven being goals. All this damage was done early, as for the rest of the game, only one more score was sourced from that area—unfortunately, it was another goal.
While Essendon’s overall defending has been improving all season, this game took an unfortunate step back. The Blues average just over 13 one-on-ones in their front half, with the Bombers averaging just over 12 in their defensive half. This week, the Bombers had to battle through 19, far too many to begin with, and losing seven of those hurt even more.
This ineffectiveness to defend hurt Essendon on the scoreboard, making the effectiveness of their attack more important. Unfortunately, as we all witnessed, this was just as frustrating.
Propeller.
The function that turns energy into force.
Yes, everyone saw the differential in inside 50s, and most listened to or read Scott's comments regarding his opinion on those numbers. Here, I’m going to dig a little deeper than just the raw numbers.
Of the 60 Essendon inside 50 entries for the night, 30 went within 25 metres to goal, and of those 30, 25 resulted in scores. Unfortunately, accuracy was an issue in the end. Obviously, the deeper the entry, the closer to goal, the better the chances of turning that into a success on the scoreboard.
Carlton began six possession chains in its forward 50, either via intercept or clearance, with four resulting in scores. Essendon also began six the same way, with four resulting in scores as well. While the Blues managed 19 points in total, the Bombers managed nine points in this zone, showing similar processes but different outcomes.
The issue with the forward entries was when Essendon couldn’t get them deeper than 25 metres from goal. If there’s a stat for inside 25s, it would read Essendon 35, Carlton 31.
Earlier, I wrote about the Bombers' poor conversion of rebounds from the defensive third. Here, the Blues were able to rebound 11 more entries than their own season average, a rate of over 8% better, and more than 4% better than the number one ranked team, Sydney. This is the area that needs work going forward, but the fix, in my opinion, isn’t in this exact spot. It's about what is happening ahead of the field with ball movement.
Fuselage.
This is the main body of the plane, design dependent on the mission of the aircraft.
The immediate gain from clearance, whether from the centre bounce or from stoppages, has been on decline in recent games. This week, Essendon was -6 in clearances, adding to the -26 from the previous three weeks. This loss has forced an increase in intercepts to initiate possession chains leading to shots.
Essendon managed to generate 12 shots on goal from turnovers, with 34 of the 72 intercepts occurring in the middle of the ground. Unfortunately, of those 34, only four shots on goal were the result, ending in one goal three behinds. Conversely, Carlton was able to generate 11 shots on goal from their intercepts with much greater effectiveness. While Essendon scored 32 points from their 12 shots, Carlton scored 56 points from their 11.
Despite this outcome, as I have said all year, I am focusing on the process.
Essendon’s ball movement plays a part in both the opposition's scores and its effectiveness going inside its own forward line. Last week, I wrote that work rate was an issue for Essendon in ball movement when in possession. While there was improvement in this game, it can still reach another level, with players needing to service teammates who work into space and become options more often.
This week, Essendon was only able to take an uncontested mark outside of the front third every 5.07 possessions, while Carlton achieved this every 3.46. Although 1.61 possessions might not seem like a big difference, just as I wrote in my review last week against Gold Coast, think of it as another 20 to 40 metres gained in territory for Essendon, and another 20 to 40 metres for Carlton to regain.
In this week's case, it could mean a forward entry that went within 25 meters of goal instead of 45.
If Essendon’s preferred method of rebounding after intercepts is to move the ball forward methodically and slowly rather than generating run, carry, overlap, and chaos, it must find players by foot. Shifting the ball off the line more regularly would have helped this week, as well as more experience at the M.C.G with this strategy.
There is much more space for players to work with compared to Marvel Stadium, making it easier to find uncontested marks and harder to defend them.
This is the next evolution of teamwork that the Bombers can aim for. It not only helps draw the opposition’s players out by having them man up on their matchups, but it also helps defend against opposition transitions.
Landing gear.
I’m content and confident that the foundation and base plan for this year are heading in the right direction. Sticking with the majority of this design while experimenting along the way can work in the long term.
Most of this game comes down to the small pieces within the framework that need more exposure to become solid and function effectively. Time in forward half, gained from field position and winning the ball back from the opposition, is a good starting point. The challenge is learning how to maximise that position during the game. More exposure to this against more polished teams will allow the planning and execution to be tested in real-life scenarios.
Efficiency was the key factor in the result this week, both for and against Essendon.
Carlton is a team that is at least an extra 12 months ahead in development, and that time is crucial for learning how to deal with problems as they arise and how to maximize efforts when opportunities present themselves.
The way the second half of the 2023 season ended should serve as motivation for the next 10 games of the regular season. The focus should be on not undoing the work, improvements, experiences, and knowledge gained in the first 13 games. This means maintaining consistency, building on strengths, and addressing weaknesses.
Comments