Bombers vs Crows Review

"A fresh coat of paint can’t fix structural damage."

Thoughts.

I have said this numerous times this year and will continue to do so: my reviews for Essendon are process-driven, not outcome-based. My opinion on this game would not have changed even if Essendon had held on to win. At this stage, the team must focus on what happens leading up to shots at goal, both for and against. Unfortunately, this game revealed some concerns in terms of system, setup, and individual performances. I won’t delve too deeply into the second quarter since we all saw how it unfolded. Instead, I will share some thoughts on the structural issues, explain why there should be no excuses for the critical moments, and highlight a positive aspect related to the scoreboard.

The second quarter.

For the review of the dreaded second quarter, I will put in as much effort as the Essendon players did for those 20 minutes.

- Essendon had 45 kicks and 50 handballs.

- McKay had nine of those handballs, three of which were turnovers.

- Four of Adelaide's nine goals came from turnovers in Essendon's defensive 50.

- Adelaide generated a shot at goal 66.66% of the time they entered their forward 50.

- Adelaide kicked eight goals in 17 minutes.

- Essendon could only take 14 uncontested marks for the quarter.

That’s all I’m going to say about that quarter.

Consistently inconsistent.

Right now, there are too many parts of Essendon’s game that are, at best, inconsistent or more realistically, unreliable week to week. With ball in hand, there’s been ineffective ball movement and inefficiency with entries inside 50. Without the ball, there’s been issues protecting turnovers and stopping opposition entries from becoming shots. Unfortunately, this week, it was a mixture of these issues plus the inability to defend clearance losses from becoming scores. More concerning is that this has started to become a worrying trend.

Stoppage damage.

From 23 stoppages clearances around the ground (outside of centre bounce), Adelaide generated nine shots at goal and 44 points. Up until round 10, Essendon’s opposition was turning a clearance into a shot at goal 22.29% of the time, well below the current AFL average of 27.2%. Since the bye, that rate has risen to 33.54%. Gone are the numbers around the stoppage area to stop the ball from leaving with the opposition clean. The outside bubble that was created by getting more and more players to the area no longer exists to create repeat stoppages.

Some of the examples of the poor setup and then defending stop plays that happened in the game can be seen towards the end of the game.

First, the mindset and then the decision of Perkins with his positioning against Keays.

Once again, Keays was all alone with only four pairs of players in the area. Kelly was too close to the area as an extra behind the ball. Jones was also circled as he, the winger, should’ve been playing the Kelly role, but 5-10 metres further back.

If Jones was in that role and in the right position, it would be an easy intercept mark.

There are so many small moments within a game that come together as the reason for the result, so to single out these particular moments is unfair. But these are examples of a change in mindset required to begin with, and then an execution to follow. This is not something the team lacks experience in; five wins this season have been by 12 points or less, and one loss was by 11 points. This follows last season where nine games were decided by 13 points or less.

Ball in hand.

Here’s the good news of the night. When Essendon was able to transition from the defensive half into the attacking half, they were able to turn it into entries inside 50 and, most importantly, earn rewards by putting it on the scoreboard. Eleven shots at goal for 51 points began in the back half, the third most shots generated from that zone for the year, highest since round 15 against West Coast and the second most points of their 2024 season. The 113 points for the game were the second highest score for the year.

For Essendon, performance is becoming more and more reliant on how effective and efficient the team is when they have the ball. It has skewed too far the wrong way, and enormous improvement is required to get a better balance on how they are defending. One of the problems holding back improvement is when Essendon doesn’t have the ball. This was once again a major problem this week.

Without the ball.

Since round 15 against West Coast, the Bombers are 15th for stopping opposition scores once it’s inside the defensive third, with only Richmond, West Coast, and North Melbourne below. But it goes back further than five games ago. Against Hawthorn in round one, the Hawks generated a shot 49% of the time they went inside 50. Port Adelaide 47%, Collingwood on Anzac Day 54%, even North Melbourne went at 50%. These are all teams who went above the AFL average. Let’s not forget Carlton, who went at 61%. The Crows went at 52% this week, and after quarter time, 57.1%. Even in Essendon’s dominating third quarter, they still had a shot at goal 50% of the time.

Most of this season, the opponents' entries are turning into marks and then shots at goal, with those teams averaging a rate of better than 23% marks to entries, a rate once again below AFL average for defending. Thankfully, this wasn’t the same case this week, except it was a different worry this time.

General play.

Scores can either be from set shots, via a mark or free kick, or from general play. Scores from general play are those that are scored on the run or off the ground. Of the Crows' 30 shots at goal, 18 came from general play versus set shots; as a comparison, Essendon had eight. Of course, I’m sure everyone noticed Keays' impact in this area.

The speed of the ball going in the wrong direction for Essendon has been an issue all season, and once again, poor structure behind the ball is not able to help when the game is in motion. Once again, teams that play direct, fast, and go long punish the Bombers. The Crows averaged 17.58 metres per disposal, which would have them ranked number one over the course of the season. Up until this game, they ranked 13th. This shows the obvious change in philosophy by coach Nicks this week knowing this method has been successful by the top-ranked teams in this measurement (Gold Coast, Geelong, Port Adelaide, and Melbourne) against Essendon in 2024. Once it breaks through the first wall of defence, the walls behind have far too many holes, providing easy access.

The forward press.

Right now, the first wall effectively has all defenders in one area rather than a “goalkeeper” that has all players ahead of him.

For mine, Ridley is playing one layer too high in the defensive press. While it would be advantageous for him to intercept the ball closer to goal from an opposition rebound, most of the time, that will be a “dirty ball” with more than enough players around the area to ensure it’s brought to ground rather than the opposition taking a mark as an outlet to relieve pressure. Having him one layer further back, I believe, will mean a more effective rebound with more space to work in, enabling a switch in direction after an easier intercept mark or possession. But more importantly, it would put a halt to any fast play that the opposition may want to attack with to even numbers ahead.

Wingers.

Last week, I was critical of the Essendon wingers in aiding the defensive setup when Melbourne was in transition forward, and once again this week, it was an issue. Cox, Jones, and Duursma are great examples of performance with and without the football. I cannot knock their performance in the air in the forward half and inside 50; the trio have contributed 10 goals in the last three weeks. But defensively, I would like to see an improvement in their influence. The three are keeping their width to minimise the oppositions change of direction, but outside of Duursma on the weekend, they are not able to get back and aid in the defensive structure to stop or even delay fast play.

Jones is only new to the role,

but does he and Cox have enough leg speed to get back.

A mindset change, knowing Essendon has a weakness against teams who go fast and direct, can aid this issue.

The defenders.

The defending group has never looked shakier with ball in hand this year. This is the second week in a row that Essendon has given up over 50 points from its own back half. Against Melbourne, it was 13 shots for 53 points; this week, it was 18 shots for 78 points, with four goals coming in the second quarter just from Essendon turnovers in that area. Since the bye, over 51% of the opposition's scores have come from this zone, a rate far too high for this point of the season. This shouldn’t have been a surprise this week, as the Crows had 14 shots in the round six game and were ranked top three over the previous five games.

Frustration.

This team should always strive to improve its base performance and excel in every facet of the game. Unfortunately, as the season progresses, cracks are appearing in too many areas to address quickly enough. The coaches' frustration is becoming more evident in the media, highlighting the inconsistency in week-to-week improvements in the same areas.

Defensive lapses, poor decision-making, and lack of cohesion in critical moments are recurring issues.

As the season goes on, the focus should be on establishing reliability in key areas and each game must be viewed as a chance to measure progress and make those improvements.