Warning.
I always strive to strike a balance in my reviews, highlighting both the positives and the negatives. However, this week’s performance against Adelaide leaves no room for balance, it was entirely one-sided in its shortcomings.
From start to finish, the game was a glaring showcase of issues, with very little redeeming moments to offset the overwhelming disappointment. Unfortunately, this makes for a review that is harsher than I’d prefer, but the events on the field left little choice.
One ugly monster.
Throughout my end of season review and the preseason, I’ve emphasised why Essendon’s game plan needed to be tweaked, adjusted, or completely upgraded. The original structure had clear long term limitations, and this week provided the first real glimpse of players adapting to some of those preseason changes. What unfolded, however, was a “Frankenstein” blend, an awkward mix of the new system trying to take over while remnants of the old still lingered.
I’ll break down these changes, focusing on ball movement and decision making, along with the disappointing results in both areas. But more importantly, I’ll once again highlight Essendon’s biggest ongoing weakness: their game without the ball.
Parts of that monster.
“The ball is constantly in motion via quick hands but is moving forward instead of sideways and backward. It’s forcing players to be on the move to receive and have multiple possessions in chains rather than giving off and not following up.
I certainly hope this intent persists. It not only creates space around the players in motion but also encourages those ahead to move and anticipate where the ball is likely to go.
This change will challenge decision-making on who to give it to and when to kick, while also testing the forwards’ timing in starting their leads.”
—Taken from my training notes November 20th 2024.
In 2024, Essendon averaged just over 77 uncontested marks per game in the middle and defensive 50, the third most behind Brisbane and St. Kilda. This approach was partly designed to help stabilise the defence and partly a necessity, given the lack of leg speed in both the list and weekly lineup to support a high-tempo transition game with the ball in motion more often.
Over the offseason, with list changes and a focus on improving ball movement efficiency into a more open forward third, the preseason shift emphasised keeping the ball “lively” through leg speed, run, and carry. The move of Shiel into the defensive third a prime example of this tactical adjustment.
In Round One against Hawthorn, Essendon’s forward inefficiencies continued to be a concern, compounded by their reliance on uncontested marks in the back two-thirds. They finished the game with 78 uncontested marks, virtually matching their 2024 average, which allowed Hawthorn to get numbers back, making it harder for Essendon to find targets and exploit open space.
In the first 20 minutes this week, there was a clear intent to use handball to be more creative and move the ball quicker, a necessary adjustment to support an undermanned and undersized forward setup (though, as I’ll cover later, it didn’t need to be undersized). This change evident both from stoppages around the ground and when rebounding from the defensive half.
However, what stood out even more was Essendon’s inability to execute cleanly by hand. Poor decision making, both in choosing when to release the ball and selecting the right option, frequently undermined their intent, leading to costly turnovers.
A long way to go.
In 2024, handballs made up 41.8% of Essendon’s total disposals, but in the first quarter this week, that number was over 51%. While some of this reflected a deliberate shift in method, Adelaide’s relentless pressure also played a key role, consistently closing down time and space and forcing rushed decisions.
What couldn’t be ignored, however, was the fumbling, sometimes a direct result of Adelaide’s pressure, but just as often occurring without any at all.
Adelaide’s dominance in gaining initial territory from centre clearance forced Essendon to alter its handball heavy approach in the second quarter. When the Bombers did win possession, the focus shifted to quickly regaining lost ground by foot, but without a clear system to support it. After managing just 13 uncontested marks in the back two-thirds of the ground in the first quarter, they added only 15 more in the second.
Looking at 2024 data, since it’s still too early for meaningful trends from just one or two games, Essendon ranked 8th for metres gained per possession chain, averaging 51.4 metres across the season, finishing ahead of four finalists. This week, however, their average chain length dropped to 47.6 metres, a rate that would have ranked dead last in 2024, behind North Melbourne. What also would’ve been clear last in 2024 was how many possessions they averaged per possession chain, with an average of 2.76, well down from being ranked number two last year.
With uncontested marks missing and the handball game still unreliable, Essendon’s transition became a complete mess, failing to generate meaningful scoreboard pressure or, just as critically, control the tempo when needed.
Nineteen inside 50 entries in a half of football is never going to create enough scoring chances to trouble the opposition. Compounding the issue, Essendon took just two marks inside 50 in that time, meaning the forward group had to rely heavily on ground level pressure to generate scores or simply lock the ball in to prevent the ball bouncing straight out.
A small diamond in the rough.
If there was one positive to take from the game, it was that when Essendon managed a meaningful inside-50 entry, they capitalised.
Up to halftime, the Bombers converted 47.2% of their entries into shots at goal, well above their poor 2024 average of 40.3%. (You didn’t need me to tell you it was poor did you?)
That halftime rate would have ranked 2nd by season’s end last year, and it improved further in the second half to 55%. While there’s obviously a long road ahead, this efficiency could at least serve as justification for the apparent methodology shift, if they can get it right consistently.
Oh no, not again.
When things fall apart with ball in hand, most good teams look to steady themselves by leaning on the other side of the game, defensive effort and structure. Unfortunately, for Essendon, that aspect has been a long standing issue, and this game was no exception.
While I’ve outlined why Essendon’s ball movement looked different, it doesn’t change the most glaring problem: their work without the ball.
Whether through turnovers, some forced by Adelaide’s pressure, others completely unforced, or from losing clearances, Essendon was lifeless in trying to win the ball back.
Earlier, I noted that the Bombers managed just 28 uncontested marks in the back two-thirds across the first half. In contrast, Adelaide took 46, dictating the tempo while Essendon looked content to let them. While this control was evident from the first quarter, it fully took hold in the second.
Adelaide dominated uncontested possession in the second quarter, winning 25 more than Essendon and hitting an uncontested mark with just over every second kick. This level of control translated into 19 inside 50 entries for the quarter, with six marks taken in the attacking zone.
Even when Essendon managed to regain possession, they struggled to retain it, as Adelaide intercepted every three Essendon possessions, far exceeding last year’s most effective intercept side, GWS, who averaged one every 4.9 opposition possessions.
When Essendon did turn the ball over, they were too slow to locate and pressure the nearest Adelaide player, allowing the Crows to transition forward cleanly. By halftime, Adelaide had generated six scoring shots originating from their defensive half, with 31 of their 74 points coming from those chains.
Given the disastrous first half, the third quarter loomed as a crucial response.
Last season, and even in Round 1 this year, Essendon showed an ability to diagnose and adjust their game after breaks. This time, however, the problem wasn’t identifying the issues, it was their inability to do anything about them.
Essendon showed improvement in the contest after halftime, winning contested possession by one after being beaten by 13 in that area up to the main break. However, once the ball left the immediate contest, their inability to lift their work rate and spread effectively remained an issue.
Adelaide controlled stoppages, winning clearances around the ground 7-4, and consistently found an easy, unmarked outlet by foot, nullifying any potential Essendon pressure.
The Crows took 31 uncontested marks for the quarter, averaging an incredible 1.34 uncontested marks per chain, well above the 2024 AFL average of 0.72. Of those marks, 24 were involved in transitions forward, following on from the 27 they took in the second quarter.
The disparity in ball movement was stark. Adelaide found a marking target every 1.76 kicks, while Essendon could only manage one every 5.85. The Bombers took just seven marks for the entire quarter, yes, only seven.
Enough of that.
Last week against Hawthorn, Essendon dominated the contest and clearance battles, winning clearances by 19, pre-clearance contested possessions by 15, contested possessions by 23, and ground balls by 14. It was inevitable that Adelaide’s coaching staff took note, and their strategy seemed clear, take the game out of the contest and test Essendon’s ability to defend the open space of the MCG.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the game was that Essendon was forced to endure exactly what they’ve imposed on others in recent years, yet knowing the recipe didn’t help them counter it.
Short Sharp Notes
• The Jones experiment on the wing continues to fail. If ever there was a game to return him to the forward line, this was it. Four disposals in three quarters as a winger who’s part of the midfield, is nowhere near enough damage to the opposition. I’ve said it multiple times and will continue to say it: it’s not his fault—it’s not his position.
• The Bombers’ -41 uncontested possession differential is their third-worst since the start of 2023, trailing only -57 against St Kilda (Round 20, 2024) and -63 against Collingwood on Anzac Day in 2023. (Yes, it was even worse than the loss to GWS in Round 23, 2023.)
• Adelaide converted 34.7% of their intercepts into a shot at goal—the second-worst rate Essendon has conceded under Brad Scott. (The worst? 38.2% against GWS in Round 23, 2023.)
• Adelaide generated 80 points from possession chains starting in their forward half, the most against Essendon since Round 21, 2022, against GWS.
• Eight Essendon players failed to apply more than one tackle for the game. (Excluding substitute Menzie.)
Finally.
After just two games, a clear blueprint on how to beat Essendon has emerged, and the other 16 teams have taken note. This isn’t the kind of vulnerability you want to expose so early in the season, but the upside is that there’s still plenty of time to correct it. The challenge now is whether Essendon can acknowledge the issues and put meaningful adjustments in place before more damage is done.
At this point, the priority must be getting their own game back in order before worrying about anything else. The short five day turnaround means there’s no time to dwell on what went wrong, only time to reset, refocus, and respond.
Comentários