Bombers vs Giants Review

Back after being managed.

After a couple of weeks away, probably should’ve been a soft tissue injury to fit the theme, I’m back with the regular previews and, in this case, a review of this week’s performance against GWS.

As has been the case since I started this project, the focus remains on process: what’s working, what needs work, what looks sustainable, and what doesn’t. But I’ll admit, that’s becoming harder to pin down with each passing week.

The constant change to the lineup has stripped away most of the continuity, and with it, the connection between lines and the ability for individuals to build cohesion within them.

This has meant that game by game, quarter by quarter, things have been affected, but I’ll try my best to decipher what’s most meaningful for both the now and the future in terms of setup and system, as well as the tough individual calls that are starting to come into focus.

Now it’s the midfields turn.

Three inconsistent performances leading into this game, combined with constant changes to the midfield mix, certainly had me wondering what to expect this week.

In the round 15 loss to Fremantle, the midfield brigade lowered its colours to a team that has dominated stoppages over the last two years. winning the ball pre-clearance and turning that hard work into effective exits and scoreboard impact. Fremantle outscored the Bombers by 41 points from stoppages alone, which was the exact margin of the final result.

After that disappointing performance, Essendon’s midfield was tasked with facing the number one ranked team for winning hardball in Gold Coast. This time, the combination of Setterfield, Caldwell, and Durham held up, limiting Rowell, the competition’s top-ranked pre-clearance contested groundball player, to just six, well below his season average of just over 10. That translated onto the scoreboard too, with Essendon outscoring the Suns by two points from stoppages up until three-quarter time.

But the inconsistency returned last week against a Richmond side ranked 11th in hardball differential and 18th for pre-clearance contested groundballs. Despite holding the edge in both categories on paper, the Bombers lost each by seven and conceded three more goals from these.

With so many changes to the midfield group over the last few weeks, Durham missing the Fremantle trip, Parish once again injured after that game, Caldwell sidelined after the Gold Coast match, and now Setterfield ruled out for the rest of the season, it was hard to know how this phase would hold up against a Giants side ranked 14th for total clearances, 15th for first possession at stoppages, and averaging just over eight shots at goal from clearance wins, the third fewest in the competition.

Just like the loss to Fremantle four games ago, stoppages were again the defining factor, and it all played out early.

Surprised? Probably not.

Up until Round 15, Essendon had been the fourth-best team at preventing opposition clearances from ending in a shot at goal, with only Carlton, Adelaide and Collingwood defending that phase more efficiently. But by half-time, GWS had completely dismantled that part of Essendon’s game, consistently winning first possession and converting it into maximum value.

Nearly 26% of the Giants’ clearances resulted in a shot at goal across the opening two quarters — a strike rate bettered only by the Bulldogs and Cats this season. Their +14 clearance advantage, built from both centre bounce and around-the-ground stoppages, gave them territory. And once inside forward 50, they went to work: seven of their 11 first-half shots came directly from stoppage, including four goals from inside-50 alone.

It IS easy being Green.

Tom Green was simply unstoppable.

While Durham, Perkins and Shiel each spent time trying to both win their own ball and limit the influence of the competition’s leading clearance player, they couldn’t get it done on either front. The trio combined for just six clearances in the first half, while Green racked up nine on his own, three of which led directly to goals.

The influence of ruckman Briggs can’t be understated here either. He dominated the hitouts with 19 from 28 contests in the first half and monstered Visentini when head-to-head, helping generate five more clearances and four shots at goal when the second-gamer was his direct opponent.

To Essendon’s credit, the midfield responded after the break, at least in one part anyway.

Despite Green adding another seven clearances to finish with 16, a career high and the equal-most by any player in a game this season, the Bombers won the second-half count by four. Much of that improvement came from an unlikely source in Gresham, who won seven clearances after half-time, the most he’s ever recorded in a single half across his 172-game career, and matching his career-best total of nine set in both 2019 and 2021.

But while the numbers improved, the impact didn’t follow.

Proof is in the pudding.

Essendon’s second-half clearances didn’t translate into scoring chains, while the Giants became even more ruthless. From 14 stoppage wins after half-time, they generated another six shots at goal.

By the final siren, the 48-point margin reflected the stoppage damage, with GWS posting a +50 point differential from that source alone.

Well, there’s no other option now.

Poor starting positions off the back of initial territory lost automatically means that winning the ball back becomes the number one priority, and this was Essendon’s best overall performance behind the ball.

In the first half especially, they had no choice but to win it back due to such limited opportunities to start chains from stoppages, and they were up to the task.

The AFL average this season is an intercept every 5.57 opposition disposals, with Essendon’s rate slightly worse at 5.77 across the first 16 games. But until half time, the Bombers were able to win the ball back off GWS every 3.81 disposals, easily their best rate in any half of football this year.

GWS came into the game averaging more than 40 points from possession chains starting in their defensive half, the second-most in the competition. Essendon, by contrast, had allowed the fourth-most points from their own front half this season. But until half time, GWS could only generate two shots at goal from this zone, the fewest Essendon has conceded in any half this year, with 15 front-half intercepts playing a major part.

But perhaps the most important element was how Essendon were able to win the ball back in the air, which instantly provides more flexibility in how to move it forward.

The 22 intercept marks won in this game were the most for the Bombers this year, ahead of 19 against Sydney (Round 9), and 18 against both Collingwood (Round 7) and Richmond (Round 18). In fact, under Brad Scott, they’ve only had one game with more, 23 against Gold Coast in Round 22 last year.

Marks versus possessions.

In my review of the Fremantle game

Dockers vs Bombers review

I wrote at length about the flow-on effects of intercept marks, and how they differ from intercept possessions in their ability to set up or reset the field. This game was a great example of that in action.

By controlling the air, it afforded teammates time to once again get ahead of the ball after being forced to drop back behind it to help defend lost territory, allowing the field to be “reset” structurally. This meant better representation forward of the ball, and the option to look longer by foot to even numbers in the front half.

This was a major factor in Essendon’s most efficient game at moving the ball from the back half onto the scoreboard since Round 11 against Richmond — before the defensive line really started to fall apart due to injuries.

While the structure behind the ball held up in being able to win it back, and the effectiveness in transitioning forward was better than much of the season, particularly in the second half of it, the ultimate rewards were still missing on the scoreboard.

Where is the prize?

Across the last two games, Essendon has generated 27 shots at goal from intercept chains, 15 against the Giants (just the sixth time all year GWS has conceded that many in a game), and 12 the week before against Richmond. But the return of only six goals and 21 behinds across those two weeks is genuinely disappointing.

Before this round, only five teams had managed 15 or more intercept shots in a game against the Giants this year, and outside of one match against Sydney, all have come from sides currently inside the top eight. From those five games, GWS conceded an average of 50.4 points from intercepts. Essendon managed just 40.

The week prior, the Bombers could only punish Richmond for 17 points from 12 intercept shots (1.11), while in the same round Fremantle scored 51 points from 11 shots, and Sydney 42 from 12.

Inaccuracy from set shots remained the main culprit, especially at key moments across the first three quarters. Clarke, Ridley, Wright, May, and Perkins all missed set shots following GWS turnovers. According to Champion Data’s expected accuracy model, each of those five came from within a 30-degree angle, and all but one were inside 40 metres, all carrying an expected conversion rate above 50%.

The worry is what’s ahead.

Plenty to take out of the performance all up, with the main positives coming from the setup and structure (with limitations in selection) behind the ball, though I’m loath to praise Ridley’s impact back there and in the air too much, given the luck it might bring in the games to come.

The intercept game, at both ends of the ground, should at least provide some confidence to a side that’s endured constant change. But the contest at the feet of the rucks remains the area of concern. While it was more surprising earlier in the year, the recent trend has made it feel far less so.

Winning the ball first is still where it all begins, and right now, that part of the game isn’t holding up. It needs to lift, significantly, with three of the final six games coming against the current top three sides for points from stoppage. And it all starts this week, against the number one ranked side in that metric: the Western Bulldogs.