Review

The outlook.

There were clear skies early in Essendon’s Round 1 clash against Hawthorn, but it didn’t take long for clouds to descend as the game wore on, and they only grew darker and heavier in Round 2 against Port Adelaide.

Despite being under the roof this week, there were moments where light broke through, bringing some desperately needed energy to everyone connected to the red and black army, but the forecast still looks stormy ahead, with little short-term relief on the horizon.

In this recap, I’ll outline what’s dictating the conditions, with one major area responsible for most of the instability being felt. But first, the rays of sunshine that emerged when they were most needed.

A small rose between a lot of thorns.

Everyone, myself included, has detailed Essendon’s inability to impact opposition ball movement often enough, with poor structure and positioning a major factor among several others.

This week though, particularly in the first half, there was a clear and collective effort across all lines to support one another, with the reward obvious. But the return on that work fell short of what it should have been.

Across the first two games, Essendon could only generate an intercept on average every 7.05 opposition possessions — ranked 18th in the competition.

Just 10 and 12 forward-half intercepts by half-time in those games played a major role in both Hawthorn and Port Adelaide generating 12 shots in just 40 minutes, with no team conceding more from that part of the ground.

After what should have been a detailed week reviewing defensive actions, it was encouraging to see a more functional structure behind the ball in the first half, with support arriving both in the air and at ground level, and more importantly, coming forward toward the ball carrier rather than sitting off, corralling, or worse, retreating.

After a first quarter where extra numbers were again needed behind centre due to lost territory from clearance, improved field position in the second term — largely from centre clearance — allowed that defensive press to push further up the ground.

From there, Essendon looked more like a previous version of itself, defending opposition rebound with greater intent.

By half-time, Essendon had generated 14 intercepts in the forward half, producing six shots on goal, yet the outcome fell short of what was deserved, with only two goals and four behinds the result.

Unfortunately, those same standards couldn’t be maintained in the all-important third quarter, which I’ll get to shortly, but the game still finished with Essendon registering its best intercept-to-score rate since Round 24 against Carlton last year.

It must be said though, North Melbourne aren’t a side that heavily tests defensive transition from their own back half, ranked 15th coming into this game in moving the ball end-to-end. But right now, it’s about small wins.

Another tick (in pencil, not in pen…yet)

The next promising sign, for the first time this year — albeit for too short a period, like the intercept game — was an improvement in effectiveness with ball in hand.

Ball movement has been a long-standing issue for Essendon. The shift from a slower, kick-mark method to a more chaotic, handball-driven approach since last year hasn’t consistently helped regain territory from stoppage or opposition rebound.

If there’s one aspect to take from this game, it’s the opening quarter.

Ten times Essendon were forced to start possession chains in the defensive third, with five going end-to-end, and four of their seven shots in that opening term originated from the back half, driven largely by improved ball control.

Last week, and on multiple occasions last year, I asked for a better balance between kicks and handballs, with 18 uncontested marks in the back two-thirds helping to provide that.

It forced North Melbourne to spread to defend, opening up leading lanes for players further up the ground, which in turn created more space and made the game less contested when Essendon had the football.

Both of the Kangaroos’ previous opponents this year have only been able to go end-to-end just under 17% of the time for the Power and 12% for the Eagles (yes, two lowly rated teams coming into the season, I know), but by the end of the game, the Bombers were able to transition over 31%, their 10th best rate since the start of 2023.

Again, let’s not get too carried away, because disposal execution is nowhere near the level needed to challenge anyone in this competition for long, with decision-making—especially by foot—hurting at key moments.

On top of that, forward entries need to get deeper, finding another target closer to the 70–80-metre launch zone rather than going long to shallow options, with 13 of Essendon’s 24 shots at goal coming from 40+ metres out

A word of warning.

Ok, you’re welcome to stop reading here if you like, as I now move into the damage and destruction that I wish I could blame on Mother Nature — except it was entirely self-inflicted.

There were some better signs with the football early in this contest, but the second and especially third quarters showed what happens when the system completely breaks down, with work rate the clearest culprit.

The balance between control and chaos shifted in the second quarter, and it clearly had an effect coming out of it, as Essendon looked to lose all of its energy needed to open up North Melbourne and find marking targets on its way forward.

Instead of changes of direction or even subtle adjustments to angles of attack, Essendon went long by foot to more contests, with little to no movement ahead of the ball.

The Bombers managed just 136 disposals across the two middle quarters, only 62 in the third, as ball control disintegrated, and they paid the price, with seven of the nine third-quarter scoring shots that sailed over their heads stemming directly from turnovers.

The winds of change.

Most of this week’s issues are now sounding familiar, coming not just from the same area of the ground, but from the same players — and from names that shouldn’t be causing these problems.

Essendon’s midfield brigade has fallen well short of both the standards set by their opponents this season and the benchmarks they have established in previous years.

Essendon managed just 61 possessions in the third quarter — the fewest I have ever seen from any side for a single term — largely due to stoppage losses and a lack of work rate to link up and provide support between the arcs.

The midfield of Darcy Parish, Jye Caldwell, Sam Durham, and at times Isaac Kako and Zach Merrett were comprehensively outpointed at clearances, allowing their opponents to exit stoppages six to zero, and then offered minimal contribution once the defenders were forced to win the ball back to go forward.

I’ll excuse Kako here, as he was thrust on-ball due to the ineffectiveness of his teammates against a younger, more energetic North Melbourne midfield.

In the third quarter alone, Essendon managed only 37 possessions through the middle compared with 65 for North Melbourne, with Harry Sheezel, Finn O’Sullivan, Jye Simpkin, Luke Davies-Uniake, and George Wardlaw combining for 34 possessions across the ground, compared with just 14 for Caldwell, Parish, Durham, and Merrett (Kako had three).

Once again, the most experienced members of Essendon’s list weren’t up to getting their hands dirty enough.

Two games into the season, Essendon sits 18th in the competition for winning pre-clearance contested possession — the “dirty ball” that needs to be won in order to exit congestion at restarts.

In Round 1 they lost the count by 12, and by 10 the following week, this time by six, with Tristan Xerri (10), George Wardlaw (8), Luke Davies-Uniake (5) and Finn O’Sullivan (4) too strong against Jye Caldwell (7), Sam Durham (4), Lachie Blackiston (4), and Zach Merrett (2).

Quote taken from last weeks review.

“By the end of the 2025 Home and Away season, Essendon was ranked 11th in clearance differential, finishing at -1.2 — just under the AFL average. Considering the disaster of the season after Round 11, that was actually quite remarkable.

A major factor in that was their ability to restrict opponents from turning first possession at pre-clearance contests into an exit. Only Geelong and Western Bulldogs were more effective, with Brisbane, and Gold Coast just behind — three of these ranked inside the top four for total clearances.

Unfortunately, two games into 2026, the situation is the complete opposite.”

And it got worse in this game.

Over 96% of the time that the North Melbourne midfield got first hands on the ball, they converted it into an effective clearance, compared to an AFL average of just over 75% over the past four seasons.

Now, Essendon was able to hit that average, but unless this midfield wins the ball first, they remain unable to nullify their matchups through stripping the ball, or at the very least, sticking an effective tackle to restrict them.

The same Essendon on-ball group contributed just 10 intercepts across the game (excusing Kako, who had one), while their North Melbourne counterparts more than doubled that with 22.

The problem isn’t just “dirty ball”; there’s no easy possession because the Bombers consistently fail to make themselves an option to receive it.

Sheezel, O’Sullivan, Davies-Uniake, Simpkin, and Wardlaw combined for 82 uncontested possessions against Parish, Caldwell, Merrett, and Durham’s 44 (Kako had five), and this lack of consistent effort to become a link is hurting the connection between Essendon’s defensive and forward lines.

It puts extra responsibility on the running backs to defend and then rebound through the middle, while also forcing the half-forwards — an already known weakness in the lineup and overall list — to get up high, join chains, and on top of that, get to dangerous areas in the forward half.

Another week down.

The coaches have an enormous job right now. Too many things are out of order, and it’s becoming harder to separate where the issues begin and where they carry through from upstairs to downstairs.

Confidence is fluctuating not just from player to player, but from quarter to quarter, and that uncertainty is feeding into everything we’re seeing on field.

The greatest concern sits with the experienced core of this club — the coaches, their assistants, and the on-field leaders. While the younger players continue to find their way, the guidance and standards around them need to be far clearer than what’s currently being shown.

Until that changes, the conditions won’t. And for now, the forecast remains the same.

Go Bombers!