Five days is a long time in football.
No matter what the final score would be after 80 minutes, this game was about more than just the result for Essendon.
After the disappointment and scrutiny that followed last week’s poor performance against Adelaide, the Bombers needed to send a clear message, not only to their own supporters, but to the broader football community, that what they produced last week wasn’t a true reflection of who they are. They needed to show that effort, intent, and method still underpin their football, and that the Adelaide game was a one-off, not a sign of things to come.
As always.
A quick reminder, my focus isn’t purely on the result, whether it’s a win, loss, or draw. I care more about the method, the intent, and the work undertaken. That’s why I break these games down quarter by quarter, to highlight how teams respond to the information they gather at each break and what adjustments they make along the way.
In recent times, Essendon has shown a strong ability to shift their attitude, application, and structure mid-game when things aren’t going to plan. Unfortunately lweek against Adelaide, they weren’t able to do that. Fortunately, this week they returned to their previous form, showing a truer reflection of their capabilities, although it took longer than hoped.
A new look.
The opening stages of this game were always going to be intriguing. Across Port Adelaide’s first two matches of the season, there were clear signs of a shift in their ball movement strategy, moving away from their previous method of territory gain by foot, to a more aggressive handball, run-and-carry style.
In 2024, Port Adelaide’s handball rate sat at just 36.5% of total disposals, the second lowest in the league, behind only Brisbane’s 35.6%, and well below the AFL average of 40.1%. While the two teams shared similarities in this area, there was a clear contrast in styles: the Lions averaged over 110 marks per game, whereas Port averaged just under 95, focusing on direct and fast ball movement at every opportunity.
Through the opening eight quarters of 2025, Essendon has also looked to evolve its method. While adopting a similar emphasis on moving the ball by hand, the shift has been more drastic.
Last year, Port Adelaide’s contested possession rate sat at 38.9% (the sixth highest in the league). Essendon, by comparison, was the competition’s most uncontested team, with only 34.8% of their possessions contested. So, the early question in this contest was simple: who would control the contest, and how would each side capitalise once they won it?
The early ascendancy.
Much like their meeting last year, Port flexed its muscle early around the ball. In the first quarter, they dominated centre clearances four to one, though Essendon responded strongly at stoppages around the ground, trailing by just one (6-7). And when the ball hit the deck, the Bombers were well and truly up for the fight, leading contested possessions by five at quarter time and laying 18 tackles to Port’s 12.
Most contest metrics were up, groundball, hardball,loose ball and post-clearance contested possessions. The problem was when Port Adelaide got their hands on the ball.
It was a familiar story from last week. Against Adelaide, once the Crows gained possession, whether via clearance or intercept, Essendon’s defensive structure was unable to prevent the Crows from gaining territory through uncontested marks.
Adelaide took 23 uncontested marks in the first quarter alone, nine more than Essendon. This week, Port Adelaide repeated the dose, again taking 23 uncontested marks in the opening term, eight more than the Bombers.
By the end of the quarter, the Power had taken five marks inside 50, aided by gaining 149 more metres in territory, despite having eight fewer possessions during that time.
The challenge heading into the second quarter was clear: could Essendon drag the game back into contest and rein in Port Adelaide’s uncontested ball movement? In short — no.
Inside versus outside.
Once again, when the game was in dispute, the Bombers held an edge. They won contested possessions by five in the second quarter (just as they had in the first) and took the stoppage count around the ground by two. But what was a concern in the opening term became a full-blown issue in the next.
The Bombers were -29 in uncontested possessions for the quarter. That control allowed Port to pile on 38 uncontested marks in the back two-thirds of the ground, at a staggering rate of 2.35 uncontested marks per possession chain (for comparison, they averaged 0.85 in the first quarter and Adelaide went at 0.82 last week). The result? Port dictated the tempo, strangling Essendon’s ability to move the ball.
It forced Essendon to defend for long periods, and when they did win the ball back, it was too far from goal to punish off intercept, and the priority became relieving pressure through 'long bombs' to contests.
Credit where it’s due.
The Essendon back six have been under siege both on-field and in external reviews recently. While I’ve been critical of individual performances in this area, many of last week’s defensive issues stemmed from what was happening further up the ground. To their credit, the defensive unit responded in the second quarter, and they had to, after a shaky start.
In the first quarter, Port turned 67% of their inside 50 entries into a shot at goal, an unsustainable number against. But in the second quarter, the contrast was stark. Despite averaging almost 90 metres gained per possession chain (up from just under 58 in the first quarter), Port only generated 11 inside 50 entries from 17 possession chains. And of those, just 18.1% resulted in a shot at goal.
The Bombers’ defensive unit stood up under pressure. McKay and Reid each had two intercept possessions for the quarter, with Redman and Ridley adding one apiece. Even though Essendon could only generate two shots at goal from their 14 intercepts, they successfully defended 12 turnovers, allowing just one shot at goal the other way.
Small wins.
If there was a clear positive outside of winning the contested ball by 10 at halftime, it was Essendon’s ability to capitalise once they entered the forward 50.
Across the first half, Essendon generated a shot at goal from 50% of their inside 50 entries, a note worthy improvement from their 2024 average of just under 44%, and a strong follow-up to last week’s figure of 52%. Their efficiency from clearance was also solid, converting over 46% of clearance wins into scoring opportunities, a clear step forward compared to their struggles to score from intercept.
After the main break.
Much like the opening two games of 2025, I was curious to see whether Essendon could not only disrupt their opposition’s ball movement but also shift their own.
At half-time, Port Adelaide had the upper hand in controlling the “easy ball,” with a +33 differential in uncontested possessions and +17 in uncontested marks. Essendon, on the other hand, were doing it the hard way, ahead by 10 in contested possessions and 12 in tackles across the midfield and defensive 50.
But what followed in the third quarter was everything yet nothing at all.
Ping pong.
In 2024, Essendon intercepted the opposition on average every 5.06 possessions, ranking 6th among all teams. By halftime in this game, however, their intercept rate was every 7.55 possessions. Fortunately, adjustments made in the third quarter saw this figure improve to 5.38, much closer to last year’s standard.
The problem was, once again, they didn’t get the maximum value they deserved for their work. Because of that, this quarter looked completely different from the other two, in fact, completely different from any other quarter of any game this year so far.
Over 38% of Essendon’s intercepts were converted into a shot at goal, a rate 16% better than Sydney’s average in 2024 (the best-ranked team) and well above Essendon’s average of just under 18%. However, the return of only 17 points didn’t do justice to their efforts.
This inefficiency played a big part in the game being in constant motion, with the ball going back and forth, evoking memories of circle work at under-12s training on a Tuesday night rather than resembling an AFL game.
If you wanted a snapshot of what high-transition football looks like, this 20-minute block was it.
Early in the season, games tend to have more space and quicker ball movement, a product of better conditions and fitness levels.
To date, the average combined metres gained per quarter sits at 2,989 metres. In this third quarter, however, the Bombers and Power combined for 3,389 metres, well above the first-half average of 3,034 metres. Despite the frenetic, back-and-forth style, the two sides combined for just four goals from 32 inside 50s.
The key difference for Essendon was that, unlike the first half, they were finally able to impact the outside game while still holding sway at the contest.
After such an exhausting third quarter, questions lingered about how much fuel Essendon had left in the tank. Fortunately, the Bombers answered emphatically in the final term.
They’re broken.
Essendon’s contested dominance eventually wore down Port Adelaide, allowing the Bombers to assert control on the outside as well. By the end of the quarter, they had +40 possessions, with 26 of those uncontested, effectively shutting down Port’s ability to control tempo. Now the Power could only force a turnover every 9.54 possessions.
The uncontested marks that had fuelled Port Adelaide’s transition game vanished, as did their ability to attack, managing only eight inside 50s compared to Essendon’s 16.
Finally, the Bombers’ hard work translated to the scoreboard. In the final term, they restricted Port to just 45 uncontested possessions and generated three goals and one behind from 12 intercepts.
Short sharp notes.
Gresham’s second-highest rated game for Essendon (highest: Round 1, 2024). The 11 score involvements he recorded here were the second most of his career. He finished the game with seven tackles; only twice has he had more.
Duursma’s 29 possessions are a career high across 91 games. Of these, 11 were contested, the second most he’s recorded. Ten of his 29 possessions were part of scoring chains, four of which he started, equalling his career best.
Essendon’s +29 contested possession differential is their ninth largest in 12 years. Since 2017, they’ve only had a +29 differential or more once, Round 21, 2023, against West Coast.
In two of their first three games in 2025, Essendon recorded 16 and 17 shots at goal from turnovers. By comparison, they managed this feat only three times in 2024 and five times in 2023.
Final thoughts.
I’ve long called for a more contested brand of football from Essendon, for several reasons, but mainly because it’s a finals brand, and it was time to see whether this list is genuinely capable of playing that way.
After three games, there are signs that a shift is starting to happen. And if it continues, there are some big tests coming later in the year to see how sustainable it is.
Right now, though, the balance has tipped too far in that direction. Essendon’s game has swung heavily towards contest and away from a more controlled, uncontested style with ball in hand, the type of balance needed at times to control tempo, reset structures ahead of the ball, and just as importantly, behind it.
That’s not a criticism, but a reality of a team trying to embed a new identity. The challenge now isn’t just being able to play a contested brand, it’s knowing when to lean into it and when to step back, change gears, and control the game through possession.
Building that balance will take time. It will come through the team learning together, but also through identifying and trusting the players who can make the right decisions in those moments.
It’s a small sample size, but what’s clear is that learning to win the hard way, through contest and pressure should build genuine confidence. Knowing there’s a mode they can access when required is something this group hasn’t always had, and now they do.
Comments