Round two, fight.
-Tom Papley, Round two, 2024
“They were pretty good early, their pressure is good. They’re getting after us a bit, but we’ll keep going hard at the ball.”
“They’re trying to get after us, it’s all off the ball. We’re just worried about the ball, we’ll keep being hard in the contest and get the job done”
“They really gave it to us, Brad Scott came out and said they wanted to have that Essendon edge ..."
Now comes the return game against Sydney, a perfect chance to remind them what it means to go up against Essendon from now on.
Last time.
Essendon got an early glimpse of Sydney's game style and foundations back in round two of this year. The Swans strengths in ball movement and capitalising on intercepts were evident early in the season, particularly against Essendon.
While the Bombers were superior in clearances, winning the ball inside the contest and moving it into space, it was Sydney's ability to regain possession post clearances and their efficiency in turning transitions into scores that was the difference between the two teams.
Despite losing initial territory, the Swans were able to take 70 uncontested marks outside their forward 50, with a total of 22 more uncontested marks than Essendon—a differential second only to St. Kilda’s 38 more uncontested marks in round 20. These uncontested possession chains led to 16 shots that started in Essendon’s forward half, the highest number they’ve conceded all season. If Essendon wants a favourable result, they must improve their defence against this, a method that Sydney’s opponents have recently found success in.
I could not question Essendon’s effort when the ball was in congestion and had to be won, especially early. They forced a turnover from Sydney every 5.2 disposals in the first half, just below the AFL average in 2024. However, as the game progressed, uncontested marks became a bigger issue, with Essendon only managing to intercept every 6.48 Sydney disposals after halftime—a rate that would rank last on average this season. If Essendon can return to their first-half figures or, better yet, meet their season average of 5.06 opposition possessions per intercept, the game could be up for grabs. This improvement could be beneficial in two aspects that I will discuss shortly.
What has changed for Sydney?
A lot, actually, but two main factors have driven the other issues: ball movement and clearance.
Clearance has long been a weak point for Sydney. They ranked 17th in clearance differential last year, averaging -3.6 per game, 8th in 2022 when they reached the Grand Final with a +1 average, and 12th in 2021 with -1 per game.
However, this year, up until round 15, where they had only lost one game, they averaged a differential of+3.8 clearances per game—a total of +54 in clearances. This advantage gave them initial territory, and with their reliable intercept game, allowed them to score more from their front half. Even when they lost stoppages, their ball movement recovered territory, reflected in a +98 differential in uncontested marks during their first 15 games. But in their five losses since then, that differential has swung to -113. Even if you exclude the -51 from their 112-point loss to Port Adelaide in round 21, the remaining -62 is a significant drop in their ability to move the ball under little pressure.
Now, add to that their possession chains starting further from goal due to a -38 clearance differential, and you know have a recipe for disaster. This is a recipe Essendon should be aiming to replicate. If they can execute this, they'll take away one of Sydney's two main scoring profiles.
Earn the rewards.
Up to round 15, Sydney was averaging 16.2 shots at goal per game from intercepting the opposition, with a strike rate of 23.28% of intercepts turning into a shot at goal. However, in their losses since round 15, this has dropped to 11.4 shots per game with a strike rate of 17.48%. If Essendon can match this level, Sydney will face a significant challenge. But the real question is whether Essendon can pose this challenge.
Only four teams rank below the Bombers in defending scores from turnovers this year, with just one team in the top eight of this metric sitting outside the top eight on the ladder.
Historically, two key metrics that reflect true ladder positions are the ability to prevent opposition intercepts from becoming maximum points and effectively converting your own into maximum points.
The eight teams at the top of the ladder all sit in the top 10 for scores from turnover differential, with the two outliers being Carlton and St. Kilda. Over the course of the last five games, you could safely say the five most in-form teams occupy the top five spots: Hawthorn, Port Adelaide, St. Kilda, Western Bulldogs, and Brisbane. At the bottom of this table sits Sydney.
Up to round 22, Essendon intercepts the opposition’s possessions at the 4th best rate in the competition, a significant improvement from being ranked 16th last year. Despite this progress, Essendon can only turn those intercepts into a shot at goal at a rate of 17.8%, ranking 13th. One of the well-known issues is their execution when entering the forward 50 and connecting with a teammate in a position to shoot for goal. This struggle has worsened progressively since round 18.
Despite having the 4th most forward entries during this period, trailing only Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, and Hawthorn, Essendon manages to take a mark just over 19% of the time, ranking third worst among all teams. This inefficiency contributes to their low conversion rate, with shots at goal occurring just over 40% of the time they enter the forward 50, the worst in this timeframe.
Undoubtedly, the players are feeling the frustration of this, but if they continue to create opportunities, there is hope for improvement in the future.
Ball Movement.
The Swans’ second scoring profile originates from the defensive half, aided by effective ball movement.
In their first 14 wins of the season, they led the competition in rebounding from the back half to score, averaging 38.9 points from this area. However, in their five losses since round 16, this average has dropped to 25.4 points.
Winning clearances frequently will help Essendon dictate where Sydney starts their possession chains. However, the crucial task lies in controlling Sydney’s options for the path forward.
Essendon needs to control the corridor, as Sydney relies on it for transitioning forward. In their three losses to Fremantle, Brisbane, and the Western Bulldogs, Sydney was forced into exiting “straight down the line” and kicked to contests 40% of the time, compared to 27% in their early-season wins. The Bombers must deny 45-degree kicks and uncontested marks, which open up the field for Sydney. This can be helped by standing close enough to impact matchups and positioning themselves “inside” their allocated opponent, forcing that opponent boundary side. This strategy either pushes Sydney wide or compels them to take riskier options to find teammates in the controlled corridor. This approach benefits Essendon by creating better interception opportunities in more dangerous areas for rebounds or by making it easier to close spaces forward when Sydney is pushed wide.
Gulden, Warner, and Lloyd are key players who look to go short by foot to gradually change the angle of attack. Once Gulden and Warner find the short option, they aim to generate run through the corridor via handball receives, opening up the field ahead.
Warner attends just over 60% of centre bounces, but when rotated forward, he remains part of the midfield mix, rolling up from half-forward and forcing his defender to be switched on and alert at all times as he then makes his way forward in possession chains.
Gulden has free rein to roam, allowing him to scout behind the play looking for handball receives. Essendon midfielders need to be as defensively alert as they are offensively. If the Sydney midfield brigade, including Heeney, continues to average 65-75% of their possessions uncontested, as they have all season, it will not be an aid in victory at all.
While Sydney’s default method of moving forward is the kick-mark strategy, their alternative method can be equally effective.
The change-up speed with link and run via handball receives from down back comes from Blakey, and there aren’t many better players in the competition at it than him.
He is the Swans’ preferred option for kick-outs, often seeking a short option to run past for a handball to create run. If his run starts 40 to 50 metres from Essendon’s goal on a consistent basis, it spells big trouble.
Ensuring he plays much deeper, achieved through deep forward entries versus shallow ones, is crucial.
A potential issue is finding the right matchup to nullify him. Ideally, Guelfi would take on this role, having been successful at multiple times this season with similar matchups, but his return from a hamstring injury poses a risk.
So, I’m going to throw the challenge to Perkins to come back into the team with the priority to dull the influence of Sydney’s number one defender for starting scoring chains and top 12 of all defenders in the competition. This can help in stopping Sydney’s scoring opportunities but also aid Essendon’s.
Last week, Collingwood had 29 shots at goal, with 19 of them originating from Sydney’s back half. This was due to the pressure applied on Sydney’s rebounding and key defenders, as evidenced by Collingwood applying 21 tackles inside its own forward 50 for the game.
Clearances.
As mentioned earlier, Essendon were the superior team at winning clearances in round two, particularly stoppages around the ground, with a count of 27 to 19. The issue wasn’t their effectiveness in turning these clearances into shots at goal, as over 27% resulted in this way. Instead, it was Sydney’s efficiency when they won clearances, converting at a rate of over 36%. The biggest problem for Essendon was at centre bounce. Of Sydney’s 15 centre clearances, eight ended on the scoreboard, the most Essendon has conceded this year, with over 25% of their score coming from this source. For reference, the AFL average this season is just over 13%.
If Essendon can replicate their performance from round two around the ground and improve on what happens in the opposite direction, they will pose multiple challenges for Sydney.
In last week’s game against Collingwood, a significant reason Sydney started the last quarter with a 21-point deficit was being down by eight in clearances at three-quarter time, coupled with the pressure applied by Collingwood from the territory gained through those clearances. However, in the last 20 minutes, Sydney won the clearance count 20 to nine, which played a crucial role in their ability to secure the win.
Support.
Essendon will want a contribution from all midfielders around the ground, especially since Merrett is likely to have a tagger shadowing him.
In round two, it was Rowbottom, and he may be assigned that role again, but for mine it, will be Jordan, freeing up Rowbottom to focus on his work inside the contest. Last week, Rowell was unstoppable in winning hard ball, continuing his season ranking in the top six in the competition. However, this isn’t a strength of the Swans, with Rowbottom being their highest-ranked player just inside the top 50. Caldwell, only five spots behind him, will benefit from not having to go head-to-head with someone of Rowell’s size.
His performance will be key, as it will come down to who can do the most damage outside the contest with Parish, Merrett, Shiel, and Durham going up against Gulden, Heeney, and Warner.
Third quarters.
Getting off to a strong start is crucial in any game, but it could be especially beneficial this week. Sydney has struggled in first quarters, winning only eight out of 21 with an average percentage of 73.4% and a total points differential of -137. However, they excel after the first break, winning 14 out of 21 and a percentage of 181% and a total points differential of +243.
For Essendon, the second quarter has been the weakest, with just nine wins and an average percentage of 84.6%. In more recent times, the third quarter has played a decisive role in their games.
After conceding nine goals to Adelaide in the second quarter of Round 19, Essendon had their most productive quarter of the year, scoring 51 points. However, in the following three games, they lost the third quarter by a combined total of 93 to 35.
The poor performance in the last quarter continued against St. Kilda, but there was a major shift in the two games that followed against Fremantle and Gold Coast.
In the third quarter against the Dockers, the Bombers lost contested possession by seven, and by 14 against the Suns. Remarkably, they turned this around in the final quarter, winning contested possession by seven against the Dockers and by nine against the Suns. This led to 36 inside-50 entries in the last quarter of both games in total, a +17 differential, and 18 shots at goal, a +13 differential. The potential is certainly there, but consistency within games, let alone from week to week, is an issue.
Say it again.
-Isaac Heeney, Round Two, 2024
"Not much love there.”
Regardless of the final score, Sydney must continue to recognise that facing Essendon will always have a lasting impact both during and after the game.
The intensity and challenges presented by Essendon are not just fleeting moments but leave a lasting impression on them. The groundwork laid in round two was a crucial step in building a strong foundation, and it is imperative that this momentum is maintained and built upon.
Any deviation from this standard in future encounters with Sydney should be considered unacceptable.
Go Dons !
Comments