A mirror image.
I'll start this review just as the game unfolded this week, which fittingly reflects how Essendon's entire season has played out. There was a promising start, full of potential, but tinged with some early concerns. Despite the initial promise, that potential never fully materialised, and as the game – and the season – has gone on, the concerns gradually overshadowed everything else.
The first quarter.
The potential to win clearances and, if not, strip the ball from Sydney’s hands.
The potential to win contests and post-clearance contests both ahead and behind the ball on a regular basis.
The potential to set up dangerous attacking positions inside the forward 50.
The potential to turn those into marks and shots at goal, and the potential to apply pressure inside the area so Sydney will have an extremely difficult time exiting.
Unfortunately that potential couldn’t become a reality.
Essendon had +27 disposals, with 22 of those being handball receives, which allowed them to get outside the congestion and open up the area around themselves. The four versus four setup at the centre bounce was effective, with a five to one advantage playing a significant role in the 20 to 10 inside 50 count. Contest wins in the air and at ground level showcased the players’ capabilities, along with a structure outside the congestion of stoppage and the forward press to continually win the ball back in the front half. Seven tackles in the front third demonstrated how desperate they were to prevent Sydney from exiting too easily.
This season, Sydney disposes of the ball by foot just over 61% of the time, the 5th highest rate of all teams. The pressure applied by Essendon meant that over 70% of the time, Sydney was forced to kick in order to “get the ball out of the area” as quickly as possible.
Essendon recorded 19 intercepts for the quarter, with nine of them in the front half, providing a foundation to build upon against a team that excels in scoring from transition. Despite this strong beginning, the 20 minutes deserved more.
From those 19 intercepts, Essendon could only score two goals, with the other goal for the quarter coming from a stoppage. They had 31 possession chains during that time, which would be the clear number one in the competition if the average continued. Over 64% of these chains entered the front third, which should have translated to more points on the scoreboard. However, they managed only two marks inside the area from 20 opportunities and had just four shots at goal in total. When Essendon applied direct pressure to influence Sydney’s disposal, they demonstrated to everyone, and most importantly to themselves, what finals football can look like.
The second quarter.
This quarter played out very similarly to the first, with time in forward half once again in Essendon’s favour, but once again, the result was unsatisfactory. Despite having 17 entries inside 50, most lacked the depth needed to prevent the ball from bouncing straight back out. They managed six shots at goal for the quarter, but only two were from marks, highlighting a recurring connection failure between the middle and front third.
Unlike the first quarter, it wasn’t a contest domination, and with Sydney now able to play more of the game in the midfield, it opened up the corridor for more possibilities, which in turn created more space in their forward 50 to manoeuvre in and out of.
The third quarter, again.
Quote taken from preview
“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.
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.”
This week again, the third quarter proved decisive. Essendon started strong, winning 10 clearances in the first quarter and nine in the second. However, their primary source for territory disappeared in the third quarter, managing only four clearances and just one from the centre square, compared to Sydney’s seven from this important area. The hurt felt most with the Swans scoring two goals directly from centre bounce. This put Essendon on the back foot, and constantly stepping backwards.
Over the last three games, Essendon has lost clearances by 11 in this crucial 20-minute period, while winning them by 11 in the previous 40 minutes of each game. This failure to gain territory has significantly affected two areas where the Bombers have struggled all season: defending opposition entries and ball movement forward.
Sydney capitalised on this, generating 20 inside 50 entries in the third quarter, with nine shots at goal coming from those entries.
In the last three games, opponents have gone inside 50 a total of 49 times in third quarters, a +19 differential.
In contrast, during the first halves of these games, the same teams only went inside their forward 50 a total of 65 times over six quarters. Fremantle, Gold Coast, and Sydney have managed to generate 24 shots from these entries, while Essendon has only managed 11.
The final quarter.
Once the margin opened up in the previous quarter, the game followed suit. Essendon tried to create run and move the ball via handball, while Sydney showcased their skills by foot. With the corridor now completely open to aid this, it was a slow demise, much like Essendon’s 2024 season.
Kick, mark.
Now, let’s address the ball movement issues.
Starting possession chains in your defensive 50 is never ideal, but when there’s no choice due to what’s happening further up the ground, you have to adapt. I’ve discussed the method of ball movement extensively, and you’ve likely seen it enough to understand how it works. However, this strategy cannot function without a crucial element: work rate.
In the first half against Fremantle, Gold Coast, and Sydney, Essendon averaged 22.5 uncontested marks in the middle and defensive third of the ground to aid ball movement and possession chains. However, in the third quarter of these games, that average dropped to 14.6.
This decline is alarming, considering how important it is to regain lost territory. If the preferred method of transition is via kick mark, a significant increase in work rate is required. Firstly, to create an option for progression forward, and secondly, for the teammate to honour that player’s hard work by becoming an option.
Too often in these quarters, Essendon found themselves forced to go long and high to contests. Against Sydney, Essendon began 15 possession chains in the defensive half, with only two going inside 50 in that crucial third quarter.
The drop in work rate to find an outlet to build the field played into Sydney’s hands, allowing them to intercept the ball closer to their goal, with Essendon’s shallow forward entries making it easier for Sydney to rebound.
So it’s one thing to not be able to find uncontested marks on the way forward, but it’s another to give those up to the opposition.
In that same quarter, Sydney managed to take 25 uncontested marks from their 58 kicks. This helped them accumulate 91 possessions in the middle and front third of the ground, while Essendon could only manage 48 in the same zone.
This resulted in a massive differential in metres gained between the two teams, with Sydney gaining 396 metres more in this period, while for the other three quarters of the game, Essendon had a differential of 23 metres.
The disappointment lies in the contrast between the first 40 minutes and the rest of the game, just as it had in the previous two matches.
Quote taken from preview.
“The potential is certainly there, but consistency within games, let alone from week to week, is an issue.”
Contest versus uncontested.
When the game was tight and contested early, Essendon held a clear advantage, leading contested possessions by 20 at quarter time and maintaining an 18-possession lead by half time. This dominance highlighted their ability to thrive in a congested, high-pressure area.
This season, Essendon averaged just over 35% of their possessions as contested, compared to uncontested. In the first quarter, that rate increased to over 45%, which was more than 12% higher than Sydney’s, underscoring Essendon’s capacity to scrap when conditions require physicality and contest.
But as the game wore on and the field opened up, Essendon’s limitations became glaringly apparent. If there’s one thing this game—and the season as a whole—has made clear, it’s that Essendon’s uncontested game isn’t up to par with the league’s best teams.
When it comes to moving the ball cleanly by foot or defending against teams that thrive in opening up the ground, Essendon falls short.
Their execution by foot, both in terms of accuracy and decision-making, isn’t consistent enough for them to rely on a primarily uncontested style. Against stronger teams, this deficiency is exposed, with missed targets and poor choices leading to turnovers and allowing the opposition to control the tempo.
Despite these shortcomings, the silver lining is that Essendon’s contested game has proven more than capable of holding its own against quality opposition. When forced to win the ball in tight and fight for possession, they have showed they can match or even exceed what the better teams are capable of, just not for a long enough period of time.
More contests.
A deeper look at Essendon’s performances over the last few rounds reveals this contrast even more.
If we look at Essendon’s best quarters since the poor loss to St. Kilda—the last quarter against Fremantle and Gold Coast, and the first half against Sydney—the ball needed to be won in a contest 38.44% of the time, a rate that would rank 7th this season. Conversely, in the other eight quarters, the contested rate drops to 34.59%, which would rank 17th this season.
In these better moments, the game was played on Essendon’s terms, with more stoppages and less transition. In these quarters, there were 12 stoppages outside of centre bounce on average, compared to just 9.65 in the other eight quarters where their contested rate dropped.
This contrast highlights a key issue: when Essendon is pushed into a more uncontested and open style game, they struggle. Their ball movement, which depends heavily on finding uncontested marks to advance up the field, often breaks down when work rate drops and players fail to present as viable options.
This problem was particularly evident in the third quarter against Sydney, as they capitalised on Essendon’s poor ball use and inability to secure uncontested marks, recording 25 uncontested marks from 58 kicks. With the Swans dominating possession with 91 disposals in the middle and forward thirds, compared to Essendon’s 48, effectively controlling the game.
So the challenge lies in finding players who can not only thrive in this style but also maintain their performance as the game evolves and opens up. Additionally, improving their uncontested game—particularly in terms of skill execution and decision-making—will be crucial.
If Essendon can strike a balance between these two styles while leaning into their strengths, they can lay a stronger foundation for future success.
Conclusion.
There’s no denying the disappointment felt by players, coaches, and supporters alike in yet another season where potential couldn’t be realised. But as Essendon's season draws to a close, some long-standing questions have finally been answered. Acknowledging and accepting these realities is crucial for the team to move forward.
Comments