Bombers vs Swans Review

Heart Rate Hill.

Essendon fans have grown accustomed to strapping themselves in for a weekly rollercoaster ride, one with few expectations and no guarantees, only the certainty that something unpredictable lies ahead.

At least early on, this one felt different.

A smooth takeoff. A calm ride. A scenic view that let everyone smile for a moment as we climbed to the peak. After a little pause at the top, a few bumps, some unexpected twists, the odd jolt, but nothing too wild. Still, this is an Essendon rollercoaster. One that’s required seatbelts, harnesses, and maybe even your arms wrapped around a mate for support. And sure enough, slowly but surely, the track started to disappear beneath us.

In the end, the ride operators held their nerve when it mattered, took control where they could, and managed to bring it to a steady finish, for all of us still strapped in for another week on Heart Rate Hill.

A different look.

When Essendon announced its team on Thursday, I noted on X (Twitter) that this was the closest to my ideal lineup since Scott took over three seasons ago. That assessment wasn’t based solely on individual names, but rather on the structural balance across all three areas of the ground.

Hayes, while not as mobile as Ridley, stepped in as the third tall defender to support Reid and McKay aerially when the high ball came in, made possible by an extra number set up behind the ball, thanks to the selection adjustments further up the ground.

For much of the previous two seasons, the forward mix has been unbalanced in the ratio of talls to smalls. Midway through last year, the coaches attempted to correct this by shifting Jones further up the ground into a role that didn’t suit his strengths. That, in turn, disrupted midfield balance, reducing run, carry, and leg speed in both attacking and defensive phases.

Jones’ unfortunate injury opened the door for more natural speed, overlap, and two-way running, enhancing both aspects of the game. As a result, Essendon could adopt a style I’ve preferred, saturating the midfield and supporting the contest with numbers. The first half demonstrated almost perfectly what these selection shifts allowed.

The first quarter.

The battle for effective clearances was always going to be the starting point, and once players were no longer bound to their starting positions, it became clear that whoever won first possession inside the contest was going to face a real battle getting the ball from inside to outside.

Extra support pushed up from half-forward for both Essendon and Sydney, and with big numbers in tight around the contest, the extra, or even extras, behind the ball became easier to create.

If the ball was going to escape the area, it wasn’t going to be clean. That played into Essendon’s hands, as limiting Sydney’s transition between the arcs would’ve been high on the planning board this week.

Stopping that brought its own flow-on effects, especially if they backed it up with the same mindset they started with last week: quick ball movement through handball receives once the ground opened up via uncontested marks. That, in turn, fed the most important source of scoring in football: turnovers. But before that, they needed to control the tempo.

While not everything has clicked for Sydney this season, one area they’ve consistently impacted is disrupting opposition ball movement through intercepts. Coming into this game, they ranked sixth in the league for opposition intercept rate, and five of the top six teams in that stat sat inside the top eight, with four in the top six. But Essendon’s default setting is “control over chaos,” and when the switch flicked to control, Sydney couldn’t turn it back.

Essendon had an enormous 112 disposals for the quarter, their second-highest total in any quarter this year (only behind the Round 5 clash against Melbourne). Sydney could only intercept once every 6.22 possessions, a rate that would rank second-worst across the league, which meant they were denied the chance to feed their preferred turnover-based scoring game, a game that had seen them rank number one over the last five weeks, averaging 14.4 shots at goal from turnover for a return of over 56 points.

Shutting down Sydney’s ability to punish off the rebound was one side of the coin; the other was Essendon making the most of their own chances when they came.

After 32 quarters of football, Essendon ranked 10th for opposition possessions per intercept, just below AFL average. Only two teams ranked worse while sitting inside the top eight. If there was ever a time to hit a season-best in that metric, this was it.

The Bombers won the ball back every 3.72 Sydney possessions, their best rate of any quarter this season, and when they did, whether on the ground, through McGrath, Hayes, Roberts or Prior, or in the air through McKay, Reid, or Duursma, they were the more effective side in turning those wins into scores.

Sydney could only generate two scores from 18 intercepts. Essendon, on the other hand, converted all four of their shots at goal from intercepts, three of which started behind centre. That was helped by a balance of: 34 uncontested marks in the back two-thirds combined with forward-moving uncontested handballs, which allowed them to challenge Sydney’s setup behind the ball and force decision-making under pressure.

When the Swans did win the ball back, they looked to do it in their familiar fashion, using the corridor with subtle directional shifts to “spark” runners from behind. But with the numbers Essendon had in the area, their final kick into forward 50 came from too far out to threaten. Despite 16 inside 50s for the quarter, Sydney managed just two shots, well down on their season average of generating a shot on over 48% of entries.

The second quarter.

The Swans were given a lesson in control during the first quarter, and if they were expected to learn from it, there wasn’t much evidence of that early in the second.

Back to where the game resets at stoppages: after losing the count by two in the first (6–8), Essendon flipped the script, winning clearances by seven (13–6). And when they did, Sydney’s challenge again became winning it back.

If 112 possessions in 20 minutes felt like a lot, 40 more than Sydney managed, Essendon went even further in the second term, racking up 134 disposals, 48 more than their opponents.

When Essendon had the ball, they dictated terms again, and for the most part, Sydney were just spectators like the rest of us.

Of the 134 possessions, 99 were uncontested, 47 more than the Swans, and 86 came between the arcs, the exact number of total possessions Sydney had across the entire ground for the quarter. It was a key factor in Essendon winning the territory battle.

When the Bombers got it into their front half, they made it count. Of the three goals from intercepts in the quarter, two came from that zone, helped significantly by five tackles inside forward 50.

When Sydney finally did intercept, at a rate of 7.44 possessions per intercept, even worse than the first quarter, or won a clearance, their chains went nowhere. They averaged just 39 metres gained per chain, managing only 975 metres for the quarter, a massive 468 less than Essendon.

The third quarter.

Half the rollercoaster ride was done, and there was no way Essendon fans were going to enjoy the same smooth sailing after halftime. Everyone knew what was going to shift first: the uncontested game.

There was no chance Sydney would allow their opponents to keep averaging 92 uncontested possessions and 36 uncontested marks per half. After what they’d seen, and experienced themselves in last year’s Grand Final, change was inevitable. The game was going to close down, both literally and figuratively.

The contested battle through the midfield was always going to be where Sydney asked the first question, and it’s an area that’s caused issues for the Bombers in recent weeks.

After lowering their colours to North Melbourne and Collingwood, the midfield again struggled to match Sydney’s intensity, particularly at ground level, losing the contested count by 10.

That shifted the pressure onto Essendon’s defenders to win the crucial contests post-clearance, and while they stood up, as they’ve done in recent weeks, the real challenge came in trying to move the ball back the other way.

In the second quarter, Essendon transitioned from defensive 50 to inside 50 at a rate of 29%, nearly 10% above their season average, and even managed just their second goal launched directly from a kickout. But in the third, that number dropped to just 14% as Sydney dialled up their front-half intercept pressure.

All four of their scoring shots from intercepts came from that zone, converting 25% of their total intercepts into shots, a far cry from the first half, where Essendon had held them to just over 11%.

Essendon technically won the clearance count for the quarter (9–8), but where those clearances came from, and what they became, was the difference.

Before halftime, the Bombers had kept shots from clearances to just over 14%, well below the AFL average and 8% better than Sydney’s season average, but in this 20-minute stretch, the Swans turned 62% of their clearance wins into shots at goal. The only reprieve? Every one of them missed.

But Essendon weren’t without chances of their own. When they did win or regain territory, their intercept game gave them looks, five of their six shots at goal for the quarter came from intercepts, but the return of one goal and four behinds didn’t do the work justice.

The last quarter.

The scoreboard showed a 30-point lead heading into the last quarter, but the feel of the game told a different story.

Stoppages around the ground had already become an issue in the third, and it carried into the last as Sydney took control at ground level.

They won clearances outside the centre bounce eight to three, with Essendon’s pressure falling away sharply.

From those eight wins, the Swans generated shots from over 44% of them, a continuation of the trend that had started the quarter before.

Essendon could no longer shut down space or apply effective tackles. After averaging 16.6 tackles per quarter over the first three, they managed just 10 in the last. The middle of the ground was under Sydney’s control, and the Bombers’ ability to support the contest with numbers disappeared — that support shifted behind the ball.

Up until the last quarter, Sydney had mirrored Essendon’s method with ball in hand, only Essendon had executed it better. But now, Sydney played on at every opportunity, and when Essendon did win it back, the ability to find multiple outlets in transition was gone, all that was left was to relieve pressure by going long by foot.

Back on safe ground.

After some anxious moments on the 80-minute roller coaster, the ride operators held their nerve when it mattered most. They steadied at the right times, regained just enough control, and guided the carriage safely through the final twists. It wasn’t all smooth or comfortable, but by the time it came to a stop, the feeling most walked away with was joy, with maybe a little relief.

Short sharp notes.

Essendon only allowed Sydney 12 shots at goal from turnovers, with just 16.6% of turnovers ending in a shot, more than 7% better than their season average, and over 6% below Sydney’s conversion rate coming into the game.

Over the past five games, only Carlton and Collingwood have allowed fewer shots at goal from turnovers than Essendon.

The Bombers had 182 handball receives, their highest total in any game this season.

Essendon lost the hardball count 14 to 23. Coming into the game, they had a +3.5 differential compared to Sydney’s -1.7.

Essendon is still yet to lose a game this season when they take more marks than they win groundballs.

The Bombers took 22 intercept marks, their best return for opposition kicks per intercept mark so far this year.

Conclusion.

Essendon’s first quarter once again highlighted what the team is capable of, with an early focus on attacking through faster ball movement when the opportunity arises.

Although averaging just 12 inside 50s in their first quarters against Melbourne, North Melbourne, and Sydney, the Bombers have managed to generate a shot on goal 49.99% of the time when entering that zone, resulting in an average of 26 points.

This has led to goal-scoring chances that are not only closer to goal, but also more central to the corridor, thanks to the team taking 12 marks inside 50 during the first quarters of those three games.

The issue that’s limiting this further is stoppages. They continue to play a crucial role in momentum, and Essendon has often been forced to regain territory through ball movement. This is the key reason why Essendon is averaging just over 42 inside 50s per game since Round 3, the lowest in the competition.

During this period, only 16% of possession chains starting in defensive 50 have resulted in an inside 50, meaning that the further from goal a chain starts, the harder it becomes to give the forwards a chance to impact the scoreboard.

There are tougher challenges ahead against teams that thrive off territory from clearances, so more consistency will be needed in the immediate future.

Defensively, the backline continues to hold up well as it benefits from greater continuity.

Despite facing the second-most one-on-one contests in the defensive half since Round 3, Essendon is losing the second-fewest of those contests. This is a key factor in why they’re ranked number one for denying opposition entries from becoming scoring shots.

With more support from the midfield, along with continued consistency from the defenders and greater efficiency from the forwards, the positive trend in Essendon’s game is well-placed to continue.