Bombers vs Tigers Review

Three in a row.

After 13 consecutive losses to Richmond, including eight in Dreamtime, Essendon has now claimed its third straight victory over the Tigers in the annual showcase.

While a win’s a win, I’ll continue to centre my reviews on the process that underpins the result. That may become more challenging as the year goes on, with injuries forcing consistent changes to the lineup, and having a greater influence on how that process looks and holds up.

This season’s factors.

There have been two major concerns for me this year with Essendon’s game. Early on, it was about how the team defended opposition ball movement, more specifically, the method they allowed. While recently, it’s been the ball-winning side of the game, which has been at the core of a lot of issues within games.

One of those problems played a major role in how this game played out and kept Richmond in it for longer than necessary. But thankfully, Essendon found some form again in the other area, and that proved to be the decisive factor in securing the four points.

This review will mainly focus on those two aspects, along with some thoughts on how the team is using the ball, and of course, the standout performance that backed up something I’ve said for years.

First quarter.

My focus immediately went to stoppages this week after last round’s poor showing against the Western Bulldogs, a culmination of issues that had been building since Round 7.

During that stretch, Essendon averaged a -6.5 clearance differential per game, a sharp contrast from the +6.8 across the previous five rounds. That wasn’t helped by their struggles turning first possession at stoppage into effective clearances, with the last two games their worst of the year. The impact evident on the scoreboard too, with a -10.2 average differential in points sourced from clearance since Round 7, compared to +6.2 beforehand.

Thankfully, the first 20 minutes saw Goldstein and Wright work far more cohesively with Merrett, Setterfield, Durham, Caldwell, Perkins, and—yes—Martin (I’ll get to him later). This mix not only denied Richmond effective first possession at stoppages but also gave Essendon early territory, with their advantage built off the back of winning centre clearances 3-1 and following up around the ground 8-4.

While this gave Essendon early field position, which was crucial in the wet conditions, actually cashing in on that dominance deserved more reward. What followed with ball in hand didn’t help, and the flow-on from those decisions without it made things worse.

Clearance wins became inside 50s, but when Essendon couldn’t find a marking target, the ball rebounded out and made its way up the other end far too easily.

My early-season concern for Essendon was around how poorly they defended in transition, more specifically, how ineffective they were at denying uncontested marks, which allowed the ball to move end to end far too easily.

In the disappointing first half against Hawthorn in Round 1, they gave up 57 uncontested marks, with 49 of those in the Hawks’ back two-thirds. The following week, Adelaide took 95 for the game in that same area. And while there have been some improvements since, seeing Richmond take 32 uncontested marks in a single quarter this week, 31 of them in Essendon’s forward 50 and the middle of the ground, in wet conditions, and well above their season average of just over 17 per quarter, was incredibly frustrating.

Whatever early territory Essendon gained was too easily lost going the other way. Richmond were able to find an unpressured marking option every three disposals, a rate that would rank as the most efficient in the competition coming into this game. The Bombers’ defensive structure just folded back and allowed it to happen, a clear contrast to what Richmond were allowing in those same parts of the ground.

When Richmond did go inside its forward 50 (too easily), the Essendon defence stood up and won the ball back. But when it came to transitioning the other way, they were too disorganised going forward and denied the same luxuries in the middle of the ground. They struggled to find a connection piece before going inside 50, with entries barely penetrating the 50-metre zone, as Richmond took seven intercept marks in the first quarter alone.

Below is an example of what it looks like when there’s no connection piece, no bridge to create a deeper, more meaningful inside 50 entry, which only makes it easier to rebound from.

Second quarter.

Total clearances were far more evenly contested in the second quarter, with Essendon narrowly winning the count 11–10. But it wasn’t just about who won them, it was where they were won and what followed.

Essendon once again had control of stoppages around the ground, but unlike the opening quarter, where those wins didn’t translate onto the scoreboard, they did in the second.

From their 10 clearances, over 36% ended in scores, and at the same time, they were able to nullify Richmond’s impact from around-the-ground stoppages. But the centre square told a different story.

Richmond won four of the five centre bounces. While only one of those resulted in a direct score, the other three gave them field position, forcing Essendon to once again rely on structured ball movement from deep to generate attack.

The Tigers went inside 50 on 17 occasions for the quarter, six more than their 2025 average. That wasn’t just driven by centre bounce dominance, but also by Essendon’s inability to cleanly exit defensive 50, with turnovers compounding the pressure.

In the first quarter, Essendon had managed just 18 uncontested marks, limiting their ability to transition with control. In the second, a lift in work rate to find space allowed them to take 25 — 22 of them in the back two-thirds of the ground. But when they failed to execute or find a target, the game quickly shifted to defending turnovers.

While the backline had held firm inside 50 in the first quarter, this time they were under siege. Richmond had five shots at goal from Essendon turnovers, four of those from the Bombers’ defensive half. It wasn’t just about denying uncontested ball anymore, now it was about dealing with Richmond’s run, overlap, and pressure.

Third quarter.

After a lacklustre first half from both teams, the start of the second half was always going to be intriguing. Both had shown strengths and weaknesses in different parts of their game, and for Essendon, it was their inability to disrupt enough of Richmond’s control with the footy that continued to limit their scoring capacity.

To get full value from clearance dominance, Essendon needed more than just field position, they had to lift their intercept game. At the half, the Bombers were forcing a turnover only once every 6.1 Richmond disposals, a rate that would rank 16th in the competition. This was a missed opportunity against a Tigers side vulnerable to punishment: Richmond was conceding over 53 points per game from turnovers (3rd most in the AFL), with 22% of their own turnovers resulting in opposition scores (4th worst). Pleasingly, Essendon responded straight after the break.

Just like in the first quarter, Essendon’s clearance game again provided the territory, but this time, they were much better at keeping it.

Centre clearances went 3–0, stoppage clearances 10–3, and suddenly it was Richmond doing most of the work inside their own defensive 50.

Essendon laid nine tackles in that zone for the quarter, up from just four in the entire first half,

and that pressure played a big role in forcing turnovers.

The Bombers won the ball back once every 3.95 Richmond possessions setting up four shots at goal directly from Tiger turnovers. Just as importantly, they held Richmond to one solitary score from their 22 intercepts.

When the game was in motion and Essendon had ball in hand, they looked the more dangerous side. But when Richmond were able to control tempo and slow it down, the same

issues that have plagued Essendon all season (seasons, really) couldn’t be unseen.

Two of Richmond’s three goals for the quarter came directly from kick-ins, as they were allowed to kick-mark their way forward through, once again, a fold-back Essendon defensive setup in the middle of the ground and get full value.

Quotes taken from my preview.

“The Tigers rank 18th this season for moving the ball from their defensive 50 into their forward 50…”

Last quarter.

Twenty minutes to play, and the game was going to be decided around stoppages, based on what had unfolded across the previous three quarters.

To three-quarter time, Goldstein had eight clearances to Ryan’s two. Hopper had battled manfully to collect seven, but Essendon had spread the load, Perkins and Durham had five each, Caldwell four, and Martin and Merrett three apiece.

Taranto, Richmond’s main ground-level support for Hopper, had been successfully clamped by Setterfield, held to just two clearances to three-quarter time. That job continued in the last, where he was completely nullified at the coal face, as Essendon shut down Richmond’s ability to start possession chains from the contest.

The Bombers’ strength in variety and capability around the ball gradually wore down Richmond’s options and, once again, got the ball heading in the right direction.

And while they continued to dominate first possession and shift the ball from inside to outside, the most pleasing part was their ability to control field position through intercepts, and then create scoring chances off the back of them. Over 37% of their intercepts resulted in a shot at goal.

But as has been the case for much of the season, the reward didn’t match the work. Just one goal and six behinds was all they could manage from those opportunities.

By game’s end, Essendon won the clearance count by 22, their highest ever recorded margin since Champion Data began tracking it in 1999. That was built largely on a return to early-season form, winning the pre-clearance contested ball by 12 after losing that same count by 30 across the previous four games. Just as importantly, they turned those wins into effective clearances more than 75% of the time, another turnaround after the last two weeks.

Coming in, Richmond ranked 16th for both pre-clearance contested possession and turning first possession into clearance. With the midfield mix Essendon had available, it would’ve been a disappointment if they didn’t control this aspect of the game.

What was a surprise, though, was that Martin was added to the rotation.

Eye opening.

His 27.9 AFL Rating Points for the game was easily his highest of his 77-game career, in fact, it was the highest by any player for the round, and it was his damage in ball winning, together with ball in hand, that counted most.

Of his 32 possessions, 12 were contested, with four of those won pre-clearance, and all turned into effective clearances. Once he got the ball, he was at his attacking and efficient best, with a quarter of his possessions going inside forward 50 and over 31% part of a scoring chain, all backed up by eight tackles, the second most on the ground. Let’s hope this is something more we can expect from the coaches, and that he can continue to back it up on field.

Choices.

Ball-winning played a positive role in how the game looked. Unfortunately, ball use did not. This week, I’m narrowing in on inside 50 entries, specifically, the decisions around who is being targeted and where.

Essendon need to make better and more consistent decisions by foot going into the front third. It’s a continuation of an issue from last season. Some of it, I believe, can be improved through better decision-making, but other parts likely require team or list changes.

Too often, the “easy” lead-up option is either missed or ignored entirely. Below, I’ve included a video sample and some stills that show exactly what this looks like.

I understand the modern focus on deeper, more meaningful entries, getting the ball closer to goal to help keep it inside 50 and protect against turnover scores going the other way. But right now, these entries are too predictable for the opposition and too restrictive for Essendon’s forwards who can impact and how.

Whether it’s a shift in mentality from those delivering the ball, to lower their eyes first, or selection changes that prioritise players whose first instinct is to do so, it’s a needed adjustment. It’s one way Essendon can lift their inside 50 efficiency: currently marking just over 21% of entries (ranked 11th) and turning entries into shots on goal just over 48% of the time, also ranked 11th. That needs to move closer to where the competition’s best sit.

Video and photo examples in not lowering your eyes to take the easier option when going forward.

Conclusion.

I’d hazard a guess the next block of games will make it harder to get a clear read on any settled methodology or system. As the injury toll grows, more fresh faces will be asked to fill specific roles, some still adjusting to the level, others needing time to build connection with teammates. With so much change, cohesion becomes harder to judge, and what’s being asked of the group may shift week to week depending on availability.