Opening.
I'm not going to delve too deeply into the umpiring decisions and their impact on the game. While they had a significant influence at a crucial moments, they didn’t impact how the game was played between those moments or how both teams set up and executed their strategies. Yes, the scoreboard would’ve ultimately looked different, but my focus this year is on the process, not the outcome. Plain and simple, Essendon's process in this game was not reliable enough to consistently beat Geelong if they were to play them week in, week out.
Simplifying the game.
This review will be divided into two main parts: with the football and without it, addressing the damage from both. Ultimately, the two are intertwined; you can't rely solely on one aspect to create opportunities to win football games. Both aspects set up scoring opportunities while simultaneously preventing the opposition from doing so.
With the football.
This analysis covers the potential success from winning clearances and contests, moving the ball with possessions (both uncontested and contested), and the effectiveness of setting up shots at goal with the ball in possession.
This area has fluctuated for Essendon this year, with opponents learning more as the season progresses. At times in this game, the playing conditions significantly impacted ball movement. Consistent link-up by hand and foot to advance the ball forward was challenging, but one team was much more effective due to the amount of pressure, or lack thereof, applied by the other team.
Early on, efficiency favoured Essendon: six shots at goal from 12 inside 50 entries and five marks inside that zone from 74 disposals continued last week's form and contrasted with previous struggles. They scored a goal each from the defensive and forward halves and two directly from centre bounces, creating a balanced mix of stoppage and turnover sources.
Essendon gained over 1500 metres in territory from clearance and ball movement from 30 possession chains, averaging just over 50 metres per chain for the quarter, maintaining the season average of 2024.
However, issues arose when Essendon didn't have the ball, which I'll cover later.
As the game progressed, scoring from stoppages became crucial as possession chains beginning from intercepts decreased from 61.4% in the first half to 50.8%, making scoring from this source more difficult. After creating three shots from stoppages in the first quarter, only seven more came from that source for the rest of the game.
Not going to deny 60 inside 50 entries isn’t a lot, it’s the average amount for the last five games and number one of all teams in that time, but it's important to dig deeper.
Against Carlton two games ago, Essendon also had 60 inside 50s, but only 35 penetrated within 25 metres of goal, compared to Carlton's 31 out of 41. This week, Essendon went within 25 metres of goal 37 times, resulting in six shots, while the Cats had 10 shots within that same range. Of Essendon's 19 shots on goal, nine came from outside 40 metres.
To aid ball movement this year, Essendon averaged almost 87 uncontested marks per game, the fifth most, behind Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, Fremantle, and Sydney, all currently in the top eight of the ladder.
However, Geelong limited them to 74 uncontested marks this game, which would rank 16th. Now you may say the conditions were not favourable for this game style, and fair enough, but as you read on, you’ll discover that wasn’t the case for the other team.
Essendon’s season average of 3.2 possessions per possession chain length was third-ranked, behind Fremantle and the Western Bulldogs. For context, the AFL average is 3.04, and the 18th-ranked team was actually Geelong at 2.75. However, this week, Essendon would’ve ranked last, with a rate of 2.55, which was never going to help score from the defensive half.
Only five shots were sourced from this area, down from the season average of just over nine.
Without the football.
This analysis covers Essendon's ability to stop or slow the opposition's forward movement effectively, whether from intercept or clearance, as well as their ability to win the ball back themselves via intercept possession or mark, mainly generated by pressure and tackling.
While I wrote earlier about Essendon’s effectiveness in the first quarter as a pleasing aspect to begin the game, the worry was how Geelong was playing. In this instance, I will say that Geelong was allowed to play, because it wasn’t their usual way.
In 2024, Geelong averaged the most possessions won via contest, with over 42% of their possessions earned this way. Given the conditions, we would’ve expected to see the Cats' game centered around contests as usual. However, in the first quarter, Geelong had 32 contested possessions out of 90, a worrying rate of 35.5%, which was lower than what Essendon’s opponents averaged in the previous 14 games and did not suit the early weather conditions. Essendon’s pressure and press needed to improve, or their ability to win the game would have to rely on continuing their efficiency with the ball in hand and going inside 50, which was unlikely to continue.
Over the course of the game, the Cats won possession via contests 39% of the time. The remaining 61% difference was largely made up by 93 uncontested marks. Only Brisbane averaged more than that this season. Up until this game, no team averaged less than Geelong’s usual average of 70.8.
As a comparison, the Cats had an average differential in total marks of -5 coming into this game, while the Bombers had a +10 differential. This week, it swung in the Cats’ favour by 24.
In 14 previous games, Geelong was the number one ranked team for territory gained per disposal, averaging 17.4 metres. This week, that increased even more to 18.2. Additionally, their kick percentage improved: from being ranked 15th with 58% of their disposals coming by foot, it rose to 65.7%. This rate exceeded the number one ranked team of Brisbane with 65.3.
This alongside Geelong’s uncontested marks highlighting the pressure Essendon couldn’t—or should I say, didn’t—apply for the night.
Geelong's unpressured ball movement allowed them to score over 54% of their total from the back half, with 57 points, more than 20 points above their season average. Duncan and Holmes combined for 40 possessions, averaging 75.5% in the defensive half and 29 uncontested, totaling 793 metres in territory. Their 13 intercepts significantly contributed to Geelong's 18 shots at goal from turnovers, the second-highest for them this year.
Conclusion.
I'll leave you with this choice: Was the result because Essendon couldn't replicate what other teams had successfully done to defeat Geelong this season? Did they struggle to implement the strategies that had proven effective for others? Or was it that Essendon's preferred method, the way they typically approach games, was never going to work against Geelong's strengths and tactics?
Comments