“Perspective”
Beginning with a thorough examination of the numbers, the primary objective here is to spotlight the upward trajectory Essendon is currently experiencing. However, it's essential to temper our enthusiasm; there are areas requiring improvement, but that's perfectly acceptable. What truly matters right now is the process as it will ultimately lead to better outcomes, albeit with some inconsistency along the way.
Usually, a positive differential of 19 inside 50s is associated with success in winning clearances and contests, exemplified in matches like Essendon versus Port Adelaide in round four or Gold Coast against Hawthorn in round five. However, Essendon's performance this week wasn’t reliant on dominance in those aspects, the focus was on keeping territorial advantage by establishing defensive structures, and sustaining pressure within the initial 75 metre zone to generate repeated entries.
Now, let's delve into some noteworthy statistics that laid the groundwork for this game and hopefully, will be replicated in future matches throughout the year.
“Control and conversion”
Adelaide managed 116 possessions in their defensive half up until halftime, almost on par with Essendon's 117 in the same area. However, Adelaide only had 40 possessions in their front half during that period.
Out of 75 possession chains initiated by the Crows in their defensive half, only 15 progressed into Essendon's defensive 50, with nine reaching within 25 metres from goal.
Unfortunately, four of these possession chains resulted in goals for Adelaide.
In 2023, Essendon averaged an intercept possession every 5.44 opposition possessions, ranking 16th in the league, with the AFL average at 5.17.
This year, Essendon has improved to 5.11 in the first five games. Against Adelaide, however, they significantly enhanced this metric, intercepting the ball every 4.3 possessions.
While intercepting the ball was successful, the next step is capitalizing on these opportunities.
In round two against Sydney, Essendon managed to produce 14 shots at goal from intercepts, marking its highest tally of the season up until last weekend. The 81 intercepts secured by Essendon were the joint highest since round five of 2021, with the only other instance occurring in round 10 of the previous season against Richmond.
From these 81 intercept possessions, Essendon created 18 shots at goal against Adelaide, resulting in seven goals and 53 points on the scoreboard. This equates to converting an intercept into a shot at goal with a strike rate exceeding 22%, trailing only GWS and Port Adelaide up to the beginning of round six. Notably, four of these goals stemmed from winning the ball back via an intercept mark.
“The barometer”
In 2023, Essendon averaged a tackle on their opponents every 6.39 opposition possessions. This has improved to 5.76 in 2024, with even further progress evident against Adelaide, where they averaged a tackle every 4.46 possessions.
Outside of the forward 50, Essendon laid 64 tackles, a notable increase compared to their season average of 48.7 and a testament to their relentless pressure.
The correlation between their tackle execution and overall performance was evident. With only slight fluctuations in other key metrics such as intercepts, clearances, contested possessions, and attacking inside 50s by up to plus or minus three, it was the tackle count that ultimately dictated the flow of the game.
In the second half, the Bombers' tackle numbers declined from 51 in the first half to a mere 29, a stark difference of 22.
This change had major repercussions, as seen in Adelaide's 17 additional inside 50s compared to the initial half.
Essendon's game plan, now intricately designed around relentless pressure and defensive intensity around the ball, found itself compromised. The impact of this underscores the critical role it plays in the team's overall strategy and success. It underlines how imperative it is for Essendon to maintain consistent and relentless tackle pressure throughout the game, as it not only dictates their defensive performance, but also serves as a reliable barometer for their overall performance and success in the game.
"Efficiency”
One area needing refinement is the efficiency when entering the forward 50 and locating a marking target capable of capitalizing on the groundwork laid beforehand.
In the first five games, Essendon's marks inside 50 per entry stood at 20.7%, just below the AFL average of 21.9%
Leaders in this aspect are GWS, Port Adelaide, and the Western Bulldogs, all exceeding 26%. However, in this game, out of 62 inside 50 entries, only seven marks were taken, resulting in a rate of 11.29%.
This shortfall largely stemmed from Adelaide's defensive strategy of flooding numbers back to bolster their backline.
Essendon's relentless attacking early in the game compelled Adelaide to adjust their system and setup, as acknowledged by Coach Nicks in his post match press conference.
While this reflects positively on Essendon's ability to disrupt the opposition's plans, it also presents a learning curve in executing against the opposition’s extra numbers in defence.
This improvement can be pursued through various avenues.
One approach is to utilize the surrounding numbers when regaining possession to shift the direction of attack, rather than entering the same way repeatedly.
Additionally, adjusting the forward press slightly backward can create additional opportunities and spaces for teammates to exploit, thus avoiding predictability in targets and acknowledging the efforts of other teammates who find space.
"Evolution”
I'll explore the ongoing development of the emerging midfielders who've been given more responsibility, highlighting what I believe it signifies for the future, along with the consistent performance we always anticipate from our top leader. But before that, I’ll discuss a recent change that I anticipated earlier but understand the reasons for its delay.
Gresham assumed a slightly altered role this week, operating further up the ground to contribute to possession chains and deliveries into the forward 50. It's a role that, I believe, many Essendon fans expected to see him play, given his background at St. Kilda as a high half forward who transitions between supporting the midfielders and posing a threat in front of goal.
Until now, he's primarily been utilized inside 50 as a small forward option at ground level.
After five games, Gresham led Essendon's forward 50 groundballs with 16, placing him second overall in the competition.
His average disposals before this game was 13 with 5.4 inside the forward third.
In this round, he garnered 19 of his 26 disposals outside that area, with six of those coming from stoppage clearances, one of which initiated a scoring chain.
Once again, he showcased his ability to impact the scoreboard with two shots at goal and three additional score involvements.
Gresham's increased involvement further up the ground was partly due to Coach Scott's confidence in Davey Junior to fulfill his role inside the forward third. While this shift may seem minor, its ripple effect on the team was substantial.
Though nine disposals may not sound significant, four of them entered the 50 and contributed to scoring opportunities, including a direct goal assist. Seven of his nine disposals were effective, and his defensive contributions were notable, with 13 pressure acts, seven of which occurred in the defensive half.
Jones maintained his strong performance in the forward half, excelling both in the air and at ground level.
Of his eight contested possessions, five occurred at ground level inside the forward 50, ranking him equal first among all players for the round alongside Cameron, Elliott, Greene, and West, despite them being considerably shorter than his 196cm.
Last week, Durham achieved his second-highest rating game according to Champion Data's AFL Player Ratings, while this week Caldwell surpassed his previous best in 2022.
Caldwell amassed 26 disposals, with 23 of them effective and seven contributing to the scoreboard. Additionally, six of his disposals led to clearances and eight were won at ground level, with one initiating a scoring chain.
His game high 10 tackles marked the second highest tally he's achieved in a game, contributing to his game high 27 pressure acts, with 14 of those occurring in the back half.
Durham continued his outstanding form from the previous week by shadowing Bontempelli with his own 25 possessions, 14 of which were contested and 10 won at ground level. His nine tackles were only surpassed by Caldwell's tally.
What more can be said about Captain Merrett? With another 28 disposals this week, he now ranks 8th in the league for disposals this year. Among the top 10, he's positioned 3rd for the proportion of his disposals won via a contest rather than uncontested.
Furthermore, within the top 10 in disposals, he's 4th for the percentage of his disposals contributing to a score.
His defensive prowess over the first six games is undeniable, among the same top 10, he ranks 3rd for tackles overall and holds the top spot for tackles inside 50. Additionally, he stands as the third best for pressure acts.
“The future”
A strategic shift started to emerge towards the end of the previous season and has since developed significantly in the last five games of this season, bringing us a step closer to the finals-style play I've eagerly anticipated.
This has led to a noticeable transformation in the midfield dynamics.
During this transformation, there has also been a focus on assessing the team's capabilities to effectively execute this refined game plan.
Last season, Perkins, Hobbs, and Caldwell were given opportunities in midfield roles alongside the established players of Parish, Merrett, and Setterfield. This year, the midfield group has expanded to include Durham.
The challenge lies in identifying individuals who excel in contested situations, outsmart their opponents, and possess the tactical nuances to involve their teammates seamlessly.
While Scott is familiar with the strengths of Merrett, Parish, and Setterfield, there's still much to discover about the full potential of Durham, Caldwell, Perkins, and Hobbs both in terms of their minimum requirements and their maximum capabilities.
Comments