Demons vs Bombers Review

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts.”

Winston Churchill.

Based on Coach Scott’s post-match press conference and Assistant Coach Jacobs' interview, I expect the players will receive a significant "whack" after this week's performance. According to their words, the plan leading up to the game didn’t unfold as expected for 70 of the 80 minutes of game time.

Here’s my interpretation of their comments and other interesting points from their interviews.

This week marks the first time Scott and Jacobs have publicly expressed their disappointment in the team’s poor defensive structure, it’s interesting that it’s taken this long to be honest, the numbers haven’t been kind for a while now.

“The strength of the team is each individual member. The strength of each member is the team.”

Phil Jackson.

Reliable structure behind the ball should help defend transitions and cope with turnovers. However, as has been the case recently, both aspects failed over the course of this game.

Essendon conceded two early transition goals from their forward 50 in the first half under conditions that shouldn’t be conducive,

and they gave up another 50 points directly from turnovers. This makes their average over the last five games over 55 points, the third worst in this period behind North Melbourne and only ahead of West Coast and Richmond, highlighting a trend for far too long already.

The transition goals and rebounds could have been minimised if the Essendon half-forwards weren’t outworked on the spread away from goal by their half-back matchups. Meanwhile, the Melbourne half-forwards were able to work up the ground to assist in a wave alongside the midfield brigade. This helped get the ball forward and, in the process, evened up the numbers ahead, sometimes even outnumbering in Melbourne's favour.

Essendon’s defensive set up was not equipped to defend once their forward press was broken, often let down by pushing up too high and leaving them exposed once the ball got past that line.

Some turnovers couldn’t be defended, especially with easy giveaways in the back half. Melbourne scored over 63% of their points from possession chains starting in Essendon's back half, 17% more than their season average.

McKay’s ball use has looked shaky, Martin seems to be taking ambitious targets at the wrong times, and Heppell has found his free space closed down quicker than he can react.

Wing coverage seems to have changed since Ridley returned from injury, placing a bigger reliance on him and his fellow defenders to win the ball back themselves.

While Cox, Jones, and Duursma had an impact with the ball this week, their positioning without it was frequently challenged by their Melbourne counterparts Windsor and Langdon. These two Melbourne wingers asked questions of Essendon’s work rate and speed, having too much influence as outside options in ball movement and in the forward line. They won three forward 50 ground balls and another nine around the ground, combining for 28 uncontested possessions and 10 score involvements. Their ability to win loose ball contests at ground level outside the immediate stoppage area was crucial.

Essendon won 82 contests at ground level outside the front third, compared to Melbourne's 94.

Among the midfielders for both teams, the Bombers only had three players – Merrett, Shiel, and Stringer – in the top 12 from both teams, contributing a total of 23 between them. In contrast, Langdon and Windsor had a combined total of 18.

Quote taken from the preview of the Round 12 game against Gold Coast. May 30th.

“This week marks the start of a challenging run, comprising six games against teams currently ranked within the top eight for the percentage of contested possessions versus uncontested. It begins with the Gold Coast Suns, who are positioned as the 3rd ranked team in this metric”

Since that game, the Bombers are ranked 18th in groundball differential, losing a total of 63 against the opposition, with their last head-to-head win against Richmond in Round 11.

“The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.”

Michael Porter.

On a night when ball movement was always going to be an issue and with a clear advantage in the ruck department for Essendon, losing stoppage clearance was a disappointing result.

The way Melbourne was allowed to exit was even more disappointing. Draper’s decision, or the coaching staff’s decision, to hit to the outside of the contest played into Melbourne’s hands, specifically benefitting Rivers when the game was up for grabs early. The +1 differential in stoppage clearances up until halftime didn’t reflect the difference in damage, as Melbourne generated seven shots from clearances compared to Essendon’s three. For the rest of the game, Melbourne would only score once more from stoppage. This method of hitting to the outside of the immediate bubble was too predictable, allowing Melbourne to set up for transition. This was demonstrated by 10 scores initiated by Rivers, Neal-Bullen, Oliver, and Langdon from stoppages.

“Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature’s inexorable imperative.”

H.G. Wells.

If there was ever a time for Essendon to shift away from their preferred method of ball movement, this was the game. I’ve written far too often about their choice of the kick-mark method, but the conditions really took that option out of their hands. Yet, early in the game, the players didn’t seem bothered by the conditions. Thankfully, we found out later in Scott’s and Jacob’s interviews that the players’ way wasn’t the coaches’ way.

Up until halftime, Melbourne had gained over 630 more metres in territory compared to Essendon with only three more disposals, two extra clearances, and 12 fewer uncontested possessions. Essendon’s choice of going sideways rather than forward played into Melbourne's defensive setup even more. It's here I believe both Scott and Jacob talked about being “beaten by what you know.”

Of the 130 possessions in the second and third quarters, only 21 were in the corridor between the arcs. This compares to the last quarter, where the team had 20 in that same zone out of 74 for the quarter. This season, Essendon has averaged 6.58 possessions per forward 50 entry, but for three quarters of this game, in conditions not suited to over-possessing and against a team that sets up with defensive integrity behind the ball, that number blew out to over 7.52. Compare this to the last quarter, where the rate dropped to 5.94, and this, I believe, is part of the reason both coaches explained that Essendon finally got the game to look like how they wanted, but far too late.

“Pressure makes diamonds.”

General George S. Patton.

The team's response this week will be more interesting than any other under this current regime. While there have been poorer performances than this game, this is the first time the coaches have expressed their frustration with the players publicly. In my view, this was a calculated decision driven by multiple factors: accountability, responsibility, and motivation. There’s certainly some frustration behind it.

Has a repeated message now reached the point where a more immediate and intense response is necessary by going outside the four walls?