Demons vs Bombers Review

Another learning experience.

In their first three games to start the year, the Bombers have had to face contrasting challenges, either those set by their opponents or the need to respond after a poor performance. After failing to defend Hawthorn’s ball movement and then getting exposed by Adelaide’s scoring power, they were left with just five days to rebound against Port Adelaide and try to re-establish some belief that what they’d built over a long preseason was still the right direction.

This week’s challenge was a classic danger game, coming up against a team that had been virtually hanged, drawn and quartered in the media across the week.

While there’ve been genuine concerns around Melbourne’s start to the year, they still deserved a level of respect based on what they’re capable of producing.

A close loss in Round 1 to a GWS side that led both of its finals at three-quarter time last year, and a hard-fought defeat to a preliminary finalist in Geelong at Geelong, showed glimpses of what this 2025 version of Melbourne could still be. And even though those games were split by two heavy defeats, by 59 and 58 points, 15 of the players who ran out on the weekend were still key parts of the side that won 20 games and a premiership in 2021.

—Quote taken from my review of the 2024 matchup.

“Their dominance was aided by their stoppage work. Despite the Bombers winning hitouts 43-27 (Gawn absent due to injury), Melbourne won clearances 44-32. The key difference came in winning ground ball pre clearance, where Melbourne dominated 37-15. This gave them control around stoppages, scoring 28 points from clearances compared to Essendon’s 14. Ultimately the margin at the final siren was 17 points.”

The real contest?

In 2024, Melbourne’s contested possession differential dropped below +4 for the first time since 2015, and their competition ranking fell outside the top six for the first time since 2019. In the six years before that, they were ranked in the top two in this stat four times, with a cumulative differential of +64.8. So this was always going to be Essendon’s first real test in that space.

Through the first three rounds, contest work had been a strength for Essendon, and a genuine quarter-by-quarter barometer of how the team was performing.

They came into this game as the number one ranked team in winning contest pre-clearance (+9.3 differential), and third in winning the same contest at ground level (+4.3). Add to that being third in post-clearance contests and second in winning those at ground level, and it was easy to see why that would have a major influence on the outcome.

While that improvement has been a key difference from previous seasons, what I was really looking for this week was a better balance between “dirty ball” and “easy ball” — which ultimately had a bigger bearing on the result, as I’ll explain later.

Early on, Essendon was able to get first hands on the footy, but as the game wore on, Melbourne took control, especially at centre clearance. They ended up winning contests pre-clearance by 17, which gave them better starting positions after goals and immediately put Essendon’s defence under pressure.

At halftime, Melbourne led this stat by five. By three-quarter time, it was out to eight, meaning the defenders had to go to work early. And not only were the back six able to stand up and limit scores from this source, but they were also able to intercept and, just as importantly, rebound from there.

Overall, Essendon won’t want to be giving up ground regularly from this setup, but to only concede one shot on goal from 16 entries via this chain is a phenomenal effort.

Transition.

Once the defenders were able to win the ball back, the next step was about regaining the territory lost.

Against Port Adelaide in Round 3, for the first three quarters, the Bombers mirrored Port’s fast ball movement after generating a turnover. It created a high-transition game where the ball was in constant motion and neither side was able to control tempo. This week, the approach was much more balanced, especially as Melbourne tried to get their own game going by playing on quickly from behind the mark to generate run, and this ended up playing a bigger role than the contest battle itself.

Essendon’s ball movement this week looked more like what’s worked in previous years. By halftime, they’d gained 513 more metres than Melbourne (despite losing territory from centre clearance), and their ability to outwork Melbourne to find space and hit an uncontested target was the biggest factor.

Now the real contest.

At halftime, Essendon led uncontested possessions by 48, having found an uncontested mark in the back and middle thirds of the ground 50 times. That meant Melbourne could only apply 20 tackles in that part of the ground. All of this contributed to Essendon transitioning from the defensive midfield to inside 50 on over 53% of chains.

When they weren’t able to transition via intercept, they made it count through stoppages around the ground.

Centre clearance was still an issue by halftime, but stoppages around the ground wasn’t. And it was finally good to see the rewards that had been missing in previous weeks show up here.

The Bombers converted 35% of their clearance wins around the ground into shots at goal, more than 6% better than their season average to this point, and at a rate almost 5% better than the league’s top-ranked side in Gold Coast.

What Changed in the Third Quarter?

Down by 29 points at halftime, with just seven shots on goal from 28 inside 50s, Essendon had to be ready for Melbourne to come out with a different look in the second half.

Centre clearance continued to go the wrong way, and once the defenders were able to win the ball back again, the workrate to find space and offer an outlet option from players ahead dropped away.

Melbourne lifted their defensive intensity, and suddenly the easy ball that Essendon had found in the first half was no longer there.

The Bombers managed just 15 uncontested marks in the third quarter, compared to 32 in the first and 24 in the second. Marks per possession chain were cut in half compared to the first half, and as a result, the average length of each possession chain also dropped, from 57.39 metres in the second quarter to 46.61 in the third.

Ball movement became harder. Only seven inside 50s for the quarter. And then the issue flipped, defending turnovers became the problem.

In the first half, Melbourne had only been able to turn an Essendon turnover into a shot at goal 4.76% of the time. Yes, that’s correct. Essendon’s average against in that stat was 25.9%—the third worst rate in the league in 2025—but in the third quarter alone, Melbourne improved that to 33.3%. After taking just three marks inside 50 in the first half, they took four in the third quarter alone.

So, with the margin back to 16 points going into the final 20 minutes, the question became: what would Essendon do to shift the momentum?

Recalibrate.

After losing their way with ball in hand during the third quarter, Essendon needed to return to the approach that had established their halftime lead. This required converting possession chains into scores through more effective ball movement and recommitting to supporting teammates as viable options by foot.

In that third quarter alone, Essendon lost the uncontested mark count by 10, managing just 12 marks in the back two-thirds. But in the final term, when they were able to link up post-stoppage or after an intercept, the Bombers regained control of the tempo.

Over the previous 20 minutes, they’d lost the territory battle by 255 metres. But by shifting gears, opting to build through measured ball use, they found 24 marks outside the forward 50 and were able to regain that lost ground with far more efficiency.

They gained 1520 metres in the last quarter, 414 more than Melbourne. That alone meant the game was now being played closer to goal. But it also helped fuel the intercept game.

Three of Essendon’s five goals for the quarter came from intercepts between the arcs as Melbourne was looking to exit their back half, with Essendon turning 33.3% of total intercepts for the quarter into scores. Only once in their previous 12 quarters of football have they been able to convert 60% or more of inside 50 entries into shots at goal.

By the siren, Essendon had taken control in key uncontested areas: +25 in possessions, +11 in marks, and Melbourne were only able to intercept once every 8.38 Essendon possessions. This was the more balanced approach that I had asked for after last week's game.

Short sharp notes.

Essendon’s back seven of McKay, Reid, Ridley, Prior, Redman, McGrath and Roberts combined for 40 of the team’s 62 intercepts, 9.7 above their season average to date. All seven defenders registered more intercepts than their individual 2025 averages.

Essendon lost the inside 50 count by eight, the first time they’ve won a game when losing that stat by 8+ since Round 13, 2023 (vs Carlton).

Melbourne won 18 forward 50 groundballs, five more than their average from the previous four rounds. Prior to this game, Essendon had been conceding just over 15 per match.

The Bombers allowed only 7 shots from turnover, they only gave up fewer twice in 2024, and once in 2023.

Essendon sits at +51 in total groundballs across four games, second only to St Kilda (+65 after five games)

The Bombers won post-clearance groundballs by 16, a margin they’ve only hit once since Round 14, 2022.

Essendon’s marks per inside 50 rate hit 34.8%, more than 20% above their season average and 9% better than their 2024 average.

Draper recorded 20.1 AFL Player Ratings points, making him the highest-rated player on the ground and achieving his third-highest career rating. With 22 disposals, he set a new personal best across his 77-game career. His season average of 90.1% time on ground is the highest of all ruckmen to date. Yes, I know he’s also been played as a forward.

Reality.

This was another chapter in Essendon’s evolving ball movement identity. Earlier in the season, we saw a high-volume handball game built on run and carry. Against Melbourne, a different approach was required.

Melbourne push heavy numbers behind the ball, and with Gawn, the AFL’s leading intercept mark ruck since 2019 patrolling the air, the Bombers had to go around rather than through. The patience and maturity to adjust, and then execute that plan, was clearly embedded in the week’s preparation.

To begin 2025, Essendon have mostly been the ones needing to shift momentum and force a change in the game’s direction. This week, the challenge was reversed, they had to absorb Melbourne’s push, reset, and then take back control. And they did.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, tougher tests are coming, some sooner rather than later. But what this game offered was more evidence that Essendon is building not just one way to play and win, but multiple methods. That versatility will matter as the year progresses.