Dockers vs Bombers Review

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

-Martin Luther King, Jr

As with most weeks this season, aside from the clear outliers against Adelaide, the Bulldogs, and Geelong, this game had its usual mix of positives and negatives, both in game and in quarters. The only difference was which areas fell into each category.

The bad.

The bookends have been hit hardest by injury, the back half more than the front as the season’s gone on, which has meant much of the load has shifted onto the midfield group (yes, I acknowledge that both Draper and Bryan, key parts of that mix, are also injured). They’ve had to cover a lot of losses, especially getting back defensively in numbers, but even more importantly, setting up field position from clearances to lessen the pressure on a depleted backline. For most of the season, they’ve been up to the challenge. Unfortunately, this week, they were far from it.

The good.

While the front third has struggled at times this year, both to work together consistently and to connect with teammates further afield, it was pleasing this week to see that, when the opportunity presented itself, they were more than capable of winning their share of contests and providing an outlet for an under-siege defence, while also getting some reward inside 50 and on the scoreboard.

Quarter one.

Handball happy.

Essendon’s change in method with the football — which I wrote about in last week’s review — was once again noticeable in the first 20 minutes here. And just as I summed up in that review, it was a little too unbalanced, especially early.

Six minutes into the game, the Bombers had recorded 35 handballs to just 19 kicks, with their desire to run and feed teammates through overlap impossible to miss. A big reason for this was the commitment of numbers behind the ball to support the inexperienced back half.

That meant the only real avenue to move the ball forward, without bombing it to outnumbered forwards, was to link up and carry it by hand. The goal was either to draw Fremantle players ahead of the ball toward the contest, or to find an uncontested mark that would allow them to reset the field.

As the quarter went on, they began to find that outlet more consistently, helping to improve their kick-to-handball ratio. In fact, only once in a first quarter since Round 9 have Essendon taken marks at a lower rate than the one every 4.56 disposals they managed here.

Going short.

For too long, most fans have bemoaned the default method when entering the forward 50, but there were promising signs in this quarter, with players more often lowering their eyes and hitting the shorter option — honouring the lead-up target who’d found space.

Both teams went inside their front third 12 times, but while Fremantle managed just one mark inside 50, Essendon was able to find a mark in there on four occasions — twice from intercept chains, coming from both the front and defensive halves.

Ultimately, it was an uncontested game up until the first break. While Essendon had the edge when the game was in contest, mainly post-clearance, behind the ball, thanks to teammates pushing back, once the game opened into space, the familiar issue of defending uncontested marks again reared its head.

Fremantle took 31 uncontested marks in their back two-thirds, finding an unpressured teammate just over every three disposals. Once again, Essendon’s inability to slow ball movement an issue, continuing a season-long trend of being the worst team at preventing inside 50s from transitioning end to end.

When they did disrupt Fremantle, they made it count — all of their shots at goal in the quarter came from intercepts. But with just 15 intercepts for the term, or one every 6.2 possessions, well below the AFL average of 5.4 — the opportunities simply didn’t come often enough.

Quarter two.

The danger man.

Essendon had the upper hand at stoppages in the first quarter — seven to four overall, including a 4–1 advantage at centre bounce, but the second quarter was a very different story. This was where the competition’s leading centre clearance player really took over.

Quote taken from my preview.

“Since Round 9, the Dockers are ranked third for points from stoppage, averaging just under 40 points per game from this source, behind only the Bulldogs and Cats.

At the heart of that is Serong. He leads the AFL in total clearances with 8.5 per game, the most he’s ever averaged across his six-year career.

Serong’s biggest damage comes from centre bounce rather than around-the-ground stoppages, once again leading all comers in that area.”

Fremantle dominated the centre square, turning first possession into effective clearances on all seven occasions, with Serong leading the charge in three of them. This became a scoring asset as well as a way to set up the ground for their defenders.

Once again, Essendon was forced to push extra numbers back to support the defence, particularly early in the quarter, which meant they had to depend on ball movement from the back half.

Where in the first quarter the Bombers relied heavily on the handball game early, and then, as time went on, looked to find an uncontested mark to allow teammates to “catch up” from behind, the Dockers in the second pushed their defenders up higher off the back of territory from clearance, making the game more contested than the first.

The damage came early — 24 points in the first nine minutes, built off dominance in time in possession and time in forward half. But Essendon gradually began to settle and wrestled back some control.

This is more like it.

Despite it being harder to regain field position compared to the first quarter, Essendon was able to stand up ahead of the ball, especially the forwards, and win crucial contests when needed. Once they got the ball into the front half and front third, they did a great job of keeping it there and, importantly, earned the rewards they deserved.

Five shots at goal came from intercept chains, with three of those started from winning the ball back in the front half, and importantly, all three converted for maximum points. This built on the foundation laid in the first quarter, recording Essendon’s most successful half of the season in turning intercepts into scoring opportunities.

Even with only nine entries into the front third, they found a mark on five occasions and generated a shot from over 77% of entries, their most efficient quarter of the year.

The intercept game I’ve always wanted looked like it was starting to take shape — not just in how often they won the ball back, but in how effectively they punished those opportunities.

However, relying on starting possession chains so far from goal due to lost clearances wasn’t sustainable. The midfielders needed to lift their impact in the second half, but, unfortunately, they once again couldn’t rise to the challenge.

Quarter three.

Now it’s hurting.

It was a slow start to the quarter, with both sides struggling to move the ball once they won it, but the difference was where each team was winning it.

Fremantle backed up their second-quarter centre square dominance by extending their control to stoppages around the ground. They completely took over once the game was stopped, winning the crucial pre clearance contests, getting first hands on the ball, and turning that initial possession into effective clearances.

They won the centre bounce battle 4–0 and stoppages around the ground 7–3. From there, the pressure on Essendon’s defence ramped up again, and the reliance on efficient ball movement became even more important.

For the majority of the quarter, Essendon was up to the task, repelling Fremantle’s entries. But while in the first half they were able to absorb pressure and still find a way forward, that became an even tougher task as the quarter wore on.

The front half dominance, built off the back of field position from the Dockers midfielders, became too much to consistently move the ball through.

Essendon could only manage 22 of their 94 possessions for the quarter in the front half of the ground, as Fremantle’s forward press — with extra numbers — allowed them to win the ball back consistently, eventually wearing down the Essendon defence. With 11% more time in possession and a 15–6 inside 50 count for the quarter, they finally turned that control in the front half into three goals in the space of five minutes.

Quarter four.

Did as much as they could.

Quote taken from my preview.

“Last season, the Dockers’ ball movement relied heavily on  kick-mark, averaging just over 85 uncontested marks per game, the 7th most in the competition (Essendon were 3rd). It was their main method of shifting the ball from defensive 50 into the front half. But it came at a cost: with the 3rd fewest metres gained per disposal (Essendon were last), their forwards were often left with little space to work in, as opposition defences had time to set up behind the ball.

That’s shifted significantly this season.

The uncontested mark game has dropped to 70.7 a game, the 3rd least in the competition, with less than 60 of those now taken in the back two-thirds of the ground, down from almost 73 last year. It’s brought with it extra speed on the ball and a much more direct line to goal, now the 5th most metres gained per disposal.

They’re no longer over-possessing either — down from 362 possessions a game (4th most) to 340 this year (15th) — which has meant a small lift in inside 50s and, more importantly, greater space for their forwards to work into. Something Essendon can’t afford to allow, given the missing personnel behind the ball again this week.”

For almost three quarters, Essendon had forced Fremantle into a style they didn’t want to play. They were denied the chance to get into their new run, carry and overlap game, instead forcing them into a much slower build-up and allowing Essendon’s defenders to set up behind the ball. But in the last quarter, Fremantle finally broke that control, once again, through clearance.

A 15–7 differential in the final term took the total to +18 Fremantle’s way — Essendon’s biggest clearance loss of the year, and their fourth-largest in the past three seasons. It gave the Dockers a platform to take the game on, particularly by hand, and when it wasn’t there, to kick long to contests and challenge a backline that had already absorbed a barrage. Another 16 entries came their way to defend, and by that point, the damage was inevitable.

A sign of things to come.

Due to the obliteration the Essendon midfielders copped at the coalface of stoppages, there was a heavy reliance on teammates to win the ball back post-clearance — which meant numbers often had to fold back behind the ball in support of the defence, especially after the scoreboard damage from last week. When they did regain possession, it was mostly at ground level rather than in the air, with the defence managing just 11 intercept marks for the game, well below the AFL average of 15. That meant most rebound chains started under pressure, often rushed, and with targets ahead of the ball either outnumbered or, at best, one-on-one.

In just his second game, May showed more than enough to suggest he can stand up in that part of the game. He won eight post-clearance contests, the most of any forward on the ground, with four of those coming in the air. Alongside him, Caddy won six of his own, including two in aerial contests.

To give that some context: Sam Darcy leads all key forwards this season, averaging just over six post-clearance contested possessions per game, with just under five of those in the air. No other forward is averaging more than six. Thilthorpe is next with just under six, including three in marking contests, while both Treacy and Hogan sit below three.

To have a second-gamer repeatedly stand up when Essendon desperately needed a contest win to help reset the field, and to do it alongside a second-year player in Caddy — the highest-ranked player aged 20 or under in this metric, and 12th overall among all forwards — points to two future key posts Essendon can continue to build around in the front half.

Steady she goes.

A common talking point to emerge post-game, and one that filled plenty of my social media feeds, was once again centred around how slow Essendon’s ball movement was from the back half. I covered a bit of the reasoning behind it a few weeks back, so I thought I’d expand on why it was necessary again in this game.

As mentioned earlier, the midfield’s inability to at least break even when the game was stopped and restarted set the tone, and had flow-on effects across the ground.

The AFL average for possession chains coming into this game is 112.9 (the number of times a team starts with the football), and on average, 35.42% of those chains begin in the defensive 50 (Essendon averages the 6th most with 36.8%). But this week, due to Fremantle’s control at the source, 41.8% started in the defensive third.

We were all excited to see the Bombers attack the Blues two weeks ago after quarter time with aggressive ball use through run and carry, but on that occasion, what happened beforehand played a major part.

Up until three-quarter time, Essendon was leading clearances 36–27, which meant the ball was going in the right direction to start with. That allowed and supported the front-half intercept game, which meant only 34% of possession chains began in the defensive 50.

Of course, you’re not always going to get things your way at ball-ups and throw-ins, so it’s inevitable you’re going to need to win the ball back. But how you win it back becomes crucial.

Up until Round 11, Essendon averaged 15.6 intercept marks per game — the 8th most in the competition at that point. McKay led the group with 2.5 per game (22nd among all players to have played at least three games), followed by Reid with 2.1 (32nd), Ridley and Prior with 1.5 each (63rd and 64th), then Draper and Redman both with 1.2. You can see where this is heading. In the four games since, the Bombers have averaged just 9.25 intercept marks, with Prior the only player from that list to play in each of the last three.

When you take an intercept mark, it allows the field to reset — giving players time to get into position, both defensively and offensively. Without that aerial support, when the ball is won at ground level, the game stays in motion rather than stopping. That leaves very little time to assess what’s unfolding — and even less for teammates to get into the positions they need to be.

There were plenty of moments this week when Essendon exited defensive 50 and May, Caddy, and Wright won contests in the air. But instead of moving on quickly, they had to stop and wait for teammates still behind the ball to get up the ground and even out the numbers further forward.

After giving up 36 shots on goal from 63 inside 50s last week to Geelong, with 85 of the Cats’ 151 points starting from the Bombers’ back half, it’s understandable that Essendon would take a safer approach with the ball. Add to that poor starting positions off lost clearances and an ongoing struggle to take intercept marks regularly, and you get a pretty clear picture of why ball movement was so cautious.

Conclusion.

At various points this season, Essendon has offered glimpses of what the future might look like, but so far, those moments have only come in patches, rarely sustained across four quarters or across all phases of the game.

The bye offers a chance to reset and freshen up, with nine games now left to shape how this season will finish. And with another campaign likely to end in August rather than September, the focus should shift. As a team, they need to set clear, achievable standards. Individually, it’s a chance to find consistency, take a step forward, or — for some — fight to show they belong on the list.

From a supporter’s point of view, it’s not just about getting key players back and keeping them on the park, there’s also a desire to see the coaching group show something more: a willingness to trial new roles, test ideas, and begin laying the groundwork that points toward 2026.