Intro.
Here’s a quick look back at Round 24, as in my view, there’s not much to take out of this game.
The same issues that have plagued Essendon throughout the season, particularly in the second half of it, were once again evident. However, there was at least one pleasing aspect that marked the end of the year on a slightly positive note.
Soon, I’ll be diving deeper into a comprehensive season review. This review will focus on various elements of the game, with an in-depth analysis aimed at identifying where things went wrong and what can be improved moving forward. It will delve into how the game plan can be refined, which players need to step up, and where the coaching staff can make adjustments to better position the team for success in 2025.
Game style.
I’m not a basketball fan in all honesty, and so I wasn’t a fan of how this game was played.
Once the ball got outside of the congestion and contest of stoppages, it was very open with very little pressure applied by both teams.
Out of the 815 total possessions in the game—more than 150 above this season’s AFL average—560 were uncontested, making up over 68% of the total. This is more than 6% higher than the AFL average.
This season, Essendon was able to apply pressure via a tackle on average every 5.77 opposition possessions. However, by quarter time against Brisbane, that rate increased to every 10 possessions. By half time, it was 9.23, and in the third quarter alone, it reached every 17.6 possessions.
Both teams prioritise ball control when advancing the ball forward, primarily relying on uncontested marks in possession chains.
Essendon has averaged just over 22 uncontested marks per quarter, while Brisbane averages 25, ranked 3rd and 1st respectively.
However, by quarter time, both teams had already achieved 33 uncontested marks each. By half time, Essendon’s average increased to 29.5, and Brisbane’s to 28.5.
The effort to maintain short marking options couldn’t be sustained after halftime, as kicks decreased and the game shifted to a more “run and carry via handballs” style.
While the final scoreboard showed a 20-point loss, I think most would agree that this margin was flattering for Essendon, given how the first three quarters played out before they kicked five straight goals in the last quarter.
Forward 50 groundball.
Quote taken from preview.
“While Essendon’s one-on-one work has been poor all season, another concern is their ability to defend contests once the ball hits the ground. Here, Brisbane boasts five players ranked in the top 55 for groundball gets: Lohmann, Rayner, Ah Chee, Cameron, and Morris, so containing these threats through matchups and assistance is crucial.”
Unfortunately, there was no quick fix that could happen in just one game. This week, the Lions entered their forward 50 a total of 62 times. With 12 marks coming from those entries.
However, of the remaining 50 entries, the Lions managed to win ground level contests nearly half the time—23 contests, which is the highest number Essendon has conceded this year, tied with Gold Coast’s 23 two games earlier.
No team can afford to lose so many ground level contests in an area of the ground that should have extra defensive support. While one issue arises from what’s happening further up the ground—slowing down the ball movement into that zone—player selection is another concern. There’s been discussion about playing and recruiting fleet-footed players for the front half and third, but it’s equally crucial to find similar types who can provide defensive cover down back. This area has been a recurring problem in recent seasons.
Score source.
Quote taken from preview.
“This week, Brisbane shows some vulnerabilities in allowing opposition scores through transition. If you thought Essendon gave up scores from its front half in rebounding, you’d be right—they rank just above the three teams at the bottom of the ladder. But Brisbane is only one spot ahead of Essendon in 14th place, with over half of the 33 points they concede from their front half starting from their own forward 50 and going the length of the field.”
The most impressive part of the game from Essendon was the ability to capitalise on a well-known weakness in Brisbane’s setup and game style—their inability to defend against the ball moving from their own front half all the way to the other end for a score.
In this game, the Bombers were able to transition from this area of the ground and create nine shots at goal.
This year, they've only had more than nine shots start from this position six times. The 39 points they scored from this starting position was their sixth-highest this year, with two goals coming directly from kick outs. However, an underlying issue forced them to start so far away from their goals to begin with.
Clearances.
This year, both Essendon and Brisbane average the exact same amount of possession chains, with the difference between the two teams being how those chains are started in the first place.
Of Essendon's 114.2 chains, just over 31% begin from winning a clearance. For Brisbane, that rate is over 35%. The difference between the two was obvious early in this game and became more pronounced the longer the game went.
Territory is key in modern football and an even bigger key for Essendon in how the team wants to set up to play. By halftime, Brisbane’s dominance this season in clearances—the number two ranked team—was on display with a +11 differential in their favour from only 36 ruck contests. This well below the league average of just over 47 stoppages a game in a half of football.
This loss forced Essendon to do most of its work trying to regain lost metres in territory. Unfortunately, the struggle continued in the third quarter, with a loss of another five clearances. Most of this was achieved outside of centre bounce.
By the end of the game, Brisbane had won the stoppage count around the ground by 16, generating seven shots at goal from this source. In contrast, Essendon relied primarily on centre bounce, with three out of four shots created from total stoppages originating there.
The added challenge in the pursuit of regaining lost territory was the dare required to move the ball forward, the decision-making needed to find a target, and the all-important execution to hit that target.
Unfortunately, both decision-making and execution were problematic early on, as Essendon turned the ball over six times in the defensive half within the first 20 minutes, resulting in three goals for Brisbane
Groundball.
Despite the abundance of midfield talent on Essendon's list, a consistent groundball winner within congestion remains a glaring deficiency, as evidenced by the team's struggles over the past three seasons.
This week, it was a loss of 20 in groundball against the number two ranked team this year, adding to the -80 differential that Essendon has been down since Round 12 against Gold Coast. In the last three seasons, the Bombers have lost the count by 102, 149, and 99 altogether, with the record against finalists in the last two years being -74 this year and -106 last year.
What these teams boast is a midfielder or two who can consistently win the hardball contest and transition it from inside to outside. This year’s eight finalists have Liberatore, Cripps, Dangerfield, Tom Green, Wines, Neale, and Dunkley in the top 12 midfielders for this metric. In contrast, Setterfield is Essendon’s top-ranked player this season, coming in at 10th, but he only played four games. After him, Durham ranks next at 40th. Last year, Parish was Essendon’s top-ranked player coming in 33rd, with Caldwell following at 45th.
This is an area of the game that becomes even more important during finals, as the number of stoppages around the ground increases by another 6% based on the last two seasons’ AFL average compared to the finals average, and nearly 23% compared to Essendon’s season average.
Early in the season, Durham was given the responsibility of this role, but as the season progressed, his time as a full-time midfielder decreased. When Parish returned from injury, Durham’s role changed significantly. Before the bye, Durham played 72.4% of the time on the ground, which increased to 78.2% after the bye. However, his average centre bounce attendance dropped from 56.9% to 37.4%. Up until the bye, Essendon had a clearance differential of +7, with a +53 point advantage from stoppage clearances. After the bye, this differential was -29 in clearances and -34 in points from stoppages.
When Parish returned for the last five games, Durham’s centre bounce attendance decreased even further, averaging only 34% of Essendon’s centre bounces against St. Kilda. then dropping to 27%, 32%, 22%, and finally 0% against Brisbane. During those five games, the team also recorded a -50 differential in groundball wins.
While it might have been too much to expect Durham to maintain this role throughout the entire season, I hope he is given the first opportunity next season to continue the work he started. This would allow Essendon’s midfield to maximise its potential, with Merrett and Parish both ranking in the top 30 midfielders for average loose ball gets per game, and Merrett in the top three for handball receives between the 50-metre arcs.
Conclusion.
While the season may be over for players and fans, the work behind the scenes is far from finished. A massive undertaking lies ahead, analysing the performance data and player capabilities to determine the best path forward.
The team's future success hinges on identifying the individuals who can elevate the squad to the next level and seamlessly integrate into the evolving game plan.
This year served as a learning experience, and how those lessons are applied in 2025 will be crucial. Fans are eagerly anticipating changes, whether they lead to immediate results or not, as it's clear that the team still has a long way to go.
Commentaires