Lions vs Bombers Review

Unease and realistic focus.

It was easy to understand every Essendon fan’s nervousness all week coming into this game. A host of injuries to first-choice selections, and six players aged 20 or younger with an average of just 7.8 games experience among the 23 selected, had to travel north to take on last year’s Premiers, who had won eight of their first 11 games and were sitting second on the ladder.

Given all that, I approached this week with a shift in focus. Rather than framing my thoughts around Essendon’s broader process and long-term trends, it felt more relevant to set realistic expectations and concentrate on a few key areas, most notably the midfield.

It was the one part of the ground largely untouched by the injury toll, and its ability to hold up was going to have a direct impact on the most compromised part of the ground: the backline.

With El Hawli sidelined due to injury and Parish held back for another week, the coaches still had a large complement to choose from, which was fortunate, as this is undoubtedly Brisbane’s greatest strength.

What had me most curious early was how Essendon would approach the game and what their priorities would be in the first 10 to 15 minutes.

Fire with fire?

The two sides share a lot of similarities in how they move the ball, particularly from the back half, with Essendon’s typical mode closely resembling Brisbane’s controlled possession approach.

But with their three first-choice defenders, McKay, Reid, and Ridley out, and number one backup Hayes also unavailable, you had to wonder if they’d look to shift away from their default method.

You can’t expect to go at Brisbane with a version of their own game style, one they’ve built over years, with continuity and experience behind it, and one that’s held up time and time again, especially when the players who play such a significant part in executing it aren’t out there.

Mano a Mano.

-Quote taken from my preview.

“When it comes to winning contested possessions pre-clearance, the Lions rank 6th, behind three teams Essendon has struggled with in this metric this season: North Melbourne, Melbourne, and the Western Bulldogs. That strength extends to their work at ground level, where they rank 5th best in the competition, reinforcing just how well-equipped Brisbane are to win the ball at the source.

Brisbane come into this clash ranked number one for stoppage clearances around the ground this season, and 8th at centre bounce, making them the number two ranked team for total clearances overall, behind only the Bulldogs, who dismantled Essendon in this area two weeks ago...Only Gold Coast and Adelaide convert first possessions at stoppages into effective clearances at a better rate than Brisbane.”

Despite having nearly their full midfield contingent available, Essendon were always going to be up against it facing a premiership-hardened mix, featuring a dual Brownlow Medallist who is also a four-time All-Australian and AFL MVP, last year’s Norm Smith Medallist, and two others who’ve made the All-Australian 40 squad on five occasions. With that sort of calibre on the other side, there were always going to be doubts over what impact Essendon’s midfield could have when the game stopped and the ball needed to be won. Thankfully, they were up to one part of the task early.

Quarter one.

The Bombers had the edge at stoppages. Even without getting first hands at the contest, they were able to win it back and exit cleanly through handball. But they weren’t able to generate the same value from those exits as the Lions did, and that difference in post-clearance impact was a big part of the first-quarter problem.

When Essendon was able to take the ball from inside to outside, they could get it going forward, but from there, they weren’t able to find a marking target to set up the field ahead, or just as importantly, behind. Because of that, Brisbane was able to intercept by winning contests either at ground level or in the air.

The Lions had little trouble winning it back post-clearance in the first quarter, and the Bombers shift in method with the ball helped.

A different look.

It was clear early that Essendon was looking to take the ball forward more than sideways, a change from what’s been their default for most of the season.

No team in 2025 gains less territory per disposal than Essendon, and that carries on from last year when they were also ranked 18th. But to pierce a forward press like Brisbane’s, you need foot skills to match vision and decision-making. The Bombers weren’t up to all three in the first quarter, and most times when they looked to change angles and go more central, they turned it over and got punished.

Four of Brisbane’s nine shots at goal came from front half intercepts, with three goals one the result, which only made it hurt more.

But it wasn’t just an issue defending their own back half, because when they did go forward and gave the ball up, their ability to defend in transition continues to be a problem.

Quote taken from preview.

“This season, Essendon is allowing the most uncontested marks per game at 91.1, making it easier for opponents to move the ball freely and undo any territory gained far too easily. Unfortunately, this week they come up against the team that takes the most uncontested marks per game and the most per possession chain.

Of the 94.7 uncontested marks Brisbane take per game, just under 82 on average are in their back two-thirds, forming the base of their method for moving the ball from behind centre into the front half.”

Same same but…same.

I would’ve thought one of the midweek goals would be to deny uncontested marks in Brisbane’s back two-thirds. Not an unrealistic or overambitious objective. just a clear target to set the sights on. If that was the plan, I can’t imagine 31 per quarter was the desired threshold.

While Essendon struggled to take a mark, just 15 for the quarter, 14 of them uncontested, Brisbane had no such issue. They took a mark every 2.84 disposals, and an uncontested mark every 3.26 in the back two-thirds. That allowed them to score two goals from back-half intercepts, win territory by almost 600 metres for the quarter, and hold 15% more time in possession.

Quarter two.

In a lot of ways, the second quarter followed the same pattern as the first, and in some aspects, it was worse. But there was one thing Essendon was holding onto.

Brisbane started 28 possession chains in the first quarter, mostly off the back of 19 intercepts. Over 32% of those became shots at goal, 11% above their season average, and 7% better than the number one side in that metric, the Western Bulldogs. But in the second quarter, they went to another level.

The Lions had only 18 possession chains, but this time, almost 39% resulted in a score. From their 14 intercepts, half turned into shots at goal, something no team had achieved in any quarter this year.

Their ball movement was at its absolute peak, helped by 43 uncontested marks, allowing them to rebound and advance forward.

Five of their seven shots at goal came from back-half intercepts, with the game becoming even more uncontested compared to the first 20 minutes, as Essendon only managed to win the ball back every 10.3 Brisbane possessions, their second-worst rate in any quarter, behind only the first term against the Bulldogs.

There were only two things stopping it from being a complete disaster: Brisbane scoring one goal six for the quarter and Essendon taking control of the stoppage battle.

The Bombers won centre bounce clearances two to one and stoppages around the ground six to three. Unlike in the first quarter, they turned 25% of their total wins into scores, while denying Brisbane any from stoppages.

This combination of luck and hard work kept the scoreboard close and would’ve provided a crucial lift heading into the second half.

This is working.

Going into the main break up by six at clearance against Brisbane, I would expect the messaging to be centred around this part of the game—to continue using it as a scoring source or, at worst, to gain initial territory, which would hopefully in turn bring the intercept game with it. And to their credit, they absolutely did.

Quarter three.

Initial clearances set up field position, and deeper entries, which were an aid to stopping Brisbane’s uncontested preference.

In the first half, Brisbane had a +52 differential in uncontested possessions and +42 advantage in uncontested marks, but with more aggressive defending at the source and behind the ball, those luxuries were taken away, ultimately forcing Brisbane to play Essendon’s new preferred brand.

After struggling to win the ball back, intercepting Brisbane every 9.54 possessions in the first 40 minutes, the Bombers were now forcing a turnover every 5.5 possessions. That brought them much closer to their 2024 standard, when they ranked sixth in the competition for this metric.

Instead of allowing almost two marks per chain to Brisbane in transition, they would only be afforded less than one, with only a solitary score for the quarter starting from behind centre.

Bring it all together.

With the Lions now only able to take a mark every 4.38 disposals instead of 2.57 in the first half, it finally brought the most important scoring source in football, with over 28% of intercepts ending in a shot at goal for the Bombers.

And it wasn’t just coming from turnovers, the Bombers were now scoring from clearances, too.

Before halftime, Essendon wasn’t fully capitalising on stoppages, with 18 total clearances generating just three shots at goal (thankfully, all three resulted in goals). But now, their efficiency matched their effectiveness, turning one in every three clearances into scores.

Quarter four.

After a third quarter built on tackling pressure (one every 6.41 Brisbane possessions compared to 8.4 in the first half) and closing down time and space around the Lions to force rushed decisions, Essendon’s shift in attitude with the ball began to pay off.

Their new approach. using run and carry, handball receives, and changing direction while still moving forward, had the game hanging in the balance. If they could sustain it for another quarter, they’d give themselves a real chance of an upset victory.

Try as Essendon might to keep the game in chaos for another quarter, Brisbane’s experience in crucial moments swung it just enough their way, allowing them to wrest back control when it mattered.

The stoppage game that had been Essendon’s avenue forward was slowly taken away, and the toll of their first-half efforts, being forced to chase Brisbane and defend every blade of grass all over the ground for no reward, started to show. When they did win the ball back and wanted to attack, they could no longer reliably run and spread to carry the ball further forward, no matter how much they tried to force it.

Final thoughts.

All up, it was a mighty effort to shift the game’s direction so quickly and challenge a side of Brisbane’s calibre and experience, especially for a lineup still finding its feet both individually and as a unit. The adjustment showed promising signs, and for a large portion of the second half, Essendon controlled the look and feel of what was unfolding.

But once again, the contrast between halves reinforced a simple truth, the defensive side of the game does more to positively shape the offensive than anything else.

But taking these lessons on board isn’t enough. It’s about consistently applying them for longer stretches, making them second nature. The challenge is to bridge the gap between identifying and executing them early enough to better influence the result.

The next period presents an opportunity to set simple, achievable goals, ones that provide clear motivation as the team continues to build, grow, and push towards consistency. That’s where real progress starts.