Magpies vs Bombers Review

The stages of life.

These are two teams at very different stages of their journey. Essendon is like an adolescent teenager, still figuring out who they are, learning how to respond to challenges as they come, and trying to find its footing in a competition that demands consistency and resilience. Collingwood, on the other hand, is more like a seasoned parent of three, battle-tested, experienced, and confident in how to navigate the inevitable highs and lows that come their way.

Collingwood came out knowing exactly what they needed to establish from the opening minute, laying the groundwork for their system immediately. Essendon might’ve started with a plan to counteract them, but it didn’t take long for things to unravel in the first 20 minutes of game time, forcing them to regroup and recalibrate in the second quarter just to find their footing and get back to the style they pictured and preferred.

After halftime, there were glimpses that those second-quarter adjustments might carry over, but Collingwood quickly got back to the markers they’d set early. As the game wore on, their system tightened its grip, leaving Essendon unable to wrest control for sustained periods to disrupt Collingwood’s dominance.

Collingwood Setting the Tone.

Coming into the game, Essendon had only won one first quarter from their first five games, with a -58 point total first-quarter differential. Giving Collingwood an early advantage at clearances wasn’t going to fix that trend, and it didn’t.

While centre clearances were only 3-2 in Collingwood’s favour in the first quarter, it was stoppage clearances that allowed them to set up the field as they liked, putting Essendon’s defence under constant stress.

The Bombers’ midfielders lost clearancs around the ground 5-10, and when the Magpies won it, they linked up cleanly, finding uncontested marks and pushing Essendon’s defenders deeper and further from goal.

Essendon, already conceding the second-most uncontested marks per game leading into this match (behind only West Coast, with Richmond third) and ranking worst for opponent kicks per uncontested mark, allowed 20 uncontested marks from just 60 Collingwood kicks, even in conditions that should have encouraged more contests. This directly fed into Collingwood’s 18 forward 50 entries in the opening quarter.

With numbers set behind the ball, Essendon was stuck between two poor options: either kick long for brief respite or handball their way through. But while Collingwood handballed to teammates on the move, Essendon’s handballs were mostly to stationary teammates, simply passing on the pressure. This directly fuelled Collingwood’s (and any side’s) most preferred score source: turnovers.

When Essendon’s defence did win the ball, it was short-lived, their forwards couldn’t win contests up the field, and the game remained confined to Collingwood’s forward half.

From the centre line to forward 50, Collingwood had 46 of their 110 first-quarter possessions, helped by intercepting Essendon every 4.6 possessions. This played a huge role in them taking five marks inside 50, converting 25% of intercepts into shots on goal, an improvement even on their already strong season average of 23.3%, third-best in the competition.

Essendon Changing the Tone.

After some heavy punches to the gut to start, it was again up to Essendon to recognise what was happening, adjust, and start throwing a few punches of their own after the first change.

The hope was that the midfield would offer more support in the second quarter after being badly beaten around the ball.

Unfortunately, it didn’t eventuate, Essendon again lost the around-ground clearances, this time by three, and once again, the defence had to shoulder the burden.

But this time, they were ready.

The back seven, Ridley, McGrath, Roberts, Reid, Prior and Redman, combined for 16 of Essendon’s 23 intercept possessions in the second quarter, a major lift from the 10 they managed in the first quarter.

From only winning the ball back every 5.5 Collingwood possessions early, they now forced turnovers every 3.95 possessions, a rate that would be clearly number one over the course of a season.

This allowed Essendon to steady, dictate some tempo, and move the ball on their terms.

In the first quarter, Essendon had 46 kicks and 49 handballs, forced upon them by Collingwood’s pressure and their inability to consistently win contests behind and ahead of the ball. However, in the second quarter, Essendon found a better balance between kicks and handballs, recording 68 kicks to 33 handballs.

This allowed them to double their uncontested marks from 14 in the first quarter to 28 in the second, helping to make up for the early loss of territory.

Their average possession chain length lifted from 43 metres to over 52 metres, and they recorded 32 possessions on the attacking side of the centre square, compared to just 19 in the first quarter. Inside 50 entries also jumped from 8 to 17 for the quarter.

Essendon also finally made them count — finding marking targets (even with a bit of luck, as with Durham’s second goal), and more crucially, denying Collingwood easy rebound opportunities.

Essendon forced 23 intercepts for the quarter (10 of those in their attacking half) leading to five shots at goal from turnovers and crucially kicking accurately with four goals.

The Second Half.

The big question was whether Essendon could keep challenging Collingwood with ball in hand after halftime, unfortunately, they couldn’t.

Clearances continued to be Collingwood’s weapon of choice, and with a tightening defensive structure behind the ball, the easy movement Essendon found briefly in the second quarter disappeared.

Essendon was dominated at clearance, winning only 32 to Collingwood’s 51 in the second half.

Once again, it was left to the defenders to clean up, but this time, even when they did, ball movement was almost impossible, with only 23 uncontested marks across the back two-thirds of the ground in that same period.

In the first half, Essendon had manfully restricted Collingwood from turning clearances into scores, only conceding scores from 12.6% of clearances (less than half the Magpies’ 2025 season average).

But in the second half, especially the final quarter, the dam wall broke:

27.5% of clearances turned into scores, and Collingwood punished them, kicking six goals and one behind from those chances.

A Missing Ingredient.

Team balance through selection continues to be a pressing issue, and this week it was the midfield.

Going into the game, Essendon looked a genuine midfielder short, especially a contested ball-winner.

They were ranked third for contested possessions inside stoppages before the game, with Caldwell’s absence against Melbourne and West Coast surprisingly not felt, thanks to Durham and Merrett stepping up, and Setterfield offering balance.

But against Collingwood, Merrett, Durham, Hobbs, Shiel and Setterfield couldn’t match their counterparts, losing pre-clearance contests by 15.

If Tsatas wasn’t fully fit (despite being named in the VFL), that’s understandable. But having Jones as the extra midfielder and wing option over Perkins was strange, especially given Jones’ struggles adapting to that role in the past.

This isn’t a knock on Jones, it’s about role suitability.

If the decision to push Jones up the ground was based on avoiding a too-tall forward line (with Langford, Wright, and Caddy), the mistake was made at selection on Thursday night.

Needing a Lift.

One of Essendon’s strengths early in 2025 has been winning contests outside of clearance, averaging a +7.7 differential across the first six games, only losing that count twice (against West Coast and Adelaide).

One of the strongest early features of Essendon’s 2025 season has been their ability to win contests post clearance, averaging a +7.7 differential against opponents and only losing that count twice in six games (against West Coast and Adelaide). This strength comes from winning contests both ahead of the ball through the forwards and behind it through the defenders, but at the moment, far too much of that burden is falling onto the defenders, mainly due to the midfield struggles.

In the first three games, Essendon had a +23 total differential at clearances and a +9 differential in pre-clearance contests. However, across the past three games, pre-clearance contests have swung to -38 and clearances to -3, forcing the defenders into doing a lot of the heavy lifting by constantly needing to win the ball back after losing initial stoppages.

On the weekend, Collingwood’s midfielders, Sidebottom, Nick Daicos and Pendlebury, won 50 contested possessions between them, while Essendon’s entire midfield group could only manage 51.

There’s no doubt Essendon’s midfield depth is being stretched by injury right now, and full credit has to go to the defenders who are holding up under the pressure. But sooner or later, the weight of numbers will take its toll if the issues further up the ground aren’t addressed.

Short Sharp Notes.

Before this game, Essendon allowed more than 30% of opposition possession chains starting in their own forward 50 to transition the length of the ground, second-worst in the competition (only North Melbourne worse). Against Collingwood? They limited it to just 6%.

Collingwood entered as the best third-quarter team in the AFL, and that continued. They averaged nearly three goals more than their opponents in third quarters this season, and they won the third quarter by 16 points against Essendon.

At the end of the day.

Am I concerned about anything additional from this game? No more than I was going into it.

As said in the preview: there’s no tougher opponent than Collingwood right now, a team with almost every aspect of the game in full working order, and operating on a totally different timeline to Essendon.

There were more than enough times when Essendon posed questions to Collingwood and showed that the potential to hurt on the scoreboard is there when things are in order, but longer periods of this are required.

The defensive line stood up under a barrage, especially in one-on-ones for the majority of the time. However, there’s a noticeable gap between the two teams in terms of midfield depth and impact, though the expected return of key players in the coming weeks should help address this.

Better team selection would improve the front half, and there is depth on the list to make players who are currently out of form earn their way back through the VFL while promoting those performing at the lower level.

There’s a lot to learn from this game, and how Essendon applies those lessons will define the next few weeks.