Review

Oh no.

After the reality check and disappointment of Round 1, Essendon headed to Adelaide needing a quick regroup on their first road trip of the year, looking to restore some pride early in the season. Instead, just eight quarters in, another poor showing has only intensified the scrutiny, with serious questions now unavoidable.

The doubts that follow performances like these extend across — upstairs, downstairs, inside, outside — from preparation to messaging and everything in between.

These are not the conversations a club expects to be having two weeks into the season after a four-month build-up.

There have been many parts of Essendon that have been a work in progress in recent times, from list build and off-field education to on-field implementation, most notably defensively. This time though, the offensive side is just as much under the microscope, with this review centred mainly around what appear to be the instructions when the opportunity comes to attack, and the lack of variation when it’s needed.

Don’t worry, the usual defensive issues will be covered, which now feel like they’ve reached epidemic levels (hard to fathom that it could’ve got any worse, but it has), but I’m going to start with the footy, or more specifically, when Essendon had the chance to use it.

What are we looking at?

Quote taken from my preseason training review back in November 2024 on Essendon’s change in method.

“The ball is constantly in motion via quick hands.

It’s forcing players to be on the move to receive and have multiple possessions in chains rather than giving off and not following up.

This change will challenge decision-making on who to give it to and when to kick, while also testing the forwards’ timing in starting their leads.”

I wrote about the Bombers’ change in game style last year in my end of season review, but it’s gone too far, and right now it’s the wrong direction.

If the preference is to use hands in transition from stoppage, turnover or rebound, there are multiple requirements that sit on top of decision-making.

The capacity to run, and to run at speed, is critical.

Once the ball is “out”, players must spread quickly to make the ground big, opening up multiple forward options rather than becoming predictable in their direction of attack. The best teams do this consistently, playing expansive football and using the full width of the ground.

The fitness element then comes into play.

Can Essendon sustain the repeat efforts to “wave run” alongside teammates, carry the ball further, and get from contest to contest?

The best sides separate themselves here through superior work rate, but also through balance, knowing when to continue by hand and when to shift the ball by foot to players already in space for uncontested possessions.

Get most of this wrong, whether through list profile, team selection or player capability, and the opposition’s pressure ramps up, limiting Essendon’s ability to exit cleanly and forcing that pressure to simply be transferred from one teammate to the next, keeping the heat in the same area.

When the ball does turn over, the next challenge is how quickly players can shift from being part of the chain to finding an opponent.

That is made harder when too many get ahead of the play too early, assuming the ball is already out, rather than maintaining balance around the contest.

Right now, that balance isn’t there.

Help.

Two games in, Essendon has taken just 111 uncontested marks in the back two thirds of the ground, the second least in the competition, and 19 fewer than Port Adelaide managed in this game alone.

Against the Power, the Bombers could only find an unpressured marking outlet on their way forward, on average, every 5.95 possessions (you don’t want to know how that compares against Port Adelaide), and in the two middle quarters, that average blew out to 8.1 (you really do not want to know how that compares against Port Adelaide).

Without a more reliable connection piece bridging the back and front halves with ball in hand, defending the other way becomes even more difficult.

With the ball “live” and teammates looking to become or continue to be involved, there’s little time to reset defensively, allowing the opposition to execute their planned pressure at the source and force turnovers.

Under instruction?

From slow play, whether from an intercept mark or free kick, Essendon looked lost for options outside of going long down the line to a contest.

That raises clear questions around the planning during the week and the direction given pre-game.

The vision below highlights it just three minutes into the game.

There’s no movement to switch, no short option, no leading lanes opening up, and no attempt to challenge defensively as a matchup. Mason Redman is left with little choice but to go to a contest, and not a good one.

https://video.wixstatic.com/https://video.wixstatic.com/video/8b4dc1_8018eee0de034e4482390461bef356eb/file

Up to this point, Essendon had 14 disposals—nine by hand and all five kicks classified as long (over 30 metres)—demonstrating the almost obvious intent of the directions given, as Jayden Nguyen, Zak Johnson, Andrew McGrath, and Zach Merrett repeatedly linked up by hand rather than using their foot for better control.

Needs fixing also.

What hasn’t helped so far, much like in the second half of last year, is the poor starting position of Essendon’s chains due to clearance losses.

After trailing by seven at half-time and 10 by three-quarter time against Hawthorn, the Bombers were again on the back foot and forced to defend, losing the first quarter this week by nine, with all five centre clearances for Port Adelaide going inside 50.

By game’s end, Essendon had to start 40 of their 101 possession chains from inside their defensive 50, putting even more emphasis on efficient ball movement.

What’s changed here then?

By the end of the 2025 Home and Away season, Essendon was ranked 11th in clearance differential, finishing at -1.2 — just under the AFL average. Considering the disaster of the season after Round 11, that was actually quite remarkable.

A major factor in that was their ability to restrict opponents from turning first possession at pre-clearance contests into an exit. Only Geelong and Western Bulldogs were more effective, with Brisbane, and Gold Coast just behind — three of these ranked inside the top four for total clearances.

Unfortunately, two games into 2026, the situation is the complete opposite.

GWS is the only team ranked lower at preventing opponents’ midfielders turning first possession into a clearance — though the key difference is that the Giants simply don’t allow as many opportunities to get hands on the ball first as Essendon does.

In Round 1 against GWS, only five Hawthorn midfielders won first possession at pre-clearance more than three times. Of those, only Mabior Chol and Connor Nash converted at least five into clearances, with Jai Newcombe three.

Last week against Essendon, Hawthorn were much more successful: five players won four or more, with Lloyd Meek, Newcombe, and Nash converting eight, eight, and seven respectively.

Essendon’s experienced midfield wasn’t up for the fight, winning eight fewer in total, and allowing over 77% of those to get out into space.

The challenge should have immediately fallen back onto Essendon’s on-ball brigade on Sunday — but there was no resistance.

The Power, through weight of numbers, had Connor Rozee with 10, Willem Drew 8, Zak Butters and Jordan Sweet 7 each, and Jack Watkins 4, with 82% of those resulting in territory.

The concern is real: North Melbourne in Round One were +11 at First Possession against Port Adelaide, limiting them to under 68% efficiency, while this week they went +12 against West Coast, keeping the Eagles under 65%.

It’s a huge watch this Saturday against the Kangaroos.

Not again.

Why do I keep returning to marks and uncontested marks? Unfortunately, it’s unavoidable — they’re just too big a factor in games.

The records keep breaking, and for all the wrong reasons.

Essendon’s 157 marks conceded in Round 1 was the most they’ve ever allowed and tied for 17th all-time across all teams…for one week only.

Now, after this past weekend, 164 marks makes it the 12th most in a single game, and the most ever by Essendon.

Two horror weeks without the footy.

Why would opposition teams bother trying to pierce the Essendon zone when they can simply go around it? Here’s one instance, with three images, showing the motivation to do exactly that.

Four Essendon players within ~15 metres.

Seven within a ~30 metre area.

None within ~30 metres of Port Adelaide players

Use your voice.

When the ball is in dispute and within reach, this group can compete. But they can’t force the game into that state often enough, particularly from slow play.

The inability to talk, swivel, point, or be proactive is alarming.

Too many players exist in their own “world,” ball-watching and reacting rather than anticipating, letting the opposition dictate the play.

The current mix of one-on-one and zone defending isn’t working.

There’s a clear lack of experience in knowing where to be in obvious situations, and a quick reset in team selection is urgently needed to support the defensive structure, especially the attacking side of the mid zone.

Let’s finish here.

A disastrous performance when a response was desperately needed has left far more questions than answers — and rightly so. More than anything, it’s exposed just how fragile things are right now, with the change rooms surely a factor.

What’s most concerning isn’t just that things aren’t working; it’s how quickly they unravel, with little ability to wrestle the game back to neutral.

The response now has to be more than effort — it has to be understanding.

Go Bombers!