"Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn."
-Benjamin Franklin
I'm going to start my analysis by outlining what the team should glean from this match. Then, I'll provide a summary of the game as it was played, beginning with the first quarter and then addressing the subsequent three quarters.
Long-term, I don't view this loss as a major setback, despite the disappointment of the last 60 minutes of play. Instead, it serves as a valuable learning opportunity for the team.
The last quarter against St. Kilda and the first quarter against Port Adelaide illustrated what sustained successful football looks like and how it should be played.
It's crucial for Essendon to understand that the process undertaken during these quarters is correct, even if the outcomes don't always align. However, the subsequent three quarters highlighted the consequences of deviating from this standard, highlighting the significance of those quarters even further.
Those familiar with my views, whether through previous posts on here or on Twitter, understand my thoughts regarding the past Essendon game plan.
I've written about two main concerns: Firstly, the strategy lacked the characteristics necessary as a "finals brand" that would challenge the better teams consistently at the serious end of the season.
Secondly, it didn't effectively highlight the capabilities of the players on the list, which leaves questions about their true potential.
Now, with changes in progress, we have the opportunity to gauge whether these players and this list truly possess the talent and skills we've hoped for.
Am I surprised that this change only lasted for two quarters out of the last eight? Honestly, I'm not.
Essendon is still far from being a consistently competitive finals team, as demonstrated in the game.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, it's time to cover the good: quarter one, and then the bad: quarters two through four.
Quarter one
Not going to question the teams endeavour when the game was hot early.
Essendon showed up for the challenge.
Regardless of the brand of football you want to play, winning contests and, at the very least, not losing them to your opponents is crucial for success.
In the first quarter, Essendon forwards were able to consistently win crucial contest battles ahead of the field.
Jones, Langford, and Draper presented themselves well as lead-up options, and their teammates honoured their hard work.
This disrupted Port Adelaide's intercept markers, Aliir and Ratugolea, who failed to register any intercept marks throughout the quarter, in fact, not even one intercept possession.
Gresham's performance inside the forward 50 was exceptional at this stage, winning ground balls and contributing to the scoreboard, with all six of his disposals occurring inside 50.
Essendon's forward press was effective for the second quarter in a row, resulting in 19 intercepts and 11 tackles outside the forward third, leading to a plus differential of five inside 50s.
Another measurement that shows this is the Bombers had 61 disposals in the front half, while the Power only had 56 in their own defensive half.
The pressure on Port Adelaide's halfback flankers, Houston, Burton, and Farrell, was evident. Between the trio, they had 12 disposals for a total of minus one metre gained.
The appetite to impact their efficiency shown with five of those 12 disposals being turnovers.
This was achieved by closing the space around them, keeping them inside the contest so they couldn't get outside to use their kicking skills, and making them accountable by having their matchups come at the ball and be used as links in a possession chain. The heat was on in the front half, as seen by the balance of disposals.
In this quarter, Essendon maintained a one-to-one kick-to-handball ratio, with 56 kicks and 56 handballs. Due to the numerical advantage they had at contests, the correct method of exiting the area was to utilize these extra numbers by hand, rather than simply kicking it forward, considering Port Adelaide's additional players ahead.
I've been, and I'm sure we've all been, crying out for more intercepts from the oppositions possession chains, and the first quarter showed why.
Four shots at goal for two goals and two behinds, were the direct result from intercept possessions.
Unfortunately, after Essendon did the hard work to earn the scores, it had to return to the centre square, which was the primary scoring source for the Power at this stage.
Three of their first four goals came from centre clearances.
I've always said this area of the game is a coin flip; for the first three rounds, Essendon was on the winning side. This game, however, they kept losing it.
An essential measurement of coaching and players is their capacity to not only react to what's unfolding but also to take action.
Port Adelaide did this during the quarter time break, promptly adjusting their approach for the second quarter.
In contrast, Essendon failed to make the necessary adjustments when it was required of them.
Quarters two - four
Things changed in the second quarter, unfortunately, and it never turned back; in fact, it got worse.
Port Adelaide switched to man-on-man defense compared to the more modern zoning defense.
Man-on-man defense prioritizes individual matchups with tight marking and requires defenders to follow their assigned opponents in and out of designated areas, while zone defense emphasizes collective defense and strategic positioning to cover the opposition players as they move within the protected zone.
And it worked immediately.
In the first quarter, Essendon excelled at winning contests within the congestion of stoppages around the ground and finding an outlet via a kick to initiate the ball's forward movement and aid in setting up the forward press.
This was evident by their slight advantage in contested possessions, winning by just one, yet securing 31 more uncontested possessions during the same period.
However, this dynamic shifted drastically in the second quarter.
The Bombers struggled to find a teammate by foot to slow down the game and reset the field, and when they did, it no longer resulted in gaining territory.
While Essendon had 61 disposals in the front half and 50 in the defensive half in the first quarter, these numbers drastically changed to 34 in the front half and 58 in the defensive half in the second quarter.
Although the one-to-one kick-to-handball ratio remained relatively consistent, with 56 kicks and 56 handballs becoming 107 kicks and 101 handballs, the frequency of entries inside the forward third decreased from 16 times with a differential of +5 to 11 times with a differential of -7.
The centre square proved to be the catalyst once again, as lost starting positions from centre bounces resulted in Essendon winning the ball back in the back half without finding an outlet for forward progression.
Consequently, the ability for players ahead to win one-on-one contests disappeared, completely altering the game's dynamics. Could the coaches and players make the necessary halftime adjustments like the Power did at quarter time? That's a plain and simple no.
Wow, in my preview, Soldo wasn't even on my radar as a concern for how this game might unfold. To be fair, I highly doubt anyone had him pegged as a significant factor either. However, he proved to be instrumental, particularly in the first quarter when they were being outplayed in almost all aspects, bar one: the dreaded centre bounce.
On the night, Essendon won hitouts 34 to 23, with Draper contributing 14 and Goldstein 20. Soldo had all 23 for Port Adelaide. Yet, of those 34 hitouts for the Bombers, only five went to Essendon's advantage. Compare this to Soldo's 12, and you can see where the disappointment of the performance begins.
Once Essendon lost the ability to transition effectively from the back half to deep into the front half, the recurring issue of stopping ball movement in the opposite direction, as well as conceding points resurfaced.
This year, I've been consistently tracking possession chains, which measure how many times a team starts with the football, and importantly, starts via an intercept, how many of those instances result in an inside 50, a shot at goal, or are intercepted by the opposition.
To begin with, Essendon's defense of opposition possession chain statistics isn't impressive in terms of preventing those from turning into an inside 50 or a shot at goal. Unfortunately, there was no improvement in this game, with the numbers against not differing significantly from the previous three games.
The main issue was with Essendon's possession chains, predominantly after that first quarter.
Once again, highlighting what changed at quarter time and how neither the coaching staff nor the players could recover from it.
In the first quarter, Essendon started with the football 31 times, with 51% of them resulting in an inside 50 and over 29% resulting in a shot at goal.
Nineteen of those 31 possession chains began via an intercept. These figures significantly surpassed anything Essendon had achieved all year up to that point.
Converting 29% of possession chains into a score would rank second in the AFL competition, while achieving over 51% going inside 50 would rank third.
Starting over 61% via an intercept is almost 8% better than Essendon's season average.
However, quarters two to four were abysmal. Only 31.7% of chains ended inside 50, making it extremely difficult to generate more than 5.8% of those chains into scoring shots.
The part that hurts even more? Remember I said over 61% of chains began with an intercept in the first quarter, well that actually rose to over 68%.
While the Bombers have struggled to defend ball movement up to this point, their ability to move the ball themselves hadn't been the issue until this week.
The coaches gained valuable insight into the team's ability to handle one-on-one football for the first time in 2024.
Experiencing this firsthand provides a crucial learning opportunity, allowing them to address any deficiencies early in the season rather than later.
This approach is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it finally provides a true opportunity to assess the capabilities of the playing list firsthand, allowing for informed judgments to be made. Additionally, it enables the coaching staff to make any necessary adjustments early on, ensuring that the team can address any weaknesses and improve as the season progresses. Moreover, by addressing these weaknesses promptly, the team can prevent other teams from exploiting them later in the year, as they have been observed and noted by all other 16 teams in the competition.
Comentários