Review

Off to the fruit shop.

It’s taken 14 quarters, but Essendon has finally begun its 2026 season, showing signs of what was learned and trained over the summer, with reminders of the true capabilities of its experienced players, as well as the potential of those early in their careers.

Unfortunately, it came two quarters too late, allowing an expected contender too much control across the first half, but the response after the main break should provide the confidence needed to lay a foundation to build from. That’s the challenge they’ve now set themselves.

Apples and oranges.

Fans wondered what they would see of Essendon from the first bounce of the year, and three games in there have been major concerns, with more than enough disappointment across almost every aspect of performance.

The final 20 minutes of last week’s game showed glimpses of a past Essendon team that had promised so much for so long, but that was quickly erased by the opening 30 minutes here, until a slight shift began almost halfway through the second quarter in both mindset and method.

This became much more evident after half time, bringing multiple positive flow-on effects into other areas, and that’s where the focus of this piece will be — what those changes looked like, how the numbers support it and what it means moving forward.

Apples.

Every game starts at stoppage, and while people may think the modern game has moved to transition football, how that transition is generated and from what part of the ground is dictated by your ability to win the ball at the source and exit congestion effectively, which in turn determines where your opposition must begin its attack, the method it is likely to use and the level of defensive pressure required to deal with any scores that may come.

Coming into this game, Essendon ranked a clear 18th in the competition for pre-clearance contested possession, with a cumulative differential of -28 after three rounds. That meant opposition midfielders were consistently getting first hands on the ball, immediately placing the onus on Essendon’s matchups to limit the damage. Up against the fourth-ranked side in this area, it was always going to be a challenge, and early, that proved to be the case.

The powerful Bulldogs midfield went to work, dominating stoppages both at centre bounce and around the ground, winning them 12–7 by quarter time, including 6–2 from the centre square, and it was quickly reflected on the scoreboard.

Six shots at goal came from clearance in the opening term, three directly from centre bounce, with two of those within two minutes. Marcus Bontempelli, Matthew Kennedy and Riley Sanders consistently took the ball from inside to out by hand, releasing teammates into space, linking up through handball receives, and immediately placing pressure on Essendon’s defenders to hold up in the air, intercept where possible, and try to regain lost territory, with 10 of Essendon’s 23 possession chains for the quarter starting in defensive 50.

The Bulldogs generated another four scores from just eight clearances, and while all four were behinds, compared to five goals from eight in the first term, Essendon created nothing from its own paltry two.

Down by 11 in clearance differential and trailing 35–3 from this source, the message had to be delivered at the main break, because what followed was a clear shift from the first 40 minutes to the next 40.

Oranges.

In the first half, the Western Bulldogs were +13 in first possession, with over 90% of those turning into clearances, but after the break, Essendon responded, winning first possession 21–16 and reducing the Bulldogs’ clearance conversion rate to below 70%.

Despite limiting those easy exits, once the Bulldogs did break free, they were too difficult to contain, with eight of their 12 second-half scoring shots still coming from clearance, although Essendon was fortunate that five of those resulted in behinds.

What did change was Essendon’s ability to compete at ground level, with Merrett, Parish, Caldwell, Isaac Kako and Peter Wright at least able to match the contest. and that had a direct impact on their scoring profile.

Across the final two quarters, Essendon generated eight scoring shots from clearance, which was their highest return from that source across any two consecutive quarters since the start of 2025, with 34 points for the game, their equal sixth-highest total from clearance in their past 26 matches.

A small win, but something to build from.

Now to the biggest shift between Essendon’s first half and second half.

Apples.

I continue to write about finding a better balance between Essendon’s previous kick-mark method and its newer handball run-and-carry approach, and this game provided an almost perfect example within the one contest to highlight both the problem and the solution, with a near 50/50 split (the shift came just before half time).

Twelve quarters in, only Sydney had a lower kick percentage than Essendon, with the Bombers using their feet just 52.3% of the time, and 40 minutes into this match, that dropped even further to 50.6%.

Their primary method to regain territory, mainly from stoppage loss, was to run at the Bulldogs with chaos, a poor choice against a side that supports the source with numbers to apply pressure, and is one of the best in the competition at chaining by hand to punish turnovers.

It’s not just a dangerous method against this type of opponent, it’s also one that doesn’t suit Essendon’s current list profile, particularly given its limitations in genuine leg speed, and that showed early, with just three scoring shots to half time originating from defensive half chains.

With clearance issues acknowledged (2–8 in the second quarter), a shift came midway through the term, with Essendon looking to defend with the ball and gain some control over how the game was being played, and that adjustment carried into a more confident approach with ball in hand after the break.

Even with an improvement at stoppages, the key change was the willingness to provide a marking outlet, and then recognise and honour that option.

Oranges.

The Bombers could only find nine uncontested marks in transition from defensive 50 in the first quarter, the second-lowest of any quarter this year behind only their third against Port Adelaide, but after identifying the Bulldogs’ vulnerability to intercept in the latter part of the second term, they saw this as a way forward, literally and figuratively.

In the third quarter, Essendon was able to take 24 uncontested marks across the back two-thirds of the ground, finding an unpressured option on average every 3.23 disposals, more than half the rate of the first quarter’s 7.5. This helped extend each possession chain and get further up the ground. with an average of 63.04 metres, well up on the 49.8 from the opening 20 minutes, in fact the longest average chain for Essendon in any quarter this year.

Even so, it wasn’t perfect, nothing is for a team learning on the job, with only another three shots at goal starting from behind centre, but what it did do was set up the more important front half game, specifically the forward half intercept game.

After just five forward half intercepts to half time, well down on the 10, 12 and 14 from the opening three games, Essendon won the ball back 12 times in that same zone, while also denying the Dogs easy outlets when it was their turn, restricting them to just 32 uncontested marks in transition, the least Essendon has allowed across any two quarters this year, compared to 54 in the first half.

Last week I highlighted the lack of midfield involvement in ball movement, and the flow-on effect that had on the running backs and high half forwards, and while I have a piece coming that will go deeper into what that should look like, this week there was at least a shift in attitude and a willingness to become a viable option, helping to better connect the two halves of the ground.

Now it must be said, these are not outstanding figures, nor even above average when compared to the competition or top sides like the Western Bulldogs, but they are an improvement on what Essendon has produced so far.

Small win, but something to build on.

The fruit salad with a serving of ice-cream.

A major issue early this season has been the inconsistency of Essendon’s forwards in winning contests ahead of the ball, with Nate Caddy, Kyle Langford and Peter Wright the highest ranked coming into this game, averaging four each and sitting equal 43rd of all forwards in the competition. This week, it was two “youngsters” who stepped up.

Tom Edwards, 26 and playing just his second full game, won seven, while Archer May, in his 10th, won five the hard way, including three contested marks and four one-on-one wins, both responding to increased responsibility with Caddy unavailable and Wright spending significant time in the ruck.

Archer May outmarking two Bulldogs defenders in the second quarter. (Vision: Channel 7 / AFL).

May did his work in the air inside 50 with four marks, while Edwards provided impact at ground level with five ground balls, as the two combined for 11 score involvements and seven shots at goal.

The forward structure has been a work in progress for some time, with more experienced players not meeting previous standards, so performances like these at least begin to create some accountability around output.

That’s enough fruit for now.

All up, Essendon was never likely to challenge the Western Bulldogs for long enough, given the gap in experience and cohesion between the two sides, but this was less about the result and more about re-establishing the fundamental elements required just to compete.

What it ultimately showed is how much still needs to be corrected before anything consistent or sustainable can take shape.

Go Bombers!