Review

Back to basics.

After back-to-back disappointing performances on the big stage against an experienced Collingwood side and dual premiership-winning Brisbane, Essendon had an opportunity to regroup, recalibrate and regain some confidence with an away trip to Sydney against GWS. Here’s how it looked through a red and black lens.

The centre square.

This is my first week back after a short break from writing reviews, but if I was to condense the most influential process across the last three weeks, it would centre around the middle of the ground, specifically restarts.

Poor starting position from centre clearances has almost been the least of Essendon’s concerns. Instead, it has been the damage going directly onto the scoreboard from those losses.

No team in AFL history has conceded more points from centre clearance across a three-week period than Essendon’s 103, while no side has been less effective at preventing a clearance loss becoming a score than the Bombers, with 41.07% of opposition centre clearances ending in scores, a rate roughly 15% higher than the AFL average this year.

A re-shuffle of the talent in this important area was required, starting from the top down, along with a change in balance and attitude at the drop of the ball from hitouts, helped at least a little (and maybe more than a little) by the opposition.

Despite Essendon entering the game ranked 18th for centre clearance differential, GWS sat only one place above them, and through the first half the battle in the middle had little direct impact on the scoreboard. At the same time, it provided another glimpse into what looks to be the future midfield setup of this Bombers side.

New in the centre square.

New draftees Dyson Sharp and Sullivan Robey were given first opportunity to show their capabilities, with Sharp attending over 78% of centre bounces to half time, the highest rate across consecutive quarters of his short career, following 76% in the second half against Brisbane.

While he received a valuable long-term lesson against the Lions’ midfield mix, the best in the competition, particularly in the second half, there were still immediate short-term positives here, with three of Essendon’s five centre clearances in the opening 40 minutes coming from his ability to turn first possession into effective clearances.

Everything Sharp showed at junior level was on display, particularly his strength to stand up and win the ball at pre-clearance contests, followed by fast hands to feed teammates that matched his quick decision-making.

While his injury wasn’t the sole reason the game shifted, his absence did have an impact, as from that point Essendon were left largely with Sam Durham continuing his recent strong form and fellow 18-year-old Robey doing the inside grunt work against Clayton Oliver, Toby Greene and Finn Callaghan, with all three becoming increasingly damaging from that stage on.

By game’s end, the centre square battle had clearly tilted in GWS’s favour, even though Essendon generated three shots at goal after half time for two goals, four of the Giants’ 12 second-half scoring shots came from there.

Sharp did a lot of heavy lifting, but so too did Robey, continuing on from his second half against Brisbane.

Against the Lions, Essendon’s first selection in the 2025 draft finished with 20 possessions, 11 contested, including nine ground balls with seven won at pre-clearance, alongside seven first possessions at stoppage, both equal second-most on the ground behind Durham. His five hard-ball gets were the most of any player.

This week, he backed that up with another 19 possessions, 11 contested, including six ground balls, while converting four of his five first possessions at stoppage into clearances. A brilliant start to his AFL career.

For Durham’s 100th game, he followed his performance against Brisbane with another 16 contested possessions, that’s him 34 across the last two weeks, the highest back-to-back return of his career. Thirteen of those were won at pre-clearance this week, generating eight clearances.

There has been a major shift in midfield personnel across the last month.

Peter Wright has assumed more ruck responsibility over Lachie Blakiston, while Nick Bryan now works his way back after 12 months out through injury. Slowly, Essendon appears to be moving into the next phase of its development around the ball.

What happens from here will be closely watched, starting with the immediate test against Fremantle, the second-best stoppage side in the competition behind Brisbane. That is followed by two games against lower-ranked opposition in this area, before a significant challenge against Carlton, who generate the highest percentage of their scores from stoppage.

Darcy Parish’s return to form from injury remains inconsistent. Once the game opens up, his ability to impact outside has not returned to previous levels, while Zach Merrett’s effectiveness at centre bounce is currently at its lowest since his second year of football in 2015.

Elijah Tsatas remains in the VFL, largely due to concerns around defensive actions, but over the next month his ball-winning ability may become increasingly difficult to ignore.

Turnovers, the good and bad.

While centre clearances have become more prominent recently, nothing has hurt Essendon more consistently than turnover scores, both for and against, particularly the latter.

No team has been punished more heavily from its own mistakes this season, with most of that damage coming as Essendon attempt to transition the ball from their defensive half.

Across the previous three games, the Bombers conceded 11, 13 and 11 scoring shots respectively from turnover chains beginning behind centre, with poor field position from clearance losses only compounding the issue.

Equally important has been the method with ball in hand.

Over the last three weeks, particularly the previous two, Essendon reverted back toward the high-handball, run-and-carry game style that, frankly, I do not believe suits the current list profile.

From rounds six to eight, Essendon used handball to move the ball forward 44.35% of the time, rising to 47.6% across the last two of those games, a higher rate than even Sydney this season, and anyone watching the Swans knows just how extreme that style is.

The teams that use this method the most — Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast — all possess genuine leg speed across every line, allowing them to support overlap chains and maintain pressure around the ball carrier. That is a key contrast to Essendon, where that same athletic profile is missing.

So change it.

It did not take long here to see a return toward something more familiar

The control game centred around uncontested marking, shifting the ball laterally and forcing GWS to defend with minimal reward. Once the ball exited congestion, Essendon consistently looked to kick-mark its way out of defensive half, understanding that denying uncontested marks in transition remains a genuine weakness in the Giants’ defensive structure.

Coming into this clash, only five teams allow more uncontested marks in their opponents’ back two thirds of the ground than GWS: Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, Collingwood, and of course Essendon.

The Giants’ preferred system commits numbers behind the ball to win possession back before slingshotting through overlap handball into an open forward half. As a result, they rank second behind Sydney for turning defensive 50 rebounds into inside 50s, and also second for converting those chains into scores.

Recognising this, Essendon made the correct tactical decision to push numbers higher up the ground when in possession, forcing GWS to begin chains further from goal while compressing the space available if they won the ball back.

Just over 34% of Essendon disposals in the first quarter were handballs, rising only slightly to 36.7% by half time, much closer to the balance seen against Melbourne in round five.

Players also looked significantly more comfortable within this structure.

Archie Perkins, in particular, produced his best half of football this season, finishing with 10 possessions, eight uncontested and four marks, consistently presenting as a short outlet option and, importantly, being rewarded for it rather than teammates defaulting to long down-the-line kicks for quick territory that make it harder to defend.

From that improved kick-handball balance and deeper, more controlled entries came the front-half intercept game every side relies upon for sustainable scoring.

Across the first half, GWS started 25 possession chains in defensive 50, with Essendon intercepting 14 of those in the front half, a considerable improvement on the previous three weeks and much closer to the 15 in their only win of the season.

By the end of the game, eight scores came from front half intercepts, and 11 all up including front half stoppages.

The kick-mark control game was equally effective when starting from behind centre, particularly in the second quarter, where three of Essendon’s first four scoring shots originated from defensive-half chains, and five of the seven for the quarter overall.

By the final siren, one in every four Essendon rebound 50s went inside 50, their third-best rate of the season, while over 15% of their 30 defensive 50 chains resulted in scoring shots, their best return from nine games this year.

The methodical buildup also allowed Essendon to press further up the ground defensively, making it far more difficult for GWS to transition cleanly.

Unfortunately, when they did find a way through, it was punished with maximum damage.

The Giants’ first five goals of the game originated in Essendon’s forward 50, with eight in total by the end of the game, three of which came from kick-ins.

As the game opened up in the final quarter and a half, GWS were able to change direction too easily when exiting their back third. That was compounded by Essendon’s inability to win or halve contests with the extra numbers they had set behind the ball to regain control.

Once GWS were given too much room, their midfield run and handball chains put them into space, forcing Essendon to scramble. The game quickly shifted from control to chaos, and the intercept and tackle pressure Essendon had built early in the game dissipated.

Brave but still not enough.

The Bombers did a lot right tactically against an opposition that has known weaknesses, while also placing more responsibility on the next wave of players who will hopefully take the team into its next stage.

Archie Roberts continues to build his profile as a distributor alongside Jacob Farrow and Zak Johnson. The trio look the future of Essendon’s transition game by foot.

Ahead of the ball, Nate Caddy and Archer May continue to stand up in aerial contests and work in tandem to create space for one another in just their ninth game together.

The inconsistency of the experienced group remains the key issue, with performance levels fluctuating too heavily between games and even within quarters.

If the coaching group can align those elements, along with finding the right balance at the selection table on Thursday, there is a more consistent output that supporters can expect, and with that, results should follow.

Go Bombers!