Review
- thebombersblog
- 5 minutes ago
- 6 min read
Three months down.
It has been a miserable first half of 2026 for Essendon, with inconsistency, injuries and off-field change combining to create a season few would have envisioned six months ago.
With the bye finally arriving, the Bombers had one last assignment before a much-needed break: Melbourne, a side looking to extract some revenge for what transpired in Round 5.
The return bout.
In the last meeting only eight games ago, Melbourne’s midfield mix of Max Gawn, Jack Steele, Caleb Windsor and Tom Sparrow dismantled their counterparts around stoppage early, and despite a few personnel changes from both sides, it had a familiar feel this week.
Just like last time, that forced Essendon’s defenders to stand up both in the air and at ground level, while also being relied upon to start possession chains so far from goal.
Back then, the Bombers were able to find unpressured outlets through uncontested marks to rebuild territory. This week, however, Melbourne showed they had learned from what had gone wrong and allowed no easy transition.
Defensively, Melbourne switched from the zone they employed last time to one on one through the early layers of defence, with accountability to a man either forcing Essendon sideways or long to contests. It was the biggest tactical difference between the two sides this time round.
In the first quarter of Round 5, Essendon had the edge in post-clearance contests, finishing +6 by quarter time. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to reach those same standards in the opening 20 minutes here.
Not only were Melbourne able to win contests around stoppages, but also when Essendon needed teammates ahead to play their part.
Without the control method, the game was consistently played in the wrong half, feeding the strongest score source in modern football: front-half turnovers.
From 11 intercepts forward of centre, Melbourne generated five shots at goal, with another two coming from stoppage chains in that area due to sustained pressure.
When Essendon did break through, or eventually wrestled back some centre clearance control later in the quarter, they were efficient in their attacking half, converting 75% of front-half intercepts into scores. The issue was simply volume — they only won it back four times.
It was difficult to have any confidence in the second quarter after the opening term, and once again the issues that limited Essendon early reappeared.
In the second term in Round 5, Essendon’s midfield was able to “get to work” pre-clearance and wrestle contests back in their favour. This time however they were overwhelmed, with Melbourne dominating restarts by six, five of those at stoppages around ground, bringing the clearance score source into play. From there Melbourne generated five shots at goal. The only relief for Essendon was that it resulted in one goal four.
With territory an issue and indirect ball movement not helping, poor decision-making and execution hurt Essendon on rebound, allowing Melbourne three shots at goal from back half turnovers in a transition game that was non-existent.
Not helping was the fact players ahead of the ball were unable to win contests and were further exposed by being outnumbered at times due to Essendon pushing extra numbers behind the ball.
Time for change.
At the main break, the messaging needed to be strong and centred around contests across the ground because the control method Essendon had been planning to use was no longer going to get the job done.
The shift was towards taking the game on, playing with more speed, giving forwards a better chance one on one, and pushing the defensive layers further up the ground. That was noticeable in the first 12 minutes.
Jacob Farrow and Xavier Duursma went longer and quicker by foot off intercept, gaining immediate territory and giving their forwards more space to work in, as well as deeper inside 50 entries. That immediately put the Melbourne defence under more pressure than it had previously been under.
From the better quality entries, Essendon played a front-half game, with two of their opening three goals coming from front-half intercepts, and the opening stages of the quarter largely on their attacking side of the ground.
Key posts Ben McKay and Nate Caddy were able to take contested marks when required, as well as follow up at ground level, but unfortunately they would not get enough supply as the Demons midfield once again regained control of the ball in dispute.
Steele, Gawn and first gamer and ex Essendon VFL listed Joel Fitzgerald took over between the arcs, and there was not enough support for Will Setterfield from his fellow midfielders.
The longer the quarter went on, the more it resembled the opening term as Essendon were pushed back and once again forced to start too many possession chains in the back third of the ground.
Even though it was extremely difficult for Essendon’s back six, or arguably back eight and nine given the repeat entries that kept coming their way for much of the second half of the quarter, it was pleasing that they were able to hold up in their back third, something that has not always been the case this season.
The last quarter became more of an even transition game, with Essendon able to match Melbourne and move the ball from their own defensive half.
The first three shots at goal for the Bombers came from defensive half chains, while five of Melbourne’s first six started at the other end.
With the game opening up, Essendon were able to find marking targets inside 50, taking five marks for the quarter, which was their equal second most in any quarter this year.
In the second half, Essendon retained possession on 66 percent of their inside 50s, helped in my view by a clear shift in method.
The biggest factor.
Contests and clearances are the most basic aspects of football performance and analysis, yet they remain the most important, influencing so many other parts of the modern game including ball movement.
Win territory from clearance and you gain field position, forcing the opposition to move the ball through more layers of defence.
Win contests repeatedly in congestion or one on one and you move the ball in the right direction.
Both have been inconsistent, as expected for a young and inexperienced list like Essendon’s, and the personnel changes compared to nine games ago played a major role in the change of outcome.
Last time out Peter Wright was Essendon’s most influential player in those areas. He won 14 contested possessions, nine at pre-clearance and five around the ground.
Alongside him Darcy Parish and Jye Caldwell combined for 14 contested possessions pre-clearance, with the trio showing the way at stoppages, combining for 21 of Essendon’s 40 clearances for the game.
Those three were clearly missed on Saturday and their replacements were not able to cover the loss.
This is what I wanted.
I finished last week’s review with my thoughts on the game plan that had been used for most of the season, and asked, pleaded really, that it change to better develop the current talent before habits become harder to shift.
This week I was pleased to see a different mindset and approach in parts.
The version of Jacob Farrow from this game is the one I expected to see up to this point, and the one I hope continues from here.
The 19-year-old was at his most impactful with the football.
From his 24 possessions six were in the front half as he pushed forward in transition, with four inside 50s and six rebound 50s. Only he and Zach Merrett had four or more of both from all 46 players.
When closer to goal, he had four inside 50s, with three of those entries retained by teammates, and no Essendon defender had more score involvements than his five.
With Archie Roberts out early, most of the run and overlap needed to be filled, and Farrow played his part with seven handball receives.
At this stage of his career he has spent much of his time defending, and he used that experience well, with a third of his possessions coming from intercepts, the equal most of all Essendon defenders.
But what was most pleasing was his willingness to take the game on and not fall into the trap of going sideways.
From his first 11 games he has averaged just over 23 metres gained per kick, ranked in the bottom third of defenders, but on Saturday that changed to 36 metres per kick, which would rank in the top 2 percent if maintained over the season.
More of this Jacob, and more encouragement from the coaches also.
Go Bombers!
Comments