Roundabout #3
How Essendon curbed St. Kilda's enthusiasm
Hello, Dear Readers. I hope you had a pleasant and restful Easter weekend. I spent mine watching 3 Body Problem, re-reading the first two books of the trilogy, and – what else? – watching as much footy as my mind and body could tolerate. I also ate a lot of Haighs.
For this week’s Roundabout, I’ll offer brief commentary on seven games, and then dive deeper into what I thought was the key tactical theme of the round: Essendon’s ability to stifle St. Kilda’s transition.
Last week, around this exact spot, I announced that I was working on a deep dive about what’s wrong with Collingwood, which I was hoping to publish some time over the weekend. Observant readers will notice that didn’t happen. The enlightened explanation is that the Pies showed enough against the Lions on Thursday Night to make me hesitate about publishing it right away. I still think they’re a long way from their best. I’m still keeping a close eye on them, and I still have a spreadsheet with data about the Pies that goes down to Row 59 and Column BC. But they’re no longer the team holding the Chalice of Crisis (hello, Lions and Crows!). So in other words, the Collingwood piece is currently on the backburner.
With that “bombshell” out of the way, let’s roll up our sleeves and get into the main agenda item: talking about footy.
As always, please feel free to share your (polite, constructive) thoughts about the weekend’s game, or my work, down in the comments below or on social media. One Percenters is for the people!
Reviewing the preview
Brisbane vs Collingwood
In my preview of this game, I alluded briefly to the fact that the battle between Brisbane’s offence and Collingwood’s defence loomed as the central axis on which the result was likely to turn. Brisbane scored with less than 34 percent of their forward-50 entries against Fremantle, while in their first three games of the season, the Pies had conceded goals almost 30 percent of the time their opponents entered 50. On Thursday night, there was a clear winner. Brisbane won first use of the ball (+37 for disposals) and territory (+13 inside-50s) but decisively lost the battle when the ball went inside the 50-metre arcs. Helped by amazing tackling pressure (an overall tackle differential of +32, the second best under Craig McRae), the Pies managed to keep the Lions scoreless from almost two-thirds of their entries, while scoring with almost half of their own. Brisbane looked disjointed. A third straight loss has, with the help of some salacious off-field news (not that we cover that kind of nonsense here at One Percenters), turned what was a small blip into a minor crisis.
North Melbourne vs. Carlton
It already feels like North Melbourne’s games in 2024 are following a predictable script: promising stuff with ball in hand, undone by an almost-total inability to stop it going the other way. So it proved on Good Friday. North were +3 in clearances and semi-competitive across some other metrics. But they weren’t really a match for a physically and tactically mature Carlton side. As I and pretty much everyone else who ventured an opinion about the game, the biggest mismatch was in Carlton’s attacking 50. The Blues kicked a goal almost 34 percent of the time they entered 50. For reference, their corresponding figure across the whole of last season was 22 percent. Alastair Clarkson’s blanket is too short. North simply don’t have the defensive personnel to thwart their opponents, and dropping his midfield deeper would deprive the team of the attacking thrust that is its biggest strength.
Fremantle vs. Adelaide
A fairly excruciating game of footy most notable for showcasing just how broken Adelaide currently look. All areas of their game, save for their last-ditch defence, looked dysfunctional. One stat paints a picture: despite splitting clearances, and even winning more out of the centre, the Crows didn’t kick a single goal from a possession chain originating from a stoppage win. The Dockers didn’t exactly feast in this regard either, managing just 2.7. But inaccuracy is an easier problem to solve than Adelaide’s total inability to cause damage from stoppages. The Crows have gone from being denied finals in 2023 by a goal umpiring error, to 0-3, with Melbourne and Carlton to come. Not even the most rabid Port fan could have hoped for such a shocking regression.
A kind word for the Dockers, though. Despite a long injury list and a deceptively tough opening set of games (they lost to all three of Brisbane, North and Adelaide in 2023), they’re 3-0. They’ve done it by doubling down on their strengths under Justin Longmuir – defence and ball-winning – while tweaking their back-half ball movement and improving their forward efficiency. I’m not quite as bullish as Leigh Matthews, who thinks they can win the flag, but the Dockers should be playing finals from here.
Port Adelaide vs. Melbourne
Stats are funny. Port had more disposals (+36), more inside-50s (+21), more clearances (+15), and even more tackles (+10). They dominated virtually all of the metrics which are normally determinative of winning a footy game. Except, you know, for one. The Dees won because of a superb defensive performance and scoring efficiency which (cover your ears, Dogs fans) was reminiscent of the 2021 Grand Final. They won the ball back within 75 metres of their goal 16 times for 7.0. Port, meanwhile, won it back 36 times in the same zone for a return of 5.8. Apparently if you simulated the 50 shots for goal in the match 10,000 times, Melbourne would only win about four percent of the time. About time, say Dees fans, who’ve suffered through enough defeats that should have been wins to last them a while.
Western Bulldogs vs. West Coast
A philosophical question – what is the value of a clearance win? – posing as a humdrum footy game. West Coast went +8 in clearances against the #2 ranked clearance side from 2023, and as a result won some decent territory while generating the same number of scoring shots from them. That was about where the good news ended. Most of those stoppage wins ultimately ended up as turnovers. A +51 points from stoppage differential for the Dogs says it all in terms of where the Eagles gave up possession, and how effectively they took their own opportunities. Poor finishing also meant the Eagles undershot their expected score by about 27 points. All in all, another dirty day for Adam Simpson’s men. The Dogs, meanwhile, have done well to stabilise after their dubious Round 1 performance against the Demons.
Richmond vs. Sydney
A game I didn’t expect much from instead turned into the biggest upset of the season so far – and the potential emergence of an exciting future under Adem Yze. It wasn’t just that young players like Rhyan Mansell or Seth Campbell announced themselves to the broader footy world, or even that veterans like Nick Vlastuin, Tim Taranto and Tom Lynch stood up. It was that the nailbiting five-point win combined the old and the new. Richmond were +22 in scores from turnovers – a traditional area of strength under Damien Hardwick. But what should excite Tigers fans most is their ability to generate scores from the back-half. They kicked 5.4 from possession chains originating more than 100 metres from their own goal. That was just eight points fewer than Sydney, who are renowned as one of the best ball movement sides in the competition. What was particularly noticeable was the Tigers’ willingness – and success – in advancing the ball and stretching the field by foot. They over-possessed against Port, which led to turnovers in vulnerable parts of the ground. But against Sydney, Richmond kicked with 65.7 percent of their disposals – compared to a 2023 season average of 59.8 percent.
From Sydney’s perspective, this game alleviated some old anxieties – they were +11 in points from stoppage differential – while reinforcing others. They simply turned the ball over too many times, especially when moving the ball down their left wing. Because of their talent, the result of many Swans’ games in 2024 will be on their own boots, so execution is key.
Hawthorn vs. Geelong
Lots of young sides would have fallen to pieces after the sort of first quarter Hawthorn had. Instead, the Hawks knuckled down, forcing a draw over the final three terms. The fightback was led by the midfield, which had been well-beaten in their first two games. Hawthorn went +14 in clearances – the caveat being that Geelong are firming as the competition’s worst clearance side – which translated to +9 for inside-50s and 126 possession chains to 121 for Geelong. The difference, as is so often the case, was the Cats’ key position superiority. Their defenders were better at repelling attacks (+17 for rebound 50s) and the offence was twice as efficient at turning inside-50s into goals. The stats make for stark reading: Geelong averaged 0.88 points per possession chain, while the Hawks could only manage 0.55.
I’ve been surprised to see a fair amount of criticism directed Hawthorn’s way (and no, I don’t just mean people complaining about Jack Ginnivan). While it’s true that 0-3 isn’t a great start to a season where many pundits and Hawks fans were expecting a move up the ladder, these things have to be taken in context. They’ve played two finals-calibre sides. And they’ve also had a shocking run of luck. Across the first three rounds of the season, Hawthorn's opponents have been a collective +75 on Expected Score – easily the most of any side.
This post is free. But they won’t all be. Please consider supporting my work with a subscription.
Essendon curb St. Kilda’s enthusiasm
Essendon’s game against the Saints won’t linger long in the general footy consciousness. But Bombers fans – at least nerdy ones – will remember it fondly, because it suggested Brad Scott’s side is making progress towards addressing its major weakness: defending transition. I don’t care about the Essendon Edge. I want to talk about the Essendon Press.
But before I do, some preamble. “Pressing” refers to the act of applying pressure on the player with the ball, with the aim of forcing a turnover. It first entered the mainstream sporting parlance – or at least mainstream sporting nerd parlance – through soccer, when the famous FC Barcelona side coached by Pep Guardiola used it to devastating effect at the turn of the 2010s. From there, it spread rapidly throughout elite-level soccer to the point where, today, it’s virtually mandatory. Pressing sounds simple. But it’s deceptively complicated. One player applying pressure, without any reference to his or her teammates, isn’t pressing. To be effective, a press needs to be coordinated. When one or several players advance to pressure the ball carrier, then other players need to move in order to: a) fill the space they’ve just vacated; and b) block passing lanes to deprive the ball carrier of good options, and increase the chances of affecting a turnover.
It’s not hard to see why pressing gained ascendancy so quickly in soccer. For a start, it gets your attacking players involved in defensive actions, so they’re not just traffic cones when you don’t have the ball. And – more importantly – pressing helps teams win the ball back closer to their own goals. It’s defending while also creating an attacking threat at the same time. You hardly need to be an amateur sports writer to know that the closer you are to goal when you win the ball back, especially when the opposition defence is out of position, the greater your chances of scoring. Pressing happens in Aussie rules. But it’s more complicated than in soccer. There are three reasons why. Firstly, there are more players on the field, so it’s harder to prevent the ball carrier from finding a friendly target. Secondly, it needs to be near your attacking goals – so you need a strategy for winning clearances. And thirdly, the existence of the mark, and the respite from pressure it brings. But you still see it. Richmond under Damien Hardwick, Melbourne under Simon Goodwin, Geelong under Chris Scott, Port Adelaide under Ken Hinkley. All of them employ (or employed) different kinds of pressing strategies – chiefly based on applying forward pressure and pushing up the defensive line to create intercept marks and generate repeat inside-50 entries. It’s not without risks. If your press is broken, your opponent will find themselves in acres of space. But generally speaking, the rewards make it worthwhile.
Team defence has been a persistent weakness for Essendon stretching back, well, years. And despite Brad Scott immediately declaring his intention to fix it last year, progress was uneven. The Bombers ended 2023 ranked 16th for tackles and defensive pressure acts, which resulted in the third-worst inside-50 differential in the competition. But on Saturday, the Bombers took a step forward. They overcame a St. Kilda side that had repeatedly opened up Collingwood from wide positions by winning clearances (which meant they started in more advantageous positions) and successfully pressing high in order to harry the Saints’ dangerous back-half ball users – Jack Sinclair, Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera, and Riley Bonner.
I want to specifically focus on how Essendon’s press suffocated the Saints in the final quarter.
It’s early in the last term, and the Bombers are down by two goals. From the defensive side of the left wing, Jye Caldwell kicked the ball to the 50-metre arc. Sam Draper dropped the ball. It looked like the Saints would mop up. But the Bombers press Zaine Cordy and Marcus Windhager with four players: Jake Stringer, Jade Gresham, Kyle Langford and Nick Hind. The successfully win the ball and Hind tries to centre it.
St. Kilda’s captain, Callum Wilkie, gathers the ball and tries to start an attack with a dangerous kick in the corridor. It floats slightly too far for Jack Steele, who can only knock it on rather than take possession. The Saints would still have had a decent chance of retaining possession if not for Nik Cox, who sprinted forward off his man to intercept and allow Zach Merrett to win the ball. From there, the Bombers went inside-50 and, via a boundary throw-in and a free kick, Stringer kicked a goal.
About five minutes later, Riley Bonner is appraising his options before a kick-in. This is what he sees.
I counted 14 Essendon players visible in the shot (it’s a shame they couldn’t zoom out any further!). Notably, there isn’t a single Saints player in the centre square. Bonner can’t help but kick it wide. Ben McKay knows that, and he’s in the perfect position to mark his kick.
With less than nine minutes to go, repeated forward stoppages produce this: the sight of 12 Essendon players inside attacking 50, looking to lock the ball in and generate a scoring opportunity. This play ended up with Jye Menzie marking a ball that almost hit the ceiling and then hitting the post.
The final play I want to highlight starts with something unusual: a Zach Merrett turnover. He kicked it over Todd Goldstein’s head. But Goldstein, Draper, Martin and Stringer combined to win the ball back and create a golden opportunity for Stringer to kick his third goal of the quarter. He missed – but it didn’t cost Essendon the win.
This isn’t earth-shattering stuff. Nor was it particularly pretty to watch for the neutral. But Brad Scott would have been thrilled with the results. Thanks to repeated, coordinated pressing like this, Essendon dominated the final quarter. They were +33 for disposals (including +12 for contested possessions) and +3 for inside-50s (13-10 – this quarter was played between the arcs). By my (manual) count, they had 10 clearances and affected 22 Saints turnovers. That, along with their solitary kick-in, meant they had 33 possession chains. 13 inside-50s from 33 possession chains ain’t great. In fact, it’s pretty bad. But the Saints fared even worse: they managed just 10 entries from their 29 possession chains. Bonner turned it over with 17 of his 29 kicks. And Wanganeen-Milera, so damaging over the first two rounds, was kept in check.
Even at this early stage of the season, it’s apparent that two new recruits, Jade Gresham and Ben McKay, are important cogs in the pressing machine Scott is attempting to build. Gresham appears to be the “trigger” – the player who initiates a team press by haring after the guy with the ball. McKay, meanwhile, is the strong intercept marker who’s comfortable pushing up to halfway and cutting off opposition attacks.
The Essendon Press is still clearly a work-in-progress. We have to see how the Bombers hold their nerve against more damaging opponents, or on wider decks which afford more room to find targets. But the results are already trending in the right direction. In Round 1, Hawthorn started with the ball 99 times. They converted those 99 chains into a whopping 57 inside-50s (at a rate of 57.5 percent). In Round 2, Sydney converted their 112 possession chains into 59 inside-50 entries (a rate of 52.7 percent). Interestingly, Essendon captain Zach Merrett said in a radio interview following that game that his team didn’t press aggressively enough against the Swans. You can understand why. Sydney are usually so good at moving the ball that they’re likely to break through a press. However, Essendon falling back allowed Sydney to pick up easy uncontested marks out of stoppages, gaining territory without incurring any risk. The Bombers got back to work against the Saints, though. They took 12 intercept marks in the middle third of the field, compared to just five across their first two games. St. Kilda had 118 possession chains, but could only turn them into 51 inside-50 entries – at a rate of just 43.2 percent. Everywhere they turned, they saw a man in a black jumper with a red sash.
Back on Thursday with the Round 4 preview.
Did you enjoy my review of Round 3? Please consider sharing it with a mate!