Roundabout #4
Footy and South Australia – the perfect combo.
Hello, Dear Reader!
Firstly – apologies that this has come a little later than I wanted. Hopefully Gather Round is still as fresh in your mind as it is mine. My day job has once again had the temerity to intrude on my footy newsletter writing time. For that same reason, I’m afraid there won’t be a Round 5 preview.
I’m considering changing the format of Roundabout. Going around the grounds is good, but doesn’t always allow for the tactical or analytical depth I’d like. For that reason, I’m considering taking two of the round’s most intriguing tactical themes and going deep – much like I did when I wrote about St Kilda’s ball movement against Collingwood in Round 2, or Essendon’s press in Round 3. I’d still write a bit about each upcoming game in my round preview. How does that sound? Are you elated? Infuriated? Indifferent? As always, please let me know down below. And I promise I won’t make a habit out of using this valuable space for an apology every week.
Adelaide vs. Melbourne
A match which never rose to any great heights reinforced one narrative and challenged another. The meeting of Adelaide’s impotent attack and Melbourne’s robust defence produced the expected outcome. The Dees’ defenders, led brilliantly by a still-sore Steven May, created 13 intercepts directly from inside-50 kicks (compared to just four for the Crows), while their mids created high-quality intercepts across the middle third of the field. Where the Crows defied expectations (at least, the expectations based on their first three games) was in their ability to prevent Melbourne from scoring from stoppages. The Demons came into the game ranked #1 in the AFL for scores from stoppages, while the Crows were 18th. If you’d offered Matthew Nicks a -6 scores from stoppage differential before the game, he’d almost certainly have taken it.
Optimistic Crows fans, between checking the likely top five draft order, will say that the defensive side of Adelaide’s game is working well enough and that while, yes, there are structural problems, they’re exaggerated by the side’s poor finishing (17th in the AFL for expected score underperformance). The problem is that a) the defensive improvements have been modest – the Crows are ranked 15th for scoring shots conceded per inside-50; and b) any modest improvement in the Crows’ ability to prevent scores has come at the almost total expense of the side’s ability to generate scores (seriously, just look at this, courtesy of Richard Little). Adelaide fought the Demons to a draw in general play. But they continue to butcher the ball inside-50 and miss at higher-than-expected rates even when they do have shots on goal. Less than a month into the season, it’s virtually guaranteed the Crows will miss out on September for the seventh consecutive year – despite the club declaring that making finals was the pass mark. The challenge for Nicks and his assistants is whether they will back the senior players who have brought them to this point, or hand more responsibility to younger players. The latter will deliver longer-term dividends. In the short term, however, it might also cost Nicks his job.
Brisbane vs. North Melbourne
I wrote – somewhat conservatively – in my preview that if Brisbane’s midfielders get a handle on their counterparts, it would be hard to see North having enough to win. I’m hardly going to congratulate myself for that forecast, but sure enough, that’s how it played out. Ricky Mangidis, as ever, has the definitive take from the North Melbourne side. On raw talent, North’s midfield mix of Luke Davies-Uniacke, George Wardlaw, Jye Simpkin, Tom Powell and (for the first time), Colby McKercher are a decent match for Brisbane’s midfield. But what the Lions brigade had, which North simply couldn’t match, was experience. They knew exactly how to use their bodies, how to manipulate space, and how best to curb the influence of Davies-Uniacke. Brisbane’s clearance superiority translated to a staggering +40 inside-50 differential and a +28 points from stoppage differential. McKercher will be a fine midfielder one day, probably soon, but on Friday, his drive and disposal from the half-back line was missed. All in all, relief for Lions fans and more frustration for North fans. The promised land is getting closer, but things that are far enough away just look like the same horizon.
Port Adelaide vs. Essendon
It started so well for the Bombers. They picked up where they left off against the Saints, successfully keeping the ball in the front half with an aggressive press that put Port’s defenders under intense pressure. Not only did Aliir Aliir and Esava Ratugolea not take a single intercept mark between them in the first quarter – they didn’t even have an intercept possession. Dan Houston, Ryan Burton, and Kane Farrell, meanwhile, combined for just 12 disposals and -1 metre gained (stats courtesy of The Bombers Blog). Essendon had more tackles (+7), more inside-50s (16-11) and more disposals (+31). When they won the ball in their back half, they were going inside 50 almost 50 percent of the time. All they were missing was forward efficiency.
Then it all fell apart. Rapidly. There were two catalysts. The first was a clever quarter-time move from Ken Hinkley/Josh Carr to switch from a zonal defensive structure, where defenders marked territory, to a one-on-one structure where they all had assigned opponents. This worked because of what happened further up the field: namely, Port’s startling dominance from centre bounces. After quarter-time, their midfield won 14 centre bounce clearances to just three. Ivan Soldo and Jason Horne-Francis dominated their direct opponents – Horne-Francis had more centre bounce clearances for the game (seven) than Essendon (six) – while Connor Rozee and Zak Butters added speed and incision. And those clearances weren’t just numbers, either. They were damaging. Jeff White, as in the former Melbourne #1 ruckman, Jumpin’ Jeff White, had some really good analysis of how Port’s ultra-wide spacing at centre bounces allowed Rozee and Butters to enter stoppages at maximum speed and burst away towards goal. Even when winning it out of the centre didn’t directly translate to scores, they gave Port the territorial dominance they craved. Port are a front-half team. They back themselves to win stoppages inside their forward 50, and employ their own aggressive press to stop their opponents from advancing the ball. That’s what happened on Friday night.
A 69-point defeat is a blow to the morale of Dons fans who’d allowed themselves a small sip of the most dangerous elixir in footy – hope – after their hard-earnt win against the Saints. But Brad Scott and level-headed supporters understand that the road to glory is long and paved with setbacks.
West Coast vs. Sydney
A much closer and more interesting game than most observers thought and West Coast fans feared. The Eagles had more contested possessions, more marks (both contested and uncontested), more tackles, and split the inside-50 count. The second quarter in particular, where the Eagles went +12 (!) for inside-50s, provided Adam Simpson with a template for what his side needs to do, and how hard they have to work, in order to get back to being truly competitive. The outline of the next Eagles side is slowly coming into focus. On Saturday, they exploited Sydney’s weakness defending centre bounce clearances (the Eagles kicked 4.3 from chains originating from the middle) and used upfield pressure and corridor denial to set up a strong intercept marking performance, which they in turn used as a springboard for their own transition play. It wasn’t a win, but it was a performance which makes their next win feel much closer.
As for the Swans, this was their second sloppy performance in a row. That decline can also be seen in their possession chain statistics. In their first three games, the Swans were more likely to convert a possession chain into both an inside-50 and a scoring shot. That trend ended in Round 3, where the Tigers were more dangerous with ball in hand. The Eagles, meanwhile, converted a higher share of their chains into inside-50s. The common denominator is Sydney’s turnovers. In those three wins to start their season, the Swans turned the ball over nine times fewer than their opponents. In their last two games, they’ve given it away a cumulative total of 11 more times. John Longmire will have the bye to think about whether to recalibrate how many risks his team takes with the ball, or whether there are things they can do to become less predictable.
Fremantle vs. Carlton
What do you get when you cross one side with a great defence and a preference for not taking risks in possession with another? This game of footy. It was a gruelling watch. But – and I’m aware that maybe I’m just a special type of sicko – it was also compelling.
At the risk of repeating myself, I said that the true test for Carlton would come when their clearance work regressed to the mean. Well, it has come – and they are acing it. The Blues were -17 for clearances, and did very well to escape with just a -8 points from clearance differential. They won the game because they affected 76 Fremantle turnovers (and, as a result, went +23 in points from turnovers). Interestingly, just 13 of those intercepts were marks, and 44 of them were between the 50-metre arcs. Translation: Carlton excelled at spoiling Fremantle’s tactic of moving the ball carefully up the wings, getting the ball to ground, and then setting up from there.
Not that they had it easy. Neither side did. Fremantle started with the ball seven more times than their opponents, but a -10 contested mark differential matches the eye test: they kept losing important contests at both ends of the ground. Charlie Curnow had as many contested marks on his own as the entire Dockers side. If it felt at times like both sides cancelled each other out, that’s why: Fremantle had the better starting positions due to their clearance dominance, but couldn’t seize control of either end of the ground.
Western Bulldogs vs. Geelong
One of my more vague footy theories is that each round throws up a game which is actually a philosophical conundrum. Last week, I looked at the Eagles winning eight more clearances than the Bulldogs and going on to lose by 76 points and asked, “what is the value of a clearance win?” In that specific case, not much. (And actually, that’s a theme of the season to date – I might have more to say about that in the coming weeks.) The philosophical question of this week again involves the Bulldogs: is there such a thing as a good loss?
Dogs fans can be forgiven for thinking they’ve seen this one before. And yes, many of the beats were the same. The Dogs had more clearances (although the Cats did better than I thought they might). Occasionally errant disposal was punished by a superbly well-drilled Geelong side. Jamarra Ugle-Hagan missed some chances he shouldn’t have. But beyond those understandably disappointing and familiar failings, there was also a fair bit to be optimistic about.
I wrote that, if I ever placed bets on the footy, I’d consider putting money on the Dogs to win more clearances. And they did. I almost wrote that I’d also consider putting money on Geelong to take more intercept marks. If I had, I’d be out $10. The Dogs, who for some time have been regarded as one of the worst offenders when it comes to bombing the ball long, played a team containing Tom Stewart, and actually took more of them. How? The reason is that the Dogs have gone from being a respectable intercept marking side (16.6 per game in 2023) to a very good one (20.8 per game so far in 2024 – first in the league). That’s despite rolling out an undersized backline. It’s a testament to the early-season form of Liam Jones and Buku Khamis. The other reasons for optimism come at the other end of the ground. One is simple: Sam Darcy. I had him down as my breakout player for the Dogs in 2024, and on the evidence of this game, that looks right. It’s rare to see such a tall guy look so agile. His three goals were enough for a Rising Star nomination and, you’d imagine, more VFL time for Rory Lobb. The other interesting detail (one that’s been noted by others) is that Aaron Naughton seems to be playing a different role. I wasn’t the only one who wondered whether a forward line of Naughton, Ugle-Hagan and another big guy was too tall. Luke Beveridge’s solution thus far appears to involve instructing Naughton to roam higher up the ground. It makes a lot of sense: Naughton is an elite contested mark and a decent field kick. Plus spending less time inside 50 gives Ugle-Hagan and – it appears – Darcy to do their work closer to goal. Naughton has only had five games in his career with five or more inside-50s. Two of them have come in the last two games. Watch this space.
Apologies, Cats fans – I’ve used all my space writing about your opponents. The Dogs are changing things. The Cats are largely content with things as they are. They remain the most polished, professional side in the game. They’re 4-0 and on their way back to September.
Gold Coast vs. Greater Western Sydney
In my preview, I wrote that in order to beat the Giants, the Suns would need to dominate clearances and convert them to scores at a healthy clip, or at least sustained territorial dominance. It turns out I underrated the speed and depth at which Damien Hardwick is transforming this side. Helped by a whopping seven changes, including three debutants, the Suns looked a million miles from the stagnant, inside-only side of the late Stuart Dew era. They beat the #1 side in the AFL at scoring from intercepts at their own game, outscoring them 11.5 to 10.5. The Suns applied huge amounts of pressure in their back half and looked more fluent than I can remember when rebounding from half-back. In time, partly due to the personnel changes, we’ll probably end up looking at this game as an inflection point in how the Suns play the game.
What brought them undone here – surprisingly, given it’s their traditional area of strength – was the contest. The Giants were +5 in clearances, a modest number which translated to a gigantic +34 in scores from turnover differential. Kieren Briggs gave his opposing ruckman Jarrod Witts a bath when the ball hit the ground, while the likes of Finn Callaghan, Tom Green and Stephen Coniglio were able to largely neutralise Matt Rowell and co. while doing heaps of damage the other way. Toby Greene having his best game of the season and Jesse Hogan being in career-best form didn’t exactly hurt, either. I think the Giants are the best team in the competition. The speed and efficiency of their ball movement is at a level no other side (apart from perhaps Sydney) can match, while they have an elite defence and high-calibre forward line to match. Can other teams reach their level?
This post is free. But they won’t all be. Please consider supporting my work with a subscription.
Richmond vs. St Kilda
Time to gloat – kind of. I predicted a back-half shoot-out, albeit with a reasonable adjustment for the unique and constricting dimensions of Norwood, with its charming square wing on the broadcast side. It, uh, wasn’t a shoot-out. But it was certainly a game dominated by back-half possession chains. By my count (semi-manual, so apologies if there are some slight counting errors here), the Tigers started with the ball 122 times (122 possession chains, in footy nerd-speak). The Saints, meanwhile, started with the ball 125 (!) times. Of those 125 possession chains, just 41 started from the centre or closer to goal. The Tigers’ stats make for even starker reading: just 23 of their chains – 18.9 percent – began from the centre or their front half. Those numbers translate to the game we saw on Sunday. It felt like the ball was changing hands every couple of seconds. Both defences, but especially the Saints’, dominated – helped by the narrow dimensions funnelling play into a smaller area.
To get slightly less abstract, Ross Lyon would be pleased with how his side wrestled back control of the game after being jumped by the Tigers. Richmond were +13 in contested possessions, +3 in inside-50s, and (the only stat that really matters, some might say) +4 for bloody kicking the ball between the big sticks. The Saints’ third-quarter comeback was driven by their ability to win clearances. They won 12 (manual count caveat) for the term, compared to just 11 for the entire first half. Territorial dominance allowed the Saints to get their intercept game going. 6.6 was a massive return in a low-scoring game, and enough for Lyon’s men to claim the chocolates.
Collingwood vs. Hawthorn
It feels weird to have a close game involving Collingwood where they were the hunted, rather than the hunter. A 38-point halftime lead built on pressure and scores from forward-half turnovers (the Pies went +17 for tackles) should really have been enough to see out a routine win against an undermanned Hawks side. But the Pies just love giving us a show. Hawthorn’s coach Sam Mitchell swung utility Blake Hardwick up forward, his defence started beating the Pies’ press, his midfielders started winning more of the ball, and the forwards started kicking them from everywhere. A 4.1 to 0.6 final term feels like a carbon copy of what Collingwood were doing to their opponents in 2022 and 2023, except without the win at the end.
If I were a Pies fan, I’d be heartened that the defensive structure and pressure application is back to something resembling last year. But I’d be pretty worried about the side’s continued difficulty in initiating attacks out of defence. Hawthorn, for all their merits, are not what you’d call great at defending transition. And yet, they kept the Pies to just 3.4 from chains originating 75 or more metres from goal. The Hawks fought back valiantly from a big deficit for the second week in a row. Collingwood escaped with the four points, and at 2-3, can look ahead to a fresh start after the bye. And Jack Ginnivan was the centre of attention. Maybe everyone got what they wanted.
Did you enjoy my review of Round 4? Please consider sharing it with a mate!