Preview Round 16 - Essendon Bombers vs Port Adelaide - Saturday, July 1st - 7:25 pm - MCG - Ridley's Revenge

[Keystone agony]

What i think will happen:

Unsure on Shiel and Setterfield status (Assume both aint ready)

In: Hind and Menzie
Out: Snelling/Guelfi and Kelly

 

[faible]

It’s been regularly discussed that we are 18th in terms of defending transition but surviving because we are good at scoring from d50. Why not try leaning into that sort of play style and be a fast offensive team:

- Drop Kelly and Heppell to bring in Hind/Mass and slide a Caldwell/Perkins to HBF.

- Only play one of Weid or 2nd Ruck and bring in another running player.

Unrelated to the above but bring would also bring in Baldwin for Laverde.

Wasn't that literally Essendon 5 years ago?

Strong rebound off HB with McKenna and Saad, but got obliterated in big games and big finals because you simply can't start every scoring chain from the back half as the good sides will just force you wide and/or press you back and back until you turn it over.

Better to have the offensive defenders able to press up off the back of winning the ball out of the middle and creating F50 stoppages to control the ground instead.

 

[sameolds33]

Wasn't that literally Essendon 5 years ago?

Strong rebound off HB with McKenna and Saad, but got obliterated in big games and big finals because you simply can't start every scoring chain from the back half as the good sides will just force you wide and/or press you back and back until you turn it over.

Better to have the offensive defenders able to press up off the back of winning the ball out of the middle and creating F50 stoppages to control the ground instead.

Brad Scott on 360 last night said it was hard to read the Freo game. Talked about defence lapses for about 2 minutes at centre bounce clearances and two bad turnovers in back 50 determining the game. Led to 4 goals for them while there were a couple of easy goals that weren't converted by us. Difference at end was 4 goals.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Quick question. What end is the Essendon or majority of Essendon fan end? Thanks.

 

[Ambrosia]

Wasn't that literally Essendon 5 years ago?

Strong rebound off HB with McKenna and Saad, but got obliterated in big games and big finals because you simply can't start every scoring chain from the back half as the good sides will just force you wide and/or press you back and back until you turn it over.

Better to have the offensive defenders able to press up off the back of winning the ball out of the middle and creating F50 stoppages to control the ground instead.

It’s definitely a valid question whether or not it’s a good game plan.

My point is we are still playing that way. We are still that same can’t defend the front half and score from d50 side we were 5 years ago. So if we aren’t going to change the game plan let’s at least pick personal that fit it.

 

[eth-dog]

Quick question. What end is the Essendon or majority of Essendon fan end? Thanks.

Apart from Richmond games we're usually Punt Road end.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Round 16 sees Essendon's first return match of the year, taking on the resurgent Port Adelaide at the MCG, and this will be interesting. Port Adelaide has been playing amazingly, and has one of the best records in the competition for games played and Marvel Stadium... but this one is at the 'G, thank goodness. I don't know how to feel going into this game; on the one hand, I'd like us to finally break the finals hoodoo, but only the other hand we've seen Essendon get ahead of themselves so many times, that I'm nervous.

In saying, I'm dubbing this round Ridley's Revenge and I hope to goodness we thump these guys because that bloody cheap shot from Rioli likely cost the last game against them.

---

The Round That Was

I would have loved to win on the weekend, but I'm honestly not fussed we lost. A trip to Perth after the bye, against a good team that copped a lot of slack throughout the week for the awful road performance the week before. Was always going to be a tough win. It's not a big enough sample size to be conclusive, but the 7 losses out of 7 for teams returning from the bye against teams that played the week before is telling. Let's keep this trend going though.

FREMANTLE 3.3 8.7 12.8 14.9 (93)
ESSENDON 2.3 5.3 6.5 9.7 (61)

GOALS
Fremantle: Jackson 3, Amiss 2, Walters 2, Frederick 2, Brayshaw, Johnson, Schultz, Serong, Switkowski
Essendon: Caldwell, Guelfi, Hobbs, Langford, Martin, Menzie, Merrett, Parish, Stringer

BEST
Fremantle: Serong, Jackson, Pearce, Brayshaw, Henry, Johnson
Essendon: Merrett, Martin, Hobbs, Parish, Ridley

INJURIES
Fremantle: Nil
Essendon: Zerk-Thatcher (head knock)

LATE CHANGES
Fremantle: Nil
Essendon: Jye Menzie replaced in selected side by Nick Bryan

SUBSTITUTES
Fremantle: Sam Sturt (replaced Alex Pearce in fourth quarter)
Essendon: Jye Menzie (replaced Nick Bryan in third quarter)

Crowd: 43,063 at the Optus Stadium

---

Last Time We Met

An unfortunate 5 points loss, that was partially attributed to Ridley being taken out but a dirty hit from Rioli. Even then you could argue we were lucky to be that close as Port's inaccuracy helped us a lot.

PORT ADELAIDE 3.4 5.11 9.16 12.20 (92)
ESSENDON 6.1 9.1 11.3 13.9 (87)

GOALS
Port Adelaide: Byrne-Jones 2, Dixon 2, Rioli 2, McEntee, Marshall, Powell-Pepper, Boak, Finlayson, Rozee
Essendon: Stringer 2, Langford 2, Weideman 2, Perkins 2, Caldwell, McDonald-Tipungwuti, Hobbs, Merrett, Menzie

BEST
Port Adelaide: Butters, Rozee, Bergman, Boak, Finlayson
Essendon: Merrett, Stringer, Draper, Parish, McGrath

INJURIES
Port Adelaide: Jonas (chest soreness), Butters (right knee)
Essendon: Ridley (concussion)

SUBSTITUTES
Port Adelaide: Francis Evans (replaced Tom Jonas in the third quarter)
Essendon: Jye Menzie (replaced Jordan Ridley in the second quarter)

Crowd: 36,247 at Adelaide Oval

---

Team Selection

Possible Outs:

BZT (Inj)
Weid (Dropped)
Bryan (Not sure why he can't elevate his game, dominates VFL but struggles at AFl. I'd rather keep him in the team though, and give him more chances)


Possible Ins:
Davey (We need some speed)
Mass
Hind
Draper
Baldwin

---

My Tip

I think the curse of the bye will continue and we'll win by 20+

Not sure you can argue it, or even attempt it, or even think about attempting it.

We should have lost by 30+ against port last time. The fact we lost by 5 is a shear and utter miracle.

We need to be switched on, anything less and we will get belted.

 

[faible]

It’s definitely a valid question whether or not it’s a good game plan.

My point is we are still playing that way. We are still that same can’t defend the front half and score from d50 side we were 5 years ago. So if we aren’t going to change the game plan let’s at least pick personal that fit it.

I don't think we're playing that way by design though, Scott has tried to focus on more of a frontal half game (as did Rutten) but doesn't necessarily have the optimal personnel available to do so right now. Between Menzie, Wanganeen, Davey x 2 you'd hope to have a handful of genuine forwards that work hard defensively at ground level but also offer dangerous scoring opportunities in a way Snelling and Guelfi don't.

Not playing Menzie was a risky choice given he's pretty good on the repeat pressure front and finds the goals regularly enough, but Snelling & Guelfi are both there as harder working players that apply pressure. Getting beaten out of the middle forces you to play a game more in your defensive half, but as Hobbs / Caldwell / Tsatas mature and Setterfield returns we'd hopefully be able to play a more forward-half game.

We've seen what designing a gameplan around slingshot ball movement off half-back results in, some great looking high-scoring football at times, but ultimately falling over in the wet / contested / big finals. It's not reliable. A team like Geelong or Sydney (or Richmond) can grind out wins when they need to instead of relying on the feast or famine slingshot game that can be completely shut down.

Collingwood as much as they use Daicos' run off half-back as a weapon, have prime ball winners in Adams, Mitchell, Crisp, DeGoey that are all big, experienced midfield bodies to supply their outside runners and hard-working half and small forwards trying to lock that ball in.

 

[Ambrosia]

I don't think we're playing that way by design though, Scott has tried to focus on more of a frontal half game (as did Rutten) but doesn't necessarily have the optimal personnel available to do so right now. Between Menzie, Wanganeen, Davey x 2 you'd hope to have a handful of genuine forwards that work hard defensively at ground level but also offer dangerous scoring opportunities in a way Snelling and Guelfi don't.

Not playing Menzie was a risky choice given he's pretty good on the repeat pressure front and finds the goals regularly enough, but Snelling & Guelfi are both there as harder working players that apply pressure. Getting beaten out of the middle forces you to play a game more in your defensive half, but as Hobbs / Caldwell / Tsatas mature and Setterfield returns we'd hopefully be able to play a more forward-half game.

We've seen what designing a gameplan around slingshot ball movement off half-back results in, some great looking high-scoring football at times, but ultimately falling over in the wet / contested / big finals. It's not reliable. A team like Geelong or Sydney (or Richmond) can grind out wins when they need to instead of relying on the feast or famine slingshot game that can be completely shut down.

Collingwood as much as they use Daicos' run off half-back as a weapon, have prime ball winners in Adams, Mitchell, Crisp, DeGoey that are all big, experienced midfield bodies to supply their outside runners and hard-working half and small forwards trying to lock that ball in.

Disagree.

From what I’ve seen we are playing that way by design. Rutten focused heavily on trying to be a front half turn over team whereas Scott has taken a lower risk easier to implement clog the corridor and flood back game plan.

I’m not sure the focus is on being a slingshot team that is more a byproduct of the defensive scheme that is primarily in place to protect our poor back 6.

I do question the long term viability of defending this way but maybe it’ll allow us to play the likes of Reid and Cox as KPDs more easily and we can change the plan later on.

 

[Keystone agony]

Not sure you can argue it, or even attempt it, or even think about attempting it.

We should have lost by 30+ against port last time. The fact we lost by 5 is a shear and utter miracle.

We need to be switched on, anything less and we will get belted.

Agree

Scott has got the side to respond every time this year

Saints and Brisbane were our worse 2 losses before Fremantle and we responded the following week

Port may just have too much ability, but im comfident in a response

 

[Keystone agony]

Disagree.

From what I’ve seen we are playing that way by design. Rutten focused heavily on trying to be a front half turn over team whereas Scott has taken a lower risk easier to implement clog the corridor and flood back game plan.

I’m not sure the focus is on being a slingshot team that is more a byproduct of the defensive scheme that is primarily in place to protect our poor back 6.

I do question the long term viability of defending this way but maybe it’ll allow us to play the likes of Reid and Cox as KPDs more easily and we can change the plan later on.

Really at the end of the day you want to be a bit of everything

Every side wants front half turnovers to be through the roof, i think every side wants to be able to rebound quickly when its on as it gives the opposition less time to setup the 'zone'. Certainly been a big reason for the pies

Also every side wants to win the stoppages and score from them

And every side wants to defend transition with good zones and effort/willingness to defend and create turnovers

I dont think there would be 1 side that goes, nah we dont want to be good at that area, we dont care about it

Were the 3rd worse side at creating turnovers between the arcs, thats probably one of our biggest issues. Our main issues is still defending and having the midfield go both ways consistently enough

 

[faible]

he defensive scheme that is primarily in place to protect our poor back 6.

This is a bit of a furphy, every team in the league works to protect their back 6. The whole idea is pressure up the field forcing rushed entries means defenders can play proactively and intercept opposition forward entries.

Our back 6 looks good when the midfield pressure is good, bad when it's bad. Upgrading BZT & Laverde to prime Hurley & Fletcher wouldn't make the defense suddenly impenetrable, it just gives more margin for error if / when midfield pressure falls or fails.

Scott has gone backwards a step to a more basic plan akin to what Rutten was doing in 2021 that is more directly focused on pressure instead of a more complicated zone setup, ant555 has posted quite a lot of really good stuff about it all.

Moving forward Scott will have to try to make the same step Rutten did in having a more complex zone that holds opposition up further up the field in order to create a turnover closer to goal, but I think it's inaccurate to suggest they're deliberately playing a back-half game.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Agree

Scott has got the side to respond every time this year

Saints and Brisbane were our worse 2 losses before Fremantle and we responded the following week

Port may just have too much ability, but im comfident in a response

Few things going our way. Its at the G and Port are coming off the bye.

I think you are right, Port is just solid across the park and will still likely be too good, but we can win this if we rock up firing with a 4Q effort.

We were garbage against Fremantle and i think that may have been the start of a bit of a slide for us unfortunately.

 

[wichidi]

Quick question. What end is the Essendon or majority of Essendon fan end? Thanks.

I think you’ll find most Essendon fans at their wits end.

 

[Dave]

It's all set up for us. Ours to lose!

Essington have this in the bag!!

 

[Lore]

I think you’ll find most Essendon fans at their wits end.

That would've been funnier 12 months ago but still

 

[Runk]

I think we're a shot here

 

[Pweter]

I don't think we're playing that way by design though, Scott has tried to focus on more of a frontal half game (as did Rutten) but doesn't necessarily have the optimal personnel available to do so right now. Between Menzie, Wanganeen, Davey x 2 you'd hope to have a handful of genuine forwards that work hard defensively at ground level but also offer dangerous scoring opportunities in a way Snelling and Guelfi don't.

Not playing Menzie was a risky choice given he's pretty good on the repeat pressure front and finds the goals regularly enough, but Snelling & Guelfi are both there as harder working players that apply pressure. Getting beaten out of the middle forces you to play a game more in your defensive half, but as Hobbs / Caldwell / Tsatas mature and Setterfield returns we'd hopefully be able to play a more forward-half game.

We've seen what designing a gameplan around slingshot ball movement off half-back results in, some great looking high-scoring football at times, but ultimately falling over in the wet / contested / big finals. It's not reliable. A team like Geelong or Sydney (or Richmond) can grind out wins when they need to instead of relying on the feast or famine slingshot game that can be completely shut down.

Collingwood as much as they use Daicos' run off half-back as a weapon, have prime ball winners in Adams, Mitchell, Crisp, DeGoey that are all big, experienced midfield bodies to supply their outside runners and hard-working half and small forwards trying to lock that ball in.

Has Guelfi's role changed, as he's scored a goal in every game he's played this season (couple of 2 goal games) whether he be a starter or the sub. While his tackle count could be higher his pressure and physicality is right up there.

 

[citizen-erased]

No team has won off the bye playing a team that didn't have a bye the week before

Essendon be like, hold my beer

 

[ant555]

Possibly.

I say possibly because he was a standout of the VFL game on Sunday (one of the few).

The guy knows how to get it, rucks well and has plenty of shots but his conversion levels aren't great. Story of Essendon really.

Standout is a bit strong IMO but he was one of the better players. Then again it did not take a lot to standout amongst the rabble we where.

 

[ant555]

It’s been regularly discussed that we are 18th in terms of defending transition but surviving because we are good at scoring from d50. Why not try leaning into that sort of play style and be a fast offensive team:

- Drop Kelly and Heppell to bring in Hind/Mass and slide a Caldwell/Perkins to HBF.

- Only play one of Weid or 2nd Ruck and bring in another running player.

Unrelated to the above but bring would also bring in Baldwin for Laverde.

I can tell you it is not a great idea. Right now we have our defense set up so we allow sides one side of the ground and work on getting numbers back inside 50 to intercept. It is step one in the long term plan and is based on trying to control where the opposition go as much as possible. It has not been as good in the last two games but in general it has worked well. It is playing with fire a bit by intercepting in the back half but as they progress that defense will start to push up a bit further to the point we start intercepting more at 60 to 80 from goal rather than trying to stop it wide inside 50. Right now we need the best defenders we have inside 50 to do what we have been doing. The conceding inside 50 number in isolation looks bad but we are actually a lot better in as far as intercepting and around 11th for points against. Yes it needs improving but it is step one in a basic defensive plan that the players are buying into.
The second part of this plan which has worked on and off is with the midfielders working on trying to protect the middle and then pushing back into the back half they are also required to be the link players.
The forward pressure is a work in progress and last week I think we ended up with too many Tall and Medium forwards. I am not against leaving out Weideman and playing another small forward.

 

[Ambrosia]

I can tell you it is not a great idea. Right now we have our defense set up so we allow sides one side of the ground and work on getting numbers back inside 50 to intercept. It is step on in the long term plan and is based on trying to control where the opposition go as much as possible. It has not been as good in the last two games but in general it has worked well. It is playing with fire a bit by intercepting in the back half but as they progress that defense will start to push up a bit further to the point we start intercepting more at 60 to 80 from goal rather than trying to stop it wide inside 50. Right now we need the best defenders we have inside 50 to do what we have been doing. The conceding inside 50 number in isolation looks bad but we are actually a lot better in as far as intercepting and around 11th for points against. Yes it needs improving but it is step one in a basic defensive plan that the players are buying into.
The second part of this plan which has worked on and off is with the midfielders working on trying to protect the middle and then pushing back into the back half they are also required to be the link players.
The forward pressure is a work in progress and last week I think we ended up with too many Tall and Medium forwards. I am not against leaving out Weideman and playing another small forward.

It’s a reasonable explanation but it just makes the decision to play Heppell all the more stupid. He’s not good defensively or at linking up in transition once we have the ball.

I’m also not sure Kelly is that talented of a defender. He’s got an excellent work rate and doesn’t make the mental application mistakes other defenders do but in terms of actually beating his direct opponent he’s pretty meh.

 

[ant555]

If we are going without Weideman than I am going another small forward. Voss plays like medium forward and I do not think it will work with Langford / Stringer / Perkins and Voss all in the side. I would have no issues if they left out Weideman and played Wanganeen and had Menzie back in the side.

 

[ant555]

It’s a reasonable explanation but it just makes the decision to play Heppell all the more stupid. He’s not good defensively or at linking up in transition once we have the ball.

It is an issue even thought he is playing reasonable footy. Scott was always going to back him in as the players and the coaches rate his leadership and it is a transition year but it will have to end. We can not be tied to him next year.

 

[Ambrosia]

It is an issue even thought he is playing reasonable footy. Scott was always going to back him in as the players and the coaches rate his leadership and it is a transition year but it will have to end. We can not be tied to him next year.

I edited my comment to include a comment about Kelly. What are your thoughts there?

To expand his defensive 1on1 loss rate is 40% which is one of the worst in the league for players with a reasonable sample of contests. He got absolutely cut up by Walters too who McGrath would have handled easily.