North Melbourne rolled into Adelaide Oval with a new-look backline, changing four of their starting seven from the Good Friday loss to Carlton.
For a while it looked as if nothing had changed, Port Adelaide’s burst to close the first quarter stretching the margin out towards five goals.
But the Power’s slightly different way of playing compared to previous North opponents – which we’ll touch on as we go – allowed some of North’s flaws to escape scrutiny as they gradually worked back into the game.
By the end it was a genuine 50-50 match which could have gone either way. How much it provides an indicator for future weeks remains to be seen, but at the very least it should provide a confidence boost heading into what could be a winnable game, albeit off a short five-day break.
On to the analysis. And just quietly, it’s a relief to have a straight game analysis post after the last few weeks of existential musings.
—
The Patreon is up and running once again for 2025, which you can find right here. The three tiers are much the same as previous years, with refined features for the top two.
In addition to Patreon, you can find me on Twitter – and also Bluesky, where vibes are much more pleasant and there’s much less hate. It’s nice.
—
A word on the senior defensive omissions – Aidan Corr and Griffin Logue – first. Some used the word scapegoat, some wanted more change across all lines, but in reality the changes were straightforward.
The role of Logue and Corr is to both perform their own role and help to set the tone with team defence, guiding and instructing where needed. They weren’t doing either, and given the Power don’t run an overly tall forward line, there were better options to roll with for the week. And with a five-day break into Essendon, it’s not the worst thing in the world having viable replacements ready to roll if players struggle with the short turnaround.
Nevertheless, Port were switched on from the start and during the first quarter it looked like they were on the way to handing North another heavy loss.
When the Power are on, they push plenty of numbers higher up the field. Then when their pressure is also there to win contests, they use those numbers and look to either run out of congestion or handball chain their way through, before kicking to open space in their forward half.
Don’t only take my word for it though; this is what Port Adelaide recruiting manager Geoff Parker had to say after last year’s National Draft:
“The game’s shifted a little bit that way to quick ball movement, smaller in the forward-50, push up the ground, run back into space. That’s how we think it might be travelling the next few years.”
This snippet of play illustrates what Port try to do. Even though this specific kick leads to nothing, the win contest-run/handball out-kick to space is what they look like at their best. And for the first quarter it wasn’t so much about North playing poorly – which isn’t to say there weren’t mistakes – as it was Port playing really, really well on both sides of the ball.
At quarter time Port were +28 in disposals (despite being -7 in contested possessions, another indicator of their superb pressure), +12 in tackles, +7 in inside 50s, and leading by 29 points. It wasn’t quite Hawthorn in Gather Round levels, but North largely just couldn’t go with the manic pressure and contest work.
But now we’ve illustrated how Port like to play, the other side is: while it’s breathtaking when clicking, they don’t have the same variety in their game style compared to other teams. It leaves avenues for opponents to get back in the game if they can neutralise Port’s preferred mode…
—
For those who have missed it, the last five posts on The Shinboner, plus…
2025’s Team Structures Page
Veterans, offence, and scoring: Round 6’s Notebook
North Melbourne’s Round 6 analysis v Carlton
Checking in on the 0-5 teams: Round 5’s Notebook
North Melbourne’s Round 5 analysis v Gold Coast
Minutes played by age: Round 4’s Notebook
—
Because Port like to get those numbers higher up the ground and use the corridor as often as possible, it means before they win possession they have to work in a smaller space by definition.
For those who have read any of this year’s match analysis pieces, or indeed for anyone who has watched a game in 2025, having an opponent wanting to work in smaller spaces instead of stretching the field is music to North ears. It partly neutralises the areas they’ve struggled mightily in and presents a window to control the game through their strengths.
To massively oversimplify: in theory, more numbers around the ball makes it easier to clog the game up defensively and puts less emphasis on North’s base defensive setups. Think of it this way: if it’s seven v seven, it’s harder to break away than when it’s four on four.
Meanwhile offensively, North can still win the ball well, this much we know. And the extra numbers around the ball mean even though the quality of stoppage wins might not be excellent, the forwards have a little more space to work in than normal, fewer defensive interceptors to worry about.
The stats (in this case, the AFL.com.au Timeline) say all North’s five second quarter goals came from stoppages. Vision suggests a couple of them could quite easily be classified as turnover goals instead, but nevertheless North did win the clearance count 15-9 for the term, which translated to a 17-9 inside 50 advantage.
Then because Port use the corridor so much – the highest percentage in the league by a distance heading into the round – North were able to set up in the second knowing their opponent’s preferred method.
Of Port’s 10 rebound 50s in the second quarter, only two turned into inside 50s, and neither of those entries hit the scoreboard. Even allowing for all the shenanigans that happened in the term – Sam Powell-Pepper kicking it straight to Charlie Comben’s hands from the top of the goal square, Mitch Georgiades hitting the wrong side of the ball from 15 metres out, just to name a couple – it was an impressive defensive term.
It actually forced a change from Port Adelaide after the break – and for the entirety of the second half – nearly completely abandoning their corridor method as they looked to move wider instead. Because of this, it made defending much easier for North through those third quarter periods when they were under pressure.
They’d successfully shrunk the field and Port only managed three goals from 17 inside 50s, forced into a heavy kicking pattern for most of the term.
Those majors came from one brain fade (Luke Davies-Uniacke forgetting to get rid of the ball), one sharp piece of play (Joe Richards’ crumbing), and one … what do you call Luke McDonald not nailing a 20-metre throw pass inch perfectly back to Darcy Byrne-Jones?
Although North had 25 turnovers for the quarter – which feels like it’d be close to a club high for the year, without complete numbers to back me up – to remain in the game speaks to how they were able to cope defensively against Port’s strengths the later the afternoon went.
Even in the last quarter, Port jumped out of the blocks with the first 10 clearances. But because North were well set up to thwart Power strengths, it meant the home team couldn’t generate high quality scoring shots. For the term, Port’s 15 clearances only managed 1.3 and two rushed behinds.
It was just a bridge too far for North to cross battling back from the blistering Port start, running out of time even though they finished the stronger. They had to be near-perfect in the final quarter to bridge both the scoreboard gap and the territory gap in the early stages from Port’s clearance dominance.
They got close but ultimately fell just short. Given what had happened in the last three weeks, finding the strength to get the game back on terms after quarter time should be applauded.
After quarter time the Power had 25 rebound 50s. Only three – three! – became inside 50s. It was encouraging defensive work by North, against a team that can be unstoppable when on.
Perhaps the tone of today’s piece is too bright for some, but the defensive improvement on previous weeks was noticeable and should be highlighted. To be clear, we don’t know how much of this will translate into future weeks given Port’s ball movement difference to other teams.
But given parts of the defensive game were miles better than at any other time this year, it should at the very least boost confidence. It’s on North to ensure that defensive improvement wasn’t a dead cat bounce.
On to some odds and ends to finish today’s piece after the Depth Chart plug…
—
The Create Your Own Depth Chart feature is now part of the List Management suite, all on the $5 tier for Patreon subscribers:
You can subscribe to the Patreon for 2025 right here. The three tiers are much the same as previous years, with refined features for the top two.
—
Odds & Ends
Darcy Tucker’s half-forward role
In theory, moving Tucker to play a defensive high forward role on Connor Rozee made sense. Tucker’s done the role a few times over his career, Port Adelaide don’t drive too much play through their wings which made the move easier, and that spot in North’s forward rotation had been fluctuating in recent weeks.
In practice … it didn’t work. A defensive high forward is a tricky role to play for anyone, which is why using Tucker rather than bringing in anyone else cold was the logical move. But Tucker’s positioning was off, he was too reactive, and gifted Rozee areas the Port skipper wanted to go to.
A substitution was the least surprising conclusion to the matchup, which begs the question of what happens next week off a five-day break. If Tucker is to play another defensive role, it’d be on the wing against Nic Martin. If he keeps his spot.
Cinematic centre bounce angles and reverse shots of players
What is the point of choosing to show this camera angle…
…and this camera angle:
What does this show the viewer watching at home? What is the point of choosing this shot when the viewer has exactly no idea what the player is looking at ahead of him?
The umpiring performance
With two rookie umpires, another in his fifth full season but yet to earn a final, and one veteran, it’s probably no surprise they gradually lost control of the game.
The inconsistency in decision making – for both sides, all game – was maddening. And the players realised it, so they ended up playing for everything because it was a lottery whether the whistle would blow, and it all descended into madness.
They’d lost control of play by the time the last quarter started. North were gifted a few scoring shots throughout the day they’d never normally get, and then one of the most crucial decisions late – Charlie Comben blocked off the play leading to Ollie Lord’s goal – was either missed or ignored.
What I wouldn’t give for the untethered reaction of senior coaches, off the record, of where they think the umpiring standards are at. My hunch is it’d be revealing.