Disclaimer: This thesis and all the stats in the post are sourced from the 2011 AFL Prospectus. Is clearly outlines our inability to get the ball inside 50, which is something I've suspected has been holding us back for a long time. I thought it was worthwhile sharing with this forum.

"In simple terms, if you get the ball forward more often than the opposition, you're likely to win. And if getting the ball inside the forward 50 arc more than the opposition is the key to winning a premiership, Melbourne is a long way off, despite all the hype.

Forward 50 entry numbers are a reliable and simple way of measuring the performance of a team's midfield. And you would have to say the Demons' midfield pack isn't cutting it. Since 2000 no premiership team has been in the negative as far as forward 50 entires versus the opposition.

Year Premiers Inside 50 Differential Rank

2010 Collingwood 11.6 1st

2009 Geelong 9 2nd

2008 Hawthorn 9.1 2nd

2007 Geelong 9.3 1st

2006 WCE 4 4th

2005 Sydney 3.8 5th

2004 Port 1.3 7th

2003 Brisbane 4.3 2nd

2002 Brisbane 8.5 2nd

2001 Brisbane 6.4 4th

2000 Essendon 13.7 1st

Port +1.3 per game differential was the lowest of any premier. The Power class of 2004 was the only team outside the top 5 for inside 50 differential. Collingwood was No. 1 last year, Geelong second in 2009, Hawthorn second in 2008 and Geelong No.1 in 2007. Clearly, it is a huge recipe for success.

When the Demons drew with Collingwood last year, they had 20 less inside 50s than the Pies. That said plenty. Super game, stirring effort, but in reality the number suggested a win would have been miraculous. The quality of the Demons' entries was good that day, but a bit of quantity doesn't hurt either.

If winning the inside 50 count was the only guide in judging a midfield's year, Melbourne failed. They won the count just 5 times and 3 of those were in the opening 5 rounds. And for the fourth year in a row Melbourne's inside 50 differential ranked 16th in the competition.

2007= -8.1 --> Ranked 16th

2008= -14.4 ---> Ranked 16th

2009= -9.6 ---> Ranked 16th

201= -7.2 ---> Ranked 16th

While the mifdield improved in 2010, it needs to give the back-line a break and the young forward-line more opportunities. There is plenty of work to do, Bails."

Very damning statistics over the past 4 years. Against Essendon we lost inside 50 count something like 60-30, so clearly we haven't fixed the problem. What do people make of this?

Agree 100% with your post, and think I may have posted a similar thing last year. Even with an All-Australian ruckman last year, our ability to win clean ball from stoppages and get it into our F50 is dreadful.

When I watch our team at stoppages, it always appears to me that we are very negative and reactive. Maybe it just all comes down to the quality of our midfielders.

I would like to see how these stats compare with corresponding centre clearance rates. The most basic and damaging inside 50 play originates from centre clearances.

I was a little dismayed that in the last draft mostly tall's were selected. I was hoping to see more inside ball winners.

Edited February 27, 201114 yr by america de cali

I would like to see how these stats compare with corresponding centre clearance rates. The most basic and damaging inside 50 play originates from centre clearances.

I was a little dismayed that in the last draft mostly tall's were selected. I was hoping to see more inside ball winners.

To be fair, the club has recognised our weakness in the midfield, and drafted with a strong midfield emphasis from 2007-2009.

We drafted Morton and Grimes in 2007... Strauss, Blease, Bennel, Jetta, Mckenzie and Bail in 2008... and Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott in 2009.

We really just need to fast-track these young midfielders as much as possible, because we won't make finals until our midfield group can at least break even in the inside 50 count.

Whilst i 100% agree with the post, its expertly written and presents a serious problem for us, I believe it comes down not to our inability to kick it in but more the men we had inside 50. The clubs that most likely will win the Inside 50 stats are teams with high marking forwards where their midfielders can blaze and know 50% of the time someone will take a mark. With our small forward line we are forced to potter around the HFF to mark up a target with precision and often it wouldn't work out.

I agree with you but at the same time, sadly not bombing it in, is playing to our strengths.

Whilst i 100% agree with the post, its expertly written and presents a serious problem for us, I believe it comes down not to our inability to kick it in but more the men we had inside 50. The clubs that most likely will win the Inside 50 stats are teams with high marking forwards where their midfielders can blaze and know 50% of the time someone will take a mark. With our small forward line we are forced to potter around the HFF to mark up a target with precision and often it wouldn't work out.

I agree with you but at the same time, sadly not bombing it in, is playing to our strengths.

Our forwards & midfield aren't creating enough pressure to cause turnovers coming out of our attacking 50m arc. We barely ever lock the ball in our attacking half. At the other end our players are stagnant & not running hard enough to create options coming out of defense. I think a lot of it comes down to work rate & intensity.

Another major contributor has been the fact that our midfielders have tended to be sideways and backwards moving 'accumulators' (think Bruce) rather than the line-breaking elite guns that take the game on (think Lenny Hayes).

We've obviously identified this with our drafting over recent years. The only answer is pumping 50+ games into Scully, Trengove, Blease, Gysberts and co and that will necessarily come with the rollercoaster of up and down performances.

I think our conversion rate is good when the ball does get inside fiddy , the problem as highlighted is that it doesn't get in there near often enough . Moloney and Jones not cutting it doesn't help .

I would like to see how these stats compare with corresponding centre clearance rates. The most basic and damaging inside 50 play originates from centre clearances.

I was a little dismayed that in the last draft mostly tall's were selected. I was hoping to see more inside ball winners.

I was hoping for best available but with affirmative action toward talls.

Why?

For the reason Sylinator has already stipulated - we drafted "Morton and Grimes in 2007... Strauss, Blease, Bennel, Jetta, Mckenzie and Bail in 2008... and Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott in 2009."

It's not the clubs fault that fans aren't realistic about timeframes for development.

I was hoping for best available but with affirmative action toward talls.

Why?

For the reason Sylinator has already stipulated - we drafted "Morton and Grimes in 2007... Strauss, Blease, Bennel, Jetta, Mckenzie and Bail in 2008... and Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott in 2009."

It's not the clubs fault that fans aren't realistic about timeframes for development.

Correct.

We also got some likely types in Evans (inside mid) and Nicholson (halfback rotating mid) in last year's rookie draft. If McKenzie is a testament to our eye for talent and ability to develop rookies then they could be handy comodities.