"We lost the midfield battle, therefore we lost the game". That is what a lot of people here believe when it comes to readdressing the loss to Brisbane. With us drafting all these mids, this topic has resurfaced, but I believe this to be a myth.

We had the same amount of inside 50s (45 each) yet they get 19 marks in 50 to our 10. What happens is they kick inside 50, player marks and the rest of the team takes a breather.
What happens if you can't mark - there is no rest period for players who we need to score and create goals. Players like Gibbs, Murphy, Judd and Carrazzo, all of which we expect goals from, have to follow up their kicks or provide that additional option. We were working that much harder to score goals.
If Power, R-Telli, Black and Rich were required to do as much throughout the game would you think they'd have the overwhelming energy that they had at the end? Hell no. They had the comfort of having to kick inside 50 knowing that there is a good chance they don't have to do any extra work and if needed they'd have the time to structure up defensively if there is a missed set shot at goal, as opposed to shuffling back if you're a midfielder and you miss a running goal. Severe difference. We were out structured.

In some other important matches this year, vs Collingwood, they had 14 marks in 50 to our 2. Against Adelaide, it was 19 to 5. It's no joke, our mids really don't have someone to kick to.

Here are some stats I compiled in a previous post for season 2009:
St Kilda (Marks inside 50 (323) and players have marked inside 50 10 or more times (6))
Riewoldt (98)
Kosi (66)
Milne (37)
Schneider (16)
Gardiner (13)

Geelong (377 and 10)
Mooney (84)
Hawkins (50)
Johnson (45)
Chapman (28)
Stokes (26)

Footscray (301 and 10)
Hill (43)
Johnson (37)
Aker (34)
Hahn (25)
Welsh (23)

Collingwood (344 and 10)
Anthony (64)
Medhurst (37)
Cloke (36)
Lockyer (24)
Davis (21)

Adelaide (295 and 9)
Tippett (59)
Porplyzia (41)
Knights (33)
Walker (31)
Dangerfield (23)

Compare that to Carlton (264 and 5 (League worst)):
Fev (103)
Betts is (21)
Cloke is (12)
Houlihan (11)
Bryce Gibbs (10).

Marks inside 50 is a very important stat, it can signify how hard a team is working to score goals and how well a team and forward line is structured or even how capable our players are once inside 50.

We are not a Geelong because they have two really good forward targets and also Johnson, who's a pretty good mark himself. We don't have a Chapman to say, "Go to the forward line and take some marks". So I think it's unwarranted for people to compare us to Geelong. We are Carlton and we're doing things our own way.

The way we have recruited and built our list over the years can give an indication of which direction we are headed in terms of game plan. We are not building a list the conventional way. Marks in 50 is a great weakness, recruiting wise, we have done little to alleviate this problem. I think what we're trying to do is persist with the multiple goal options across the ground and have our players catch their players off guard. It's risky and does come with reward, but again, it's unconvincing and has failed in the big games.

I will remain unconvinced that this is the way to go, but one of the best feelings you can have is to be pleasantly surprised, I hope this is the case.

Great thread. Needs discussing.

I will think about it on Sunday a bit more.

We have to consider our Fev centric obsession and the cost of that strategy. We went to him 325 times for 90 goals.....there's something in that...and it';s a negative as far as the strategy goes....a lot of wasted opportunity from the hardwork of our great midfield for little return.

We have to consider how many of those marls inside 50 were coverted to goals.(Medhurst took 37 marks, but did not kick 37 goals).

The question you subject me to samuelboy is whether we have the marking targets now that Fev is gone. My gut feeling at this moment is that we didn't have plural when Fev was there, but in 2010, we can take advantage of the potential we had in the closet.

IMO the doors will open for us with Fev gone.

I'll get back to this on Sunday......I'm sure it'lll be postive.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

How many of those marks were contested?

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015

I think it was more to do with our midfielders kicking to Fev even when he wasn't the best option , rather then having a severe lack of marking forwards.

More quality midfielders means better delivery to better options in the forward 50.

If the dogs are so bereft of forward targets, then why do they have more marks inside 50 then us?

Geelong hardly has the best key forwards in the competition yet they lead everyone for marks inside forward 50. Could that be because they have the best midfield giving their forwards service?

I agree we need to develop options in the forward line but that does not necessarily mean we are lacking tall marking options. In fact, looking at our forward options, I would say that it is the tall marking forwards that we have covered, in Hendo + Waite/Kruezer. Its more about who will step up and fill the medium forward spots, and which of Betts, Yarran & Garlett will claim spots as small forwards.

Better structures and game-plans give the mids more time to make the correct decisions when it comes to forward 50 entries.

Unfortunately we blazed away too often when Fev was 3 on 1.

With him gone it gives us so many avenues im salivating!!!

_________________
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way!

Good research but overly simplistic summation IMO.
The reality is Brisbane took one contested mark in the last quarter. So did we. the 3 telling points IMO were-

1. Yes we had similar inside 50s but up until 3/4 time, we were dominating the midfield and therefore the scoreboard. Our midfield ran out of puff and consequently it contributed to costing us the game. Brisbane dominated the clearances and inside 50s late in the game which gave them the opportunity to score. If we bolster our midfield as required (which hopefully we have), the opposition hopefully wont have the opportunity to get enough inside 50s.

2. Taking your chances. In the last quarter Brisbanes conversion rate was 54.5%. Ours was 20%. Had we at the least equalled Brisbanes conversion rate, the argument would be redundant.

3 We lacked leadership. When Brisbane had a run on in the last quarter, nobody attempted to change the course of the game. You need your leaders to take control when the opposition have momentum and we failed in that department.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

FWIW, I've thought for some time that 'inside 50' is the most meaningless stat in AFL.

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

does 'inside 50' include if a player kicks backwards into his own defensive 50? or if the ball trickled into the F50 for like a second before being run back out?

If so these should be cut out for a more meaningful stat.

_________________
Carlton Premiers '10

Inside 50's include the opposition kicking into our F50 to their own player, it also doesn't matter if the ball enters 50 by a metre that counts as an inside 50.

When Brown and Bradshaw got all their marks inside 50, all except one of their set shots missed. They were left one out and Bower and Thornton were beaten off the mark getting out muscled in the initial contest, leaving Bradshaw and Brown to take uncontested marks.

The major point in this is how easy they were getting their goals. Their mids just had to focus on getting the ball inside 50, on the other hand we're relying on our best mids to not only win the but also to add to the scoreboard. So you see, energy wise our mids can't focus our energy on just one area, with this being the case we didn't match Brisbane's energy levels in an area where their mids could focus all their attention.

You can have all the best midfielders to make the most of the opportunities, but if they are relied upon to contribute in two areas at the one time, naturally you are not going to get the best of them in any specific area.

This all comes back to marking inside 50. What we are telling our mids to do is not only score goals but also to hit quickly and score in play, that is what our strategy implies. If say the midfielder marks you at least get that 30 to 40 seconds to not only cover the area left vacant by the midfielder, but also you give all your players a chance to rest and and recharge which can benefit several areas of the game, including:
- in the event there is a missed shot we're much less likely to get caught off guard when they kick the ball in
- 40 seconds of rest is a lifetime for elite athletes when it comes to getting your stamina back. And what's better rest for Judd - 40 seconds on the pine during play or 40 seconds during a stoppage?

There are many benefits to finding someone to take a mark up forward, it helps offense (better chance to score with set shots), defense (less prone to counter attacks and more players in the defensive side) and the players (stamina).
Does our style of play allow for marks up forward from multiple players? From the evidence provided, no.
Do we have players capable of playing smart offense by making good leads, winning the initial contest to provide space (doubling back and out muscling opponents), taking strong marks and beating an opponent one out? We certainly have players capable, but whether they can do it consistently and adjust to changing defenses is another thing.

I think this could all be irrelevant because I believe we are heading down a different path as our list suggests we are going to pursue with trying to get our mids to out-offense the other mids. It's not going to be straight up mids vs mids and forwards vs defenders. Some teams will get caught out but some won't.

Lets not forget we still had GIbbs, Stevo, Judd, Simmo and Murph. How much better can you get? We still had only 5 players with 10 or more marks in 50. There is little evidence to say that we will improve dramatically in this area, which is what needs to happen.



They have smart forwards who know how to find space. Hill is quick, has good hands and is a good size. All their players look for that easier option and other players find that space to mark. Higgins, Johnson and Higgins are excellent mid-size marking targets.



Mooney is a former All-Australian, a lot of their offense goes through him. Tomahawk is a very good forward option. Johnson is a very smart forward who can find space and is a very good mark. Chapman needs no introduction. Max Rooke is very good overhead for his size and Stokes is a quick leader. Good disposal is very relevant, but all these players mentioned are very capable. They also have a much better strategy in how they are looking for targets. You can't compare them to us at all, right now it's all speculation what our players are capable of.



If you look at our depth we clearly aren't focusing on playing through our tall forwards, because if you look past Lock Stock, Waite, Kreuzer and Setants, it's an area that we do not take very seriously. Waite and Kreuzer don't even know if they are going to play forward, so that is just speculation.
What we do know according to our list is that we have a lot of midfielders and we're going to play through them, both in the midfield and in attack.

cbf quoting your entire reply but you basically backed up my post. The dogs and geelong have quality midfielders who drift forward to create a target, something we will be able to develop next year without Fev commanding so much of the ball.

btw Mooney is no better then Waite, and Tommahawk has done very little to date. Stevie J is the cats best forward, something that Yarran, Kerr, etc can be developed into.

I am struggling to understand you argument, I think you're saying we need to draft/develop more marking targets? yes?

What I think you'll find is that we have no shortage of players who can take a mark, its more about developing the game plan to enable these players to find space, and encouraging the midfield to utilize the player in space.

What happened this year re marking is history without the Fevster.

Next season is going to be a totally different setup which probably will take some time for the team not to mention the coaches to get used to. Even they are will be trying to work out who to play at FF. Setanta or Kreuz, maybe even Hendo.

Apart from Betts, Garlett and Yarran, I reckon people are forgetting Mitch Robinson as a strong marking/leading medium forward. Will give the forward line some much needed steel we really need.

Any way you look at it, we may have lost a champion but the forward line is going to be a lot more versatile which cannot be bad.

_________________
"Get ready, Teddy - you're on": Ron Barassi half time 1970 Grand Final

Please! These are some average-to-crap players. Without such a special midfield they wouldn't be getting ANY of the ball.

_________________
#23: Lachlan Henderson

Stevie j and chappy are a bit above average i wouldve thought

Wouldnt piss on the rest.

_________________
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way!

I don't mean to be pessimistic, so I don't want to be seen to be dissin' our players. I just noticed a trend (lack of marks inside 50) and started paying attention to it towards the end of the season and came up with a few conclusions as to how relevant it was and how it potentially cost us some games, important ones no less.

So whether it is the players who don't know how to create space for themselves or whether they're capable or if they've been coached effectively to do so or maybe we are just heading in a different direction and we don't see marking inside 50 as a key to winning games, whatever it is I think it is a cause for concern and we may run into a bit of a problem if we continue to try and create most of our goals some other way.