RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2024
- Posts
- 8,457
- Reaction score
- 12,578
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Best Midfield Profiles 2026
Do you ever look at the season and wonder which midfields are actually good, rather than just which ones feel good because of reputation, ladder position, or a couple of big-name players?
So I had a look at the 2026 team numbers by differential, meaning how each team compares to its opponent on a per-game basis.
This is not ranking the best group of midfield names on paper. It is ranking the best midfield profiles so far in 2026.
I split it into two versions.
1. Pure Midfield Engine
This is the cleanest midfield version. It looks at whether a team actually wins the ball at, before, and immediately after the contest.
Included:
2. Clean Midfield Impact
This starts with the pure midfield engine, then adds whether that midfield work becomes territory or scoreboard damage.
Added:
I deliberately did not include ball-use equity, broad chain score, points from forward half, pressure acts or tackles.
Why?
Because those are too polluted by whole-team system stuff. Half-backs, forwards, wings, transition chains and general ball movement all feed into them. If you include too much of that, you end up ranking team style and ball movement, then calling it midfield.
Tackles also become messy unless you isolate individual midfielders, which is a separate job.
These rankings are also adjusted for opponent midfield strength, so putting up numbers against Brisbane, Sydney, Fremantle or Hawthorn-type midfield profiles is treated differently to putting them up against weaker midfield profiles.
All differentials below are per game.
Pure Midfield Engine, schedule adjusted
Clean Midfield Impact, schedule adjusted
Main takeaways
Brisbane are the benchmark.
They are first in the pure engine ranking and first in the clean impact ranking. That is the neatest profile in the league. They are not just winning clearances, they are winning the contest layer around it too: +9.88 clearance differential, +11.63 contested possession differential, +10.25 ground-ball differential, +9.25 pre-clearance equity differential. That is a proper midfield furnace.
Fremantle also rate very strongly.
Their schedule has been softer by this method, son there a rung below Brisbane, but the actual profile is still excellent. +7.00 clearance differential, +8.78 first possessions, +11.09 pre-clearance equity and very strong ruck connection numbers.
Hawthorn are the interesting one.
I do not think the broader football public really talks about Hawthorn like they have one of the better midfields in the competition. There is still a bit of “don't have enough stars or lack midfield depth” about the way they get discussed, but the midfield numbers say something different.
They are 3rd in the pure midfield engine and 3rd in clean midfield impact, even after opponent adjustment. The standout number is contested possession differential: +13.44 per game, no.1 in the game. They are also +4.67 for first possessions, +5.01 for pre-clearance equity, +5.00 for gathers from hitout and +5.78 for hitouts to advantage.
The warning sign is centre-bounce scoring: -4.33 points per game. So I would not say they are the most damaging midfield. But as a contest engine, they look much better than the public reputation.
Sydney are more damaging than dominant.
Sydney are a good example of why I split this into two rankings.
They are only 7th in the pure midfield engine, but jump to 4th in clean midfield impact. That basically says they are not necessarily smashing teams at the coalface every week, but once they get enough midfield supply, they turn it into territory and stoppage damage very quickly.
The numbers tell the story:
So I would not call them the best pure midfield in the competition. Brisbane, Fremantle and Hawthorn are stronger engine-room profiles. But Sydney might be one of the most damaging teams once the midfield battle gets into open space or forward-half supply.
The Bulldogs are probably being undersold by raw numbers.
The Bulldogs are a schedule-adjustment case.
Raw impact has them lower, but once you adjust for the quality of midfields they have faced, they rise to 6th in clean midfield impact.
They are still messy. Their inside 50 differential is poor at -5.75, and their stoppage points differential is also negative at -2.75. So this is not a “Bulldogs midfield is flying” argument.
It is more that the raw numbers are a bit harsh because they have played a harder midfield schedule than most. Their centre-bounce scoring is still a positive at +5.50, and the opponent adjustment suggests they are closer to the middle-to-good group than the plain table might imply.
Gold Coast are the reverse case.
Gold Coast are interesting because they look better if you only look at the outcome layer.
They are positive for:
So clearly they are generating midfield-origin territory and scoring.
But when you strip it back to the actual midfield mechanics, the profile falls away.
They are 17th in the pure midfield engine:
That does not mean their midfielders are bad. It means the team midfield profile is not as strong as the territory/scoring layer makes it look. They are getting damage despite losing a lot of the first-use and contest mechanics.
So Gold Coast are not a bad midfield impact side, but they do not look like a strong pure midfield engine.
Collingwood remain the strangest profile.
Collingwood are last in the pure midfield engine even after receiving the biggest schedule boost in the model.
That is a pretty strong signal.
Their pure midfield numbers are rough:
So whatever Collingwood are doing well, it does not look like midfield dominance.
It is more likely coming from system, turnover game, defensive shape, rebound, transition, pressure structure, or general ball movement outside the midfield contest itself.
Final tiers
Elite midfield profile
Brisbane
Strong genuine midfields
Fremantle, Hawthorn
Good or dangerous midfield profiles
Sydney, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Geelong
Middle or conditional
St Kilda, Carlton, Melbourne, GWS
Below average
Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Essendon
Bad pure midfield profiles
Richmond, West Coast, Collingwood
Tl:dr
Brisbane are the clear benchmark. Fremantle are very good. Hawthorn look much better than the public probably thinks. Sydney are more impact than pure engine. Gold Coast are producing territory and stoppage scoreboard damage, but the underlying midfield mechanics are weaker. Collingwood are the clearest example of a team surviving through system rather than midfield control.
Do you ever look at the season and wonder which midfields are actually good, rather than just which ones feel good because of reputation, ladder position, or a couple of big-name players?
So I had a look at the 2026 team numbers by differential, meaning how each team compares to its opponent on a per-game basis.
This is not ranking the best group of midfield names on paper. It is ranking the best midfield profiles so far in 2026.
I split it into two versions.
1. Pure Midfield Engine
This is the cleanest midfield version. It looks at whether a team actually wins the ball at, before, and immediately after the contest.
Included:
- Pre-clearance equity differential
- First possessions
- Centre clearances
- Stoppage clearances
- Total clearances
- Contested possessions
- Hard-ball gets
- Ground-ball gets
- Post-clearance contested possessions
- Post-clearance ground-ball gets
- Gathers from hitout
- Hitouts to advantage
- Ruck hard-ball gets
2. Clean Midfield Impact
This starts with the pure midfield engine, then adds whether that midfield work becomes territory or scoreboard damage.
Added:
- Inside 50 differential
- Points from stoppage differential
- Points from centre bounce differential
I deliberately did not include ball-use equity, broad chain score, points from forward half, pressure acts or tackles.
Why?
Because those are too polluted by whole-team system stuff. Half-backs, forwards, wings, transition chains and general ball movement all feed into them. If you include too much of that, you end up ranking team style and ball movement, then calling it midfield.
Tackles also become messy unless you isolate individual midfielders, which is a separate job.
These rankings are also adjusted for opponent midfield strength, so putting up numbers against Brisbane, Sydney, Fremantle or Hawthorn-type midfield profiles is treated differently to putting them up against weaker midfield profiles.
All differentials below are per game.
Pure Midfield Engine, schedule adjusted
| Rank | Team | G | Adj Engine | Raw Engine | Opp SOS | CB Clr | Stopp Clr | Total Clr | First Poss | PreClr Eq | CP | HBG | GBG | PC CP | PC GBG | Gath HO | HTA | Ruck HBG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brisbane | 8 | 1.251 | 1.439 | -0.188 | +3.88 | +6.00 | +9.88 | +4.50 | +9.25 | +11.62 | +4.62 | +10.25 | +5.75 | +5.12 | -0.12 | +0.25 | +0.25 |
| 2 | Fremantle | 9 | 0.915 | 1.152 | -0.238 | +2.33 | +4.67 | +7.00 | +8.78 | +11.09 | +7.33 | +2.56 | +1.11 | -0.44 | +2.33 | +6.11 | +6.67 | +1.89 |
| 3 | Hawthorn | 9 | 0.790 | 0.922 | -0.131 | -0.67 | +3.33 | +2.67 | +4.67 | +5.01 | +13.44 | +3.11 | +3.33 | +7.11 | +2.11 | +5.00 | +5.78 | +1.22 |
| 4 | North Melbourne | 8 | 0.532 | 0.623 | -0.091 | +1.62 | +2.75 | +4.38 | +4.75 | +4.16 | +6.75 | -0.25 | -0.62 | +2.12 | -1.88 | -1.75 | -2.25 | +4.88 |
| 5 | Western Bulldogs | 8 | 0.460 | 0.175 | 0.285 | +2.88 | -0.25 | +2.62 | -0.38 | +1.47 | -2.38 | -0.12 | +6.88 | -3.00 | +0.00 | -4.75 | -5.50 | -1.50 |
| 6 | St Kilda | 8 | 0.170 | 0.285 | -0.115 | +2.12 | -0.25 | +1.88 | +1.38 | +6.76 | +4.62 | -3.12 | -2.62 | +3.12 | -1.88 | -1.75 | -1.25 | +1.12 |
| 7 | Sydney | 8 | 0.168 | -0.006 | 0.174 | -0.62 | +2.25 | +1.62 | +0.50 | +1.91 | +2.00 | -4.38 | -8.12 | +2.12 | -1.62 | +2.38 | +3.25 | +1.38 |
| 8 | Carlton | 8 | 0.108 | 0.177 | -0.069 | -2.12 | +1.75 | -0.38 | +0.62 | -1.06 | +3.50 | +0.75 | +3.62 | +2.62 | +2.12 | -0.75 | -1.00 | +1.00 |
| 9 | Geelong | 8 | 0.094 | 0.002 | 0.092 | +1.88 | -4.25 | -2.38 | +0.00 | -0.54 | +2.12 | +0.88 | -0.12 | +6.00 | -0.88 | -2.25 | -2.75 | -1.62 |
| 10 | GWS | 8 | 0.086 | 0.160 | -0.074 | -4.12 | +0.12 | -4.00 | +1.12 | -6.40 | +5.25 | +5.38 | +13.25 | +4.00 | +8.75 | +1.25 | +0.75 | -2.75 |
| 11 | Melbourne | 8 | 0.060 | -0.042 | 0.102 | +2.75 | -2.88 | -0.12 | +2.88 | +4.36 | -1.75 | -3.38 | -10.50 | -2.25 | -3.38 | +3.25 | +4.38 | +2.62 |
| 12 | Port Adelaide | 8 | -0.243 | -0.095 | -0.148 | +2.25 | -0.88 | +1.38 | +2.75 | -2.53 | -5.50 | -1.00 | -5.25 | -7.25 | -2.50 | +2.38 | +3.12 | +1.88 |
| 13 | Adelaide | 8 | -0.354 | -0.603 | 0.248 | +0.12 | -4.75 | -4.62 | -5.88 | -5.82 | -4.75 | -1.00 | +1.00 | +0.25 | +4.38 | +0.62 | +0.88 | -2.12 |
| 14 | Essendon | 8 | -0.635 | -0.790 | 0.155 | -4.50 | +0.25 | -4.25 | -5.38 | -1.52 | -7.25 | -4.38 | -0.62 | -4.12 | -3.00 | -2.00 | -2.62 | -3.75 |
| 15 | West Coast | 8 | -0.744 | -0.809 | 0.065 | -1.38 | -2.38 | -3.75 | -8.88 | -5.21 | -8.50 | -2.50 | +4.12 | -2.12 | +1.50 | -5.38 | -6.38 | -3.00 |
| 16 | Richmond | 8 | -0.745 | -0.812 | 0.067 | -1.12 | -1.38 | -2.50 | -2.75 | -8.30 | -11.62 | +1.12 | -3.38 | -9.62 | -10.00 | -5.00 | -5.50 | -3.00 |
| 17 | Gold Coast | 8 | -0.802 | -0.630 | -0.172 | -2.38 | -3.38 | -5.75 | -5.25 | -7.63 | -5.38 | +1.62 | -2.38 | +2.00 | +4.62 | +3.00 | +2.12 | +0.62 |
| 18 | Collingwood | 8 | -0.806 | -1.148 | 0.343 | -3.12 | -1.75 | -4.88 | -5.12 | -7.01 | -12.12 | -0.62 | -10.50 | -7.12 | -6.38 | -1.62 | -1.50 | +0.50 |
Clean Midfield Impact, schedule adjusted
| Rank | Team | G | Adj Impact | Raw Impact | Opp SOS | I50 | Stopp Pts | CB Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brisbane | 8 | 1.283 | 1.433 | -0.150 | +6.75 | +11.50 | +12.62 |
| 2 | Fremantle | 9 | 0.772 | 1.044 | -0.272 | +3.33 | +11.33 | +2.33 |
| 3 | Hawthorn | 9 | 0.594 | 0.623 | -0.029 | +4.00 | -0.22 | -4.33 |
| 4 | Sydney | 8 | 0.475 | 0.346 | 0.129 | +12.50 | +11.25 | +3.25 |
| 5 | Geelong | 8 | 0.419 | 0.370 | 0.049 | +6.75 | +7.62 | +8.25 |
| 6 | Western Bulldogs | 8 | 0.392 | 0.103 | 0.289 | -5.75 | -2.75 | +5.50 |
| 7 | North Melbourne | 8 | 0.311 | 0.473 | -0.162 | -2.38 | +6.25 | +0.12 |
| 8 | St Kilda | 8 | 0.219 | 0.359 | -0.140 | -1.12 | +9.75 | +3.12 |
| 9 | Melbourne | 8 | 0.110 | -0.016 | 0.126 | +4.88 | -2.62 | -1.88 |
| 10 | GWS | 8 | 0.019 | 0.047 | -0.028 | -0.75 | -0.88 | -2.12 |
| 11 | Carlton | 8 | -0.011 | 0.029 | -0.040 | -7.25 | +4.12 | -1.12 |
| 12 | Adelaide | 8 | -0.271 | -0.560 | 0.289 | -4.38 | -2.88 | -1.50 |
| 13 | Port Adelaide | 8 | -0.332 | -0.106 | -0.225 | +4.75 | -7.12 | -1.75 |
| 14 | Gold Coast | 8 | -0.372 | -0.160 | -0.212 | +8.38 | +5.38 | +3.88 |
| 15 | Collingwood | 8 | -0.670 | -0.918 | 0.248 | -2.00 | -5.50 | -0.75 |
| 16 | Essendon | 8 | -0.811 | -0.990 | 0.179 | -13.00 | -9.75 | -8.38 |
| 17 | West Coast | 8 | -0.868 | -1.027 | 0.160 | -7.12 | -14.38 | -9.38 |
| 18 | Richmond | 8 | -1.013 | -1.049 | 0.035 | -8.50 | -22.50 | -7.62 |
Main takeaways
Brisbane are the benchmark.
They are first in the pure engine ranking and first in the clean impact ranking. That is the neatest profile in the league. They are not just winning clearances, they are winning the contest layer around it too: +9.88 clearance differential, +11.63 contested possession differential, +10.25 ground-ball differential, +9.25 pre-clearance equity differential. That is a proper midfield furnace.
Fremantle also rate very strongly.
Their schedule has been softer by this method, son there a rung below Brisbane, but the actual profile is still excellent. +7.00 clearance differential, +8.78 first possessions, +11.09 pre-clearance equity and very strong ruck connection numbers.
Hawthorn are the interesting one.
I do not think the broader football public really talks about Hawthorn like they have one of the better midfields in the competition. There is still a bit of “don't have enough stars or lack midfield depth” about the way they get discussed, but the midfield numbers say something different.
They are 3rd in the pure midfield engine and 3rd in clean midfield impact, even after opponent adjustment. The standout number is contested possession differential: +13.44 per game, no.1 in the game. They are also +4.67 for first possessions, +5.01 for pre-clearance equity, +5.00 for gathers from hitout and +5.78 for hitouts to advantage.
The warning sign is centre-bounce scoring: -4.33 points per game. So I would not say they are the most damaging midfield. But as a contest engine, they look much better than the public reputation.
Sydney are more damaging than dominant.
Sydney are a good example of why I split this into two rankings.
They are only 7th in the pure midfield engine, but jump to 4th in clean midfield impact. That basically says they are not necessarily smashing teams at the coalface every week, but once they get enough midfield supply, they turn it into territory and stoppage damage very quickly.
The numbers tell the story:
- +12.50 inside 50 differential
- +11.25 points from stoppage
- +3.25 points from centre bounce
So I would not call them the best pure midfield in the competition. Brisbane, Fremantle and Hawthorn are stronger engine-room profiles. But Sydney might be one of the most damaging teams once the midfield battle gets into open space or forward-half supply.
The Bulldogs are probably being undersold by raw numbers.
The Bulldogs are a schedule-adjustment case.
Raw impact has them lower, but once you adjust for the quality of midfields they have faced, they rise to 6th in clean midfield impact.
They are still messy. Their inside 50 differential is poor at -5.75, and their stoppage points differential is also negative at -2.75. So this is not a “Bulldogs midfield is flying” argument.
It is more that the raw numbers are a bit harsh because they have played a harder midfield schedule than most. Their centre-bounce scoring is still a positive at +5.50, and the opponent adjustment suggests they are closer to the middle-to-good group than the plain table might imply.
Gold Coast are the reverse case.
Gold Coast are interesting because they look better if you only look at the outcome layer.
They are positive for:
- +8.38 inside 50 differential
- +5.38 points from stoppage
- +3.88 points from centre bounce
So clearly they are generating midfield-origin territory and scoring.
But when you strip it back to the actual midfield mechanics, the profile falls away.
They are 17th in the pure midfield engine:
- -5.75 clearance differential
- -5.25 first possessions
- -7.63 pre-clearance equity
- -5.38 contested possessions
- -2.38 ground-ball gets
That does not mean their midfielders are bad. It means the team midfield profile is not as strong as the territory/scoring layer makes it look. They are getting damage despite losing a lot of the first-use and contest mechanics.
So Gold Coast are not a bad midfield impact side, but they do not look like a strong pure midfield engine.
Collingwood remain the strangest profile.
Collingwood are last in the pure midfield engine even after receiving the biggest schedule boost in the model.
That is a pretty strong signal.
Their pure midfield numbers are rough:
- -4.88 clearance differential
- -5.12 first possessions
- -7.01 pre-clearance equity
- -12.12 contested possessions
- -10.50 ground-ball gets
So whatever Collingwood are doing well, it does not look like midfield dominance.
It is more likely coming from system, turnover game, defensive shape, rebound, transition, pressure structure, or general ball movement outside the midfield contest itself.
Final tiers
Elite midfield profile
Brisbane
Strong genuine midfields
Fremantle, Hawthorn
Good or dangerous midfield profiles
Sydney, North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Geelong
Middle or conditional
St Kilda, Carlton, Melbourne, GWS
Below average
Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Essendon
Bad pure midfield profiles
Richmond, West Coast, Collingwood
Tl:dr
Brisbane are the clear benchmark. Fremantle are very good. Hawthorn look much better than the public probably thinks. Sydney are more impact than pure engine. Gold Coast are producing territory and stoppage scoreboard damage, but the underlying midfield mechanics are weaker. Collingwood are the clearest example of a team surviving through system rather than midfield control.
