I have a question for someone that was at the game.

It's hard to tell on TV, but it seemed that for most of the game, both in atack and defense, there was three Freo players for each Melbourne player at every contest. So if this was true (tv does not always show the true picture), did it seem to be due to,

(1) Lack of work rate/desire

(2) Lack of fitness

(3) A game plan that spread the Melbourne payers away from the play

(4) Melboune payers not up to standard

Important qualifcation: I have limited vision, despite being at the game, anything over about 100m is a problem. These are just my opinions.

(1) Lack of work rate/desire

Wouldn't say so, the forwards however did not appear to apply any defensive pressure when the ball was turned over. Jurrah especially. The ball came into the forward line in a haphazard way, and to be fair, forwards need clean, predictable ball delivery.

Backline, completely out gunned. Pavelich couldn't be matched for mobility, Sandilands went forward for a rest and simply couldn't be out marked.

Also some stupid play from Morton, who was reactive to Ballantyne and gave away several frees.

Any backmen holding/blocking were pinged almost immediately.

(2) Lack of fitness

Definitely not, fitness looked OK.

(3) A game plan that spread the Melbourne payers away from the play

Ah, no. What game plan involves not having the ball?

Players transitioning through the middle with the ball often looked up and saw...no targets so went sideways/ backwards then turned the ball over.

(4) Melbourne payers not up to standard

Definitely. Poor skills, missed targets, no pushing across the ground to present options, not running in support/running to create options.

Strength. On ballers were tagged at stoppages, Freo on ballers were able to break off long enough (1/2 seconds) to crumb and release the ball.

We appear to lack at least two key on ballers and a strong midfielder. Backline is short, but still unable to match up on smaller forwards like Ballantyne.

My apologies if further questions aren't answered, I can't often get online.

PS Kids question of the night, why is Russell Robertson black now?

I love the kids question of the night, the rest all sounds depressing

I have a question for someone that was at the game.

It's hard to tell on TV, but it seemed that for most of the game, both in atack and defense, there was three Freo players for each Melbourne player at every contest. So if this was true (tv does not always show the true picture), did it seem to be due to,

(1) Lack of work rate/desire

(2) Lack of fitness

(3) A game plan that spread the Melbourne payers away from the play

(4) Melboune payers not up to standard

Was at the game and ignoring the terrible ball skills i thought it was one of 2 things. lack of application and/or lack of fitness.

example in the 3rd quater. mayne runs in and kicks a goal 30m out and sprints back to the centre. jordie, who was the chaser, hands on knees sucking em in and strolls back to the centre.

it was a horrible night and unfortunately my last at subi, very disapointing.

I was at the game and found:

(1) Lack of work rate/desire

Big issue, especially in the first quarter, basically the game was over by then. We did not come to play.

Picked up after qtr time and there was some good ball movement in patches as the same as last year.

(2) Lack of fitness

I thought the boys kept running to the end of the game within reason, so I think our endurance has improved to run over the coarse of a game

(3) A game plan that spread the Melbourne players away from the play

Personally I don't like zoning, going man on man is my preference. Though when I play locally I do sort of zone as I'm older and slowly than most of my opponents

The initial forward setup was what they were training on the Saturday here in Perth, they just could not set it up once. Using the potential speed off the half forward to run for goal will only work once or twice. I remember when balmy tried it in Adelaide one night as we had no forwards, and used Charles and Farmer in the same manner.

Basically as we didn't run man on man, the dockers often has spare players for the switch with not a dee in sight. Also without a long target deep in 50, we had little options to kick through the lines from half back or the wing. hence we went sideways.

Also the reluctance to go to a contest and trust our teammates to win the 50/50 ball. This is the most frustrating things, by playing safe its takes away the players natural instinct and sometimes you have to kick to a 50/50 as its the fastest way to goal.

My biggest beef and I raised it with bailey a few years ago, is the forward setup. With often 1 melbourne player leading for the ball inside 50 competing with 3 opponents, and no support. It was common again on Sunday night. This can be taken to way, players not running to support or the kicking playing isn't seeing what should be 2 free players on the field!!

(4) Melboune players not up to standard

As others have pointed out the dockers overall had a more mature side, and smashed us in the middle. The worry is most of our midfielders were playing. The dockers ran better in packs and support and had a marking targets inside 50, which we only has Miller.

I was at the game and found:

(1) Lack of work rate/desire

Big issue, especially in the first quarter, basically the game was over by then. We did not come to play.

Picked up after qtr time and there was some good ball movement in patches as the same as last year.

(2) Lack of fitness

I thought the boys kept running to the end of the game within reason, so I think our endurance has improved to run over the coarse of a game

Good post.

I reckon more than anything else the team seems reluctant to take risks. There is a certain timidity and uncertainty about them. Maybe this is their immaturity, but other treams do not seem to suffer from this as much. Anyone who saw the Swans thrash the Blues at the weekend didn't see too much lack of risk taking from them, especially their young brigade. There is no reason why we could not have the same sense of adventure. It would be better than playing it safe and still getting creamed every week.

(3) A game plan that spread the Melbourne players away from the play

Personally I don't like zoning, going man on man is my preference. Though when I play locally I do sort of zone as I'm older and slowly than most of my opponents

The initial forward setup was what they were training on the Saturday here in Perth, they just could not set it up once. Using the potential speed off the half forward to run for goal will only work once or twice. I remember when balmy tried it in Adelaide one night as we had no forwards, and used Charles and Farmer in the same manner.

Basically as we didn't run man on man, the dockers often has spare players for the switch with not a dee in sight. Also without a long target deep in 50, we had little options to kick through the lines from half back or the wing. hence we went sideways.

Also the reluctance to go to a contest and trust our teammates to win the 50/50 ball. This is the most frustrating things, by playing safe its takes away the players natural instinct and sometimes you have to kick to a 50/50 as its the fastest way to goal.

My biggest beef and I raised it with bailey a few years ago, is the forward setup. With often 1 melbourne player leading for the ball inside 50 competing with 3 opponents, and no support. It was common again on Sunday night. This can be taken to way, players not running to support or the kicking playing isn't seeing what should be 2 free players on the field!!

(4) Melboune players not up to standard

As others have pointed out the dockers overall had a more mature side, and smashed us in the middle. The worry is most of our midfielders were playing. The dockers ran better in packs and support and had a marking targets inside 50, which we only has Miller.

Important qualifcation: I have limited vision, despite being at the game, anything over about 100m is a problem. These are just my opinions.

Congratulations on your 1st game as an umpire...