COACH Paul Roos says it wouldn’t have mattered if his team played at Alice Springs or the MCG – Melbourne wouldn’t have beaten Port Adelaide playing the way it did on Saturday.

Speaking after Melbourne’s 45-point loss to the Power at TIO Traeger Park Oval, Roos said his side was beaten by a team which made the most of its opportunities.  

“It’s never going to be a home advantage, is it, really? We only ever play up here once a year and I don’t think we’re trying to create a home advantage, but we’re trying to create a team that can win anywhere and it’s a great learning experience [playing in Alice Springs],” he said.

“They’re (Port Adelaide) more than capable on their day of beating us at the MCG, so I don’t think that (TIO Traeger Park) is the difference in the game today.

“We enjoy coming up here and we’ve played some good football here, but Port is a good team, a mature team, so it’s always difficult. It’s never about creating a home field advantage up here.”

Roos said his side simply let the Power score too often and too easily.

“It was too easy for them to score – that was the big difference in the game,” he said.

“A lot of indicators were good, but we couldn’t stop them from scoring in enough patches.

“Players gave away 50 [metres] and easy goals. Every time we got to within two or three goals, we gave away an easy goal, or they’d go coast to coast, so that was the difference in the game – our lack of ability to defend and their ability to score easily.”

Roos said Port Adelaide’s midfield showed its experience and maturity around the contest.

“They’re (Port Adelaide) big bodies around the midfield. That probably showed, when you’re putting in smaller, younger midfielders [against] seasoned [opposition midfielders],” he said.

“I thought their craft was really good – their size, strength and speed around the stoppages were the difference in us not being able to clear it. Then they were able to clear it because of their size and maturity.

“I think we tried to keep Bernie [Vince] in there a bit, Nathan [Jones] and Jack Viney, but probably just the weight of numbers in that area was too much in their favour.”