Brayshaw - couldn't get involved

Cross - determined and relentless

Dawes - had no influence

Dunn - stuck at task

Garland - little to commend

Garlett - tried and skilled

Hogan - was poorly serviced

Howe - continues to disappoint

Jones - overwhelmed by opponents

Kennedy - Harris - was virtually unsighted

Newton - was rarely noticed

Lumumba - had little impact

McDonald - confident and impressive

Pedersen - had no impact

Salem - career best game

Stretch - some promising touches

Spencer - competed but ineffective

Toumpas - didn't take chances

Tyson - continued elusive form

Vince - prolific but ineffective

Watts - continued to plod

VandenBerg - tried but failed

Dunn was well beaten by Tippett.

Newton did some nice things after half time.

Watts was alright as the sub.

Agree with the rest.

Spencer...8 tuff tackles

Dawes played well, never gave up.

Brayshaw - couldn't get involved

Cross - determined and relentless

Dawes - had no influence

Dunn - stuck at task

Garland - little to commend

Garlett - tried and skilled

Hogan - was poorly serviced

Howe - continues to disappoint

Jones - overwhelmed by opponents

Kennedy - Harris - was virtually unsighted

Newton - was rarely noticed

Lumumba - had little impact

McDonald - confident and impressive

Pedersen - had no impact

Salem - career best game

Stretch - some promising touches

Spencer - competed but ineffective

Toumpas - didn't take chances

Tyson - continued elusive form

Vince - prolific but ineffective

Watts - continued to plod

VandenBerg - tried but failed

Fairly accurate, though a little rough on Garland. 8 tackles and held the last line a number of times.

To add to that, Garlett - tried and skilled. True for the most part and his breakaway speed is great, but he has to kick those freakin' goals when he is running into an open goal square. That's twice in two weeks.

Kennedy-Harris - back to Casey

Garlett - can't kick straight

Spencer - two metres behind

Dunn- poor vice captain

Salem - touch of class

the pearl - can't go on ...

Pathetic to watch

Forward Line - Barely had opportunities

Back Line - Held up Well

Midfield - Rolled over again

- Our biggest problem

- Responsible for losses

Roos - Adapt your gameplan

Edited May 9, 201510 yr by Demon Disciple

Garland was ok down back. He did his job.

Forward Line - Barely had opportunities

Back Line - Held up Well

Midfield - Rolled over again

- Our biggest problem

- Responsible for losses

Roos - Adapt your gameplan

I'm not blindly defending Roos or anything, but I feel as though the game plan is okay. We are simply crucifying ourselves with skill errors and lack of movement. When it all comes together (in patches admittedly), it is effective. There seems to be more of an emphasis on run than there was when Roos was at Sydney and I'm confident in this.

As well as that, it seems as though facets of the Neeld game plan remain imprinted in some of the players minds, for example the stationary long kick down the line to a contest, whereby the ball is pushed out of bounds.

Game plan is slow and indirect.

Game plan is slow and indirect.

I would assume it was more execution of the game plan than the game plan itself. Either way, it was horrible to watch and the lack of movement and constant mark, pause, lob it down the line, turn it over, was a throwback to the glory years of Mark Neeld.

I thought h and Garland were ok .

We were severely out tackled by them .

They tackle brilliantly.

Forward Line - Barely had opportunities

Back Line - Held up Well

Midfield - Rolled over again

- Our biggest problem

- Responsible for losses

Roos - Adapt your gameplan

You have to feel it for our defence and forward line. Our midfield makes their job a nightmare.

All game plans start at the same point, get the footy. We have been monstered two weeks in a row by big bodied midfields. Watch Josh Kennedy continually distribute the ball last night while being tackled. This isn't a lack of intent issue, it's a lack of cattle issue. Our midfield try hard but we need bigger bodies and better users of the ball.

One thing Roos might have tried was switching Dawes and Dunn around.

Dawes is never going to clunk one and Dunny is out of form, reactionary at the moment.

Dawes may have had more of a chance on Tippet.

I liked Cross playing down back more.

All game plans start at the same point, get the footy. We have been monstered two weeks in a row by big bodied midfields. Watch Josh Kennedy continually distribute the ball last night while being tackled. This isn't a lack of intent issue, it's a lack of cattle issue. Our midfield try hard but we need bigger bodies and better users of the ball.

This was the thing that probably stood out more than anything to me as well. Kennedy and Hanneberry in particular just always got an effective handball away while being tackled, while our guys were rag dolled. Long way to go to get to that level.

My analysis:

We were never going to beat sydney as they are one of the top. 2 teams with or without injury ( but they have no injuries)

Good on Roos for identifying we had no chance to win so playing, spencer, Toump and stretch

Game plan is slow and indirect.

no - the players are slow and indirect.

This was the thing that probably stood out more than anything to me as well. Kennedy and Hanneberry in particular just always got an effective handball away while being tackled, while our guys were rag dolled. Long way to go to get to that level.

I noticed that against Freo as well. Freo got many handpasses away while being tackled, to supporting players who regularly gave away another quick handpass to a player in the clear and away they went. We seem to just get buried under bodies and any movement stifled. I also thought most of the first half was a throwback to the efforts of the Neeld years....I didn't think we were competing at all, not effectively anyway. The personnel changes, the coaches change, the board changes and we still seem to get the same gameday attitude on the field which is almost defeatist.

I noticed that against Freo as well. Freo got many handpasses away while being tackled, to supporting players who regularly gave away another quick handpass to a player in the clear and away they went. We seem to just get buried under bodies and any movement stifled. I also thought most of the first half was a throwback to the efforts of the Neeld years....I didn't think we were competing at all, not effectively anyway. The personnel changes, the coaches change, the board changes and we still seem to get the same gameday attitude on the field which is almost defeatist.

The legacy of the past still haunts us. Most teams still view us as mentally fragile and the recipe is simple ...... hit 'em hard, get them on the defensive from the first bounce and apply scoreboard pressure...... they will then fall apart. Doesn't matter how good the game plan is, if the players don't have the mental toughness to stand up, then the problem is self-evident.

This remains Paull Roos greatest challenge in the short to medium term.

The legacy of the past still haunts us. Most teams still view us as mentally fragile and the recipe is simple ...... hit 'em hard, get them on the defensive from the first bounce and apply scoreboard pressure...... they will then fall apart. Doesn't matter how good the game plan is, if the players don't have the mental toughness to stand up, then the problem is self-evident.

This remains Paull Roos greatest challenge in the short to medium term.

IMO the team is holding up fairly well mentally. This is helped by the more fragile players being at Casey. Only 7 of Saturdays team were in the team pre Roos. The fragile mental thing just isn't true anymore. Inexperience and lack of effort are now our issues.

Roos is rebuilding individual and team psyche bit by bit. The only game we sort of 'fell apart' in was vs GWS The Freo game we were beaten all day...disappointing effort in the last qtr but we didn't 'fall apart'.

In 2015 we haven't 'fallen apart' or been 'defeatist', we have lost to teams that sit 1, 4, 5 and 6 on the ladder.

IMO the team is holding up fairly well mentally. This is helped by the more fragile players being at Casey. Only 7 of Saturdays team were in the team pre Roos. The fragile mental thing just isn't true anymore. Inexperience and lack of effort are now our issues.

Roos is rebuilding individual and team psyche bit by bit. The only game we sort of 'fell apart' in was vs GWS The Freo game we were beaten all day...disappointing effort in the last qtr but we didn't 'fall apart'.

In 2015 we haven't 'fallen apart' or been 'defeatist', we have lost to teams that sit 1, 4, 5 and 6 on the ladder.

I think we have improved, however, there were times on the weekend that players had the ball on the half back flank and looked up for a lead and no one was making a move. We had players in the vicinity, but none were willing to make a lead. Whether this was self-preservation or whatever, we need to be mentally stronger as you say, to compete all day as hard as possible. It may not be defeatist but it didn't seem we were willing to fight until the end. There were a lot of people leaving early (third quarter) around me...they had seen enough of an apparent acceptance of defeat.

The legacy of the past still haunts us. Most teams still view us as mentally fragile and the recipe is simple ...... hit 'em hard, get them on the defensive from the first bounce and apply scoreboard pressure...... they will then fall apart. Doesn't matter how good the game plan is, if the players don't have the mental toughness to stand up, then the problem is self-evident.

This remains Paull Roos greatest challenge in the short to medium term.

Totally agree, although we are slowly getting better at fighting back