OK, so I promised I would not write about Essendon again this year. But then the editor asked me to, and as any scribe knows, you do what the editor asks. No matter how much pain it causes you.

As a six-year-old, in 1968, I wore my knitted Essendon jumper on the day of the 1968 Grand Final, and can still remember the jumbled awareness seeping through to me that my Bombers had lost the game. I have followed them ever since, and have contributed two more members to the Bomber army. I'm not a member, which to many people precludes me from commenting on the team, but I say I've earned the right.

Besides, when people ask me why I don't support the club with my hard-earned, I put my fist to my heart like Boogie in Once Were Warriors, facing down his older brother's contempt for Boogie's not wearing the Ta Moko facial tattoos, saying "it's in here." I don't think it's a relationship that requires me to pay an annual fee to sustain, but that's just me.

Anyway, here we are, late in 2010, having to assess a season in which Essendon has subsided badly, crashing out of (statistical) finals contention with a pair of horrendously uncompetitive efforts on the big stage of Friday night, against old rivals.

The Bombers have gone backwards in 2010. Badly, obviously and incontrovertibly.

There are rumblings of discontent with the coach, naturally; and rumours that the sponsor, Samsung, will walk. That is immaterial to the way the side performs, and let's face it, the only brand trashed by Essendon's efforts in the past fortnight is Essendon.

At present, Essendon is an elite club only in its members' and supporters' minds, in its historical achievements and the size of its supporter base. List management and recruiting decisions made under both Kevin Sheedy and Matthew Knights as coach have assembled a playing group that is not elite. In fact it looks like a list in need of a rebuild, at of course, precisely the worst time to attempt that. Essendon is not a top eight team and is actually quite some distance from being the best team out of the eight. The team has played some very good football this year - most notably against St Kilda a fortnight ago - but in 2010 it can best be described as a mediocre outfit.

Plainly, Essendon would have struggled last night even had the "good" Essendon turned up, because the opposition was simply superb. Collingwood has ascended to the top of the ladder for very good reasons and it was always going to be a tough night for the Dons. Essendon was light years behind Collingwood (as indeed it was on Anzac Day): it looked like Collingwood had all of its 22 on the ground at all times. You simply have to admire Collingwood for its brutal finesse, its constant pressure, its run and spread, its speed, its skill and its work off the ball, its even range of contributors, the efforts it gets from its lesser lights.

It did not help that Essendon was fielding a vastly less-experienced team, with two debutants in Stuart Crameri and Jake Carlisle and four more first-year players in Ben Howlett (13 games), Jake Melksham (12), Travis Colyer (10) and Kyle Hardingham (4). All have been good, but all of them came up against much more experienced opponents, with the exception of Collingwood sixth-gamer Jarryd Blair, who, to my utter chagrin, looked like he had played 50 more as he brushed through half-hearted tackles with ease. I'll stop that line of argument there because I don't think a discrepancy in average games can ever be used as an excuse. On paper you would have expected Collingwood to win quite handsomely, but there is defeat with honour, and there is defeat such as Essendon suffered last night: 10 minutes of competitive effort, then a surrender.

Football is actually a simple game. All that you have to do is get the ball, move it precisely, isolate your key forwards and deliver it to them. If you don't have the ball, apply pressure until you do get it, and repeat step A. Last night, Essendon was able to do none of those things. Collingwood did them with ease.

Collingwood's transition from defence to attack is superlative: they all work like the devil off the ball to create run. It is done all over the oval, and when their individual opponents aren't awake to it, or can't keep up for lack of fitness, a slaughter like last night will eventuate.

It actually was not as bad to witness as the previous Groundhog Friday, when Carlton did the same sorts of things to Essendon. The difference there was that Carlton is nowhere near as good as Collingwood. But two consecutive lamentable efforts from Essendon have the club's football department rightly under not only the spotlight, but the blowtorch.

The obvious target is coach Matthew Knights, whose high-octane attack-oriented game plan falls down whenever the side loses possession - it gets torched on the rebound and ultimately gives up big scores. Unfortunately for Knights, the side's skill levels when put under pressure mean more turnovers; and because of the porous way that Essendon plays in defence, with the defenders playing off their men, the loss of the ball anywhere on the ground effectively means a scoring shot is conceded: Essendon has great difficulty in getting the ball back.

I'm not a sack-the-coach kind of person, because I don't believe he coaches the players to play that way that they do. Unfortunately they can't execute such that the game plan can be put in place: it is botched, they are overwhelmed by inside-50 incisions coming from everywhere, and the focus falls on their defensive frailties. Quite simply I think Essendon plan for much less in the way of inside-50 invasions coming the defence's way. But out on the ground, that's what happens, because of the turnovers.

When Essendon has mobile forward targets and can hit them, it can trouble opposition teams. At various times this year Gumbleton, Hurley, Hille, Ryder, Hardingham and Neagle have provided these targets. But a team like Collingwood harasses the ball-carrier so well, and closes down options so tightly, that its defenders are crawling all over the forward targets when the ball comes in. Last night, Essendon marks on the lead inside 50 were few and far between.

The over-possession game is a massive problem, but again, I don't believe Knights coaches them to do this. I have to conclude that this is a confidence thing: when they're not hitting targets by foot, they go back into their shells and instinctively handball - usually to people in worse positions. To see Courtenay Dempsey last night, shape to kick, decide not to, look desperately for a handball target - not a constructive one, but simply a wild off-load - and ultimately get caught with the ball, was to see a sight that has unfolded a thousand times this season. I am sure they are told to go with the first option, but so often that first option is a disaster: how often Essendon players handball to people standing still, or under the hammer, has to be seen to be believed. And then the backmen are caught goal-side of their opponents, because they were thinking "we have the ball", not "we have the ball and will probably lose it any second."

The turnovers are the death by a thousand cuts that may yet claim Matthew Knights' scalp, but they're not his fault. They are the fault of the players, and sadly, the same ones feature all the time. Brent Stanton is the king of them; Alwyn Davey is another; Ricky Dyson is another; Brent Prismall is another, Bachar Houli (by hand) is another, as is Courtney Dempsey: even the stalwart Jobe Watson is a liability by foot. And because it saps the morale of everyone, early turnovers set the tone, the cough-up count mounts and so does the opposition's score.

Several years ago the Bulldogs went away for the off-season and re-emerged as a highly skilled team by foot and hand. I am sure that Essendon had high hopes that it would, too, but match pressure finds them wanting time and again. So instead of skill work this summer, I would actually like them to put away the balls and work on tackling and smothering and disrupting the opposition's ball movement. Their tackling is poor, and of all the AFL teams, they must be close to the absolute worst when it comes to preferring the bump to the smother, which is just false toughness. The lack of smother attempts in-close last night - the lack of any defensive one-percenters at all - was damning.

Effort is such a subjective thing, but we all know when we see it and when we don't. Last night, as well as last week, Essendon fans know that they didn't see it. There was no desperate work to keep the ball inside the attacking 50. There was no pressure put on the Collingwood ball carriers. There was no desire to be accountable for the movements of the person standing next to them at the bounce. Essendon's work off the ball - to chase and harass, then run to create options in transition - did not exist.

It does not help that Essendon plays at Etihad, where there is always acres of space, clement weather conditions and a game resembling basketball is played. Conversely, it struggles now in games at its former home, the MCG - and its pathetic record away from Melbourne is makes it the laughing-stock of the AFL. Stuck in the 1990s as far as interstate travel goes, Essendon boards planes not believing it can win at the other end. So it does not.

So, has anyone progressed this year?

Michael Hurley has, and I think Henry Slattery has. Hurley was caught out against too-slick Collingwood ball movement last night, but does a lot of good things. He will be a player. Slattery is under-rated for the defensive jobs he does, usually good with the ball, my only gripe is that he is far, far too prone to conceding falling-into-the-back free kicks.

Scott Gumbleton has shown glimpses of the potential that he has always had, but unfortunately succumbed to another injury. What worries Essendon fans about Gumbleton is that he could be another Courtney Johns: talked-up by the coaching staff, but ultimately a non-deliverer. He needs more game time.

Also, David Zaharakis typically shows great endeavour, and is usually good with the ball. Heath Hocking is a limited player, but I like his endeavour and willingness to take the game on. I'm fairly happy with all of the first-year players we've seen: Melksham, Colyer, Howlett, Hardingham and now Crameri and Carlisle. None looked out of place and they're not the reason the team has had such a poor year. None look elite yet, but we have to wait and see. Hardingham has been a late-season spring-heeled revelation, but he had a nightmare last night against Prestigiacomo: Essendon simply couldn't put him in space and running at the ball, and played into the veteran spoiler's hands.

In the ruck, Hille has been injured and playing with other things on his mind, things that he bravely confronted publicly last week. David Hille is a tremendous character and competitor, but has marked time this year. Patrick Ryder has done some wonderful things in 2010, but looked tired last night and not much left in the tank. I remember a similar game from him last year in the return bout with Collingwood after his Anzac Day medal, when Josh Fraser took him to the cleaners. Yes, Ryder was that bad.

In key defence, Tayte Pears was not living up to his standout form in 2009 before he got badly injured, but I'm not too worried about that. Pears is a shining light in Essendon's defence, a real competitor, who hates to be beaten, and I'm looking forward to a fully fit return in 2011.

Cale Hooker also has not had the same sort of year that he had in 2009, and his hamstring injury has set him back. He struggled with Travis Cloke's strength and athleticism last night, and also got memorably towelled up by Franklin, but I love Hooker's and Pears' willingness to play in front and play on. Unfortunately 2010 was proven a tough year for Hooker. But I like him in key defence.

The evergreen Dustin Fletcher has carried the defence for a long time, and hopefully will do so again in 2011; but is it just me, or has he made a lot more silly errors this year than he has for ten years? If Carlton's tactic of playing a negator on him comes into vogue, he will have to adapt.

Angus Monfries has had an up-and-down year. I note that the Essendon brains trust thought he played well last night, but I did not. I don't think he applied enough defensive pressure in the forward 50. All night it rebounded like a squash ball off the back wall. (Not that he was the only one culpable there.) Essendon usually gets a solid contribution from Monfries, but my complaints are that he goes to ground too frequently, and prefers to stab at the ball rather than kick through it, which can cost turnovers in general play and behinds from too many set shots.

Then we come to those who have gone backwards.

Stanton would be the standout in this category, he is simply not going to be the elite player Essendon drafted him to be. (That he wears No. 5 is not his fault, but they should retire it.) He is just nowhere near as good a user of the ball as he has to be for the role he plays. Nor is his gut-running enough to put him into the clear as he needs to be for his standard of kicking. He is a player who has just not come on. And you can see his inexplicable turnovers cause everyone else's shoulders to sag.

Bachar Houli has struggled to get into the team, he had a blinder against St Kilda, and I would have persevered with him after the Carlton game, but the brains trust did not. Houli is too often involved in the handball chains that lead nowhere. Then, he can look great with a penetrating left foot. He is another who needs a big pre-season and 2011.

Courtenay Dempsey has gone backwards: there are far too many turnovers and he is not able to play as a tight defender. Maybe they could play him as a small forward, but forget the back six. Kyle Reimers has also subsided. I would eschew the coloured boots from now, if I were him, because they also bring attention to the theatrically disguised missed tackles and the regular turning of a straightforward next-kick-in-the-chain into an over-the-shoulder chip to a one on three.

Rick Dyson (who must be gone), Mark McVeigh, Nathan Lovett-Murray, Jason Winderlich, Andrew Welsh, Brent Prismall, Leroy Jetta and Sam Lonergan have all gone backwards, for various reasons - fitness or speed or disposal worries. McVeigh had a shocker in defence last night, but is no longer quick enough for the midfield. Alwyn Davey also went backwards, in my belief, coughing up the ball by hand many more times than he won it through those exciting run-downs of defenders inside 50. Tom Bellchambers too did not advance his cause in 2010, but ruckmen need to be given more time to develop.

David Myers - taken at No. 6 in the 2007 draft - looked a wonderful pick-up early on, but has suffered from injury and loss of confidence. He was dropped again this year and is stalled on 20 games. The club has to keep him - you don't discard a No. 6 pick after three years - but he is another who needs a big 2011. Jarrod Atkinson plays with a lot of dash, usually out of defence, but is often scape-goated after a loss, and would likely benefit from an extended run in the team.

As for Mark Williams and Jason Laycock, are they still there? Does anyone know of their whereabouts? Williams could still be a contributor once the disaster of 2010 is put behind him, but any contribution out of Laycock from here on in would have to be considered a bonus.

I don't know what to think about Jay Neagle. He looks like he could be a key forward, but he's not fit enough and not sure about imposing his body on to contests. The fitness and conditioning staff need to get him into absolute prime condition for 2011 so we can finally see him in a condition that will enable us to judge him once and for all.

Captain Courageous Jobe Watson was doing what he does best last night, winning hard ball from the stoppages, but is playing injured and over-burdened with responsibility. There is also too the fact that his kicking is not up to standard, although I am sure he works hard at it. The midfield is just too slow and will remain so until some of the first-year players tried this year develop the experience to move into it.

Quite simply, the Essendon list does not have an elite player. If that is what Damien Hardwick told the Essendon coaching interviewing board in 2007, he was right. If Matthew Knights told the same board what it wanted to hear - that the list was a finals-contender list - he will live or die by his faith in it. Because right now, that list is proving him wrong.

The spine Knights wants to assemble reads something like: Pears, Hooker, Watson, Gumbleton, Hurley/Neagle. Quite simply, that looks a long way short of one that would give Essendon fans a glowing feeling about the near future. The heights of the AFL look a long way off for the beleaguered Bombers.