NO matter if you dice it, slice it, boil it or bake it, Essendon is playing soft football.

In a time when quick transition football is king, the Bombers play a slow, short, wide and uncontested brand which is boring to watch, safe to play and surely unsustainable.

It is a brand unique to Essendon and by unique, we mean weird.

They are ranked No. 1 this season for conceding goals from the opposition’s forward 50 entries, but on the flip side they are No. 18 for converting their own F50 entries into scores.

So, they can defend, but they can’t score.

When the balance for a quality team is, according to Ross Lyon, top-four defence and top-four offence, the Bombers are lurching alarmingly in the back half

Fourteen of the past 15 premiership teams have kicked more than 100 points per game on average.

media_camera Dyson Heppell in action against St Kilda. Picture: George Salpigtidis

After five rounds, Essendon averages 74.8 points per match, ahead of only Melbourne and the basket case Brisbane Lions. Hawthorn rules the roost, averaging almost 110 points.

The Bombers have several issues.

Clearly, there’s too many players wanting an easy ball and not enough players prepared to get down and dirty.

Players are leaving the contest or running past the contest instead of staying at the contest, which is why Essendon is ranked equal 18th with Geelong in winning the contested ball.

In the Collingwood game on Anzac Day, too often it was two Collingwood players against one Essendon player, or three on two, because Essendon players didn’t want to join the fight.

Boy, do they miss Heath Hocking’s heart and grunt.

Hocking might be a slow-ish, left-footed scrapper, but he’s also the heartbeat of the Essendon midfield.

Jobe Watson gives his all and Dyson Heppell is in for the fight, but neither has Hocking’s beast mentality.

Clearances are just as horrific. Their average of -10 in differential also has them 18th in the competition.

So, they can defend, but they can’t score, can’t win it at stoppages and are getting munched in contested ball.

The brand is intriguing and confusing.

media_camera Joe Daniher with his goalkicking mentor Matthew Lloyd. Picture: Wayne Ludbey

With it, they almost beat Sydney, triumphed over Hawthorn, caved in to Collingwood, were lucky against St Kilda and beat Carlton, which was the most uninspiring victory of the season.

The plan to move the ball by precision kicking to short and wide targets has invited a host of Essendon players to play soft, cheap footy. Lead and mark. Stop. Look. Lead and mark. Chip sideways. Chip to wing. Wide to half-forward. Stop. Look. Boring. Boring. Boring.

And when you are slow with leg speed and slow with the ball movement, the result is uninspiring footy.

Clearly, the game plan is based around not dumping the ball long into the forward line.

Not kicking enough goals has been a problem for Essendon for several seasons.

Joe Daniher is this year’s leading goalkicker with just nine goals. Jake Carlisle (seven), David Zakarakis (six), Travis Colyer (five) and Paul Chapman (four) are next. Patty Ambrose is a monster competitor but doesn’t kick goals, while the crumbers like Colyer and Zach Merrett seemingly play high half-forward a lot of the time.

It is a dysfunctional attacking zone because often it is packed with opposition players who, because of the slow ball movement, have plenty of time to shuffle back.

When the Bombers do go inside 50m and get a one-on-one, they win it only 19 per cent of the time, which is ranked 17th in front of only the Lions, and when it hits the deck, the Bombers are also pushovers. They are the second-worst team in contested ball in the forward 50m. And you guessed it, only Brisbane is worse.

So, at Round 5, they can defend, but they can’t score, can’t take a mark in the forward 50m, lack dangerous small forwards, are beaten at stoppages, are getting munched in contested ball and players are racking up enormous amounts of meaningless possessions by slowly moving the ball via the cape.

One last stat: Essendon can get the ball inside 50m, but once in there they score 39 per cent of the time. That is the lowest percentage since Champion Data started doing stats in 1999.

We’ll repeat that: The lowest in 16 years.

This is James Hird’s style and it’s being heavily scrutinised.

It’s a game style which is heavily lopsided, heavily uncontested, but which has got them to 3-2 after five rounds.

Brendon Goddard said during the week they want to play the same style every week and have been training to do it for 18 months.

On the available information the style is unsustainable if the Bombers want to be a premiership threat.

Either Hird is a genius and it’s new-age football or the Bombers are beating their heads against a brick wall, because if you can’t win the contested ball, can’t win clearances and can’t kick goals, what hope have you got?

media_camera Michael Hibberd, Jobe Watson and Alex Browne during recovery. Picture: Getty

THE WORRYING NUMBERS

Game averages this season.

Essendon’s attack

Inside 50s: 53.4 (AFL rank 7th)

Score per inside 50: 39.0% (18th)

Goal per inside 50: 20.2% (17th)

Points for: 74.8 (16th)

Essendon’s Defence

Inside 50s: 56.4 (15th)

Score per inside 50: 42.9% (6th)

Goal per inside 50: 18.4% (1st)

Points against: 76.2 (6th)

Essendon’s uncontested game

Disposals differential: +26.0 (5th)

Short kicks diff: +26.2 (2nd)

Uncontested poss diff: +37.8 (2nd)

Marks diff: +28.8: (1st)

Uncontested marks diff: +30.4 (1st)

THE PROBLEMS

1. Rely too heavily on winning the ball in the back half and scoring goals from back-half chains.

2. Daniher, Carlisle and Ambrose are not taking enough marks one-on-one and are being overwhelmed by extra defenders because of slow-ball movement

3. Move the ball too slow and wide through the midfield and blame lands on Watson, Heppell, Goddard and Stanton.

4. Players are being overwhelmed at stoppages.

5. Players have gone away from contested ball.

6. Simply, the team does not kick enough goals.