A positive Essendon story: Shuffling the plethora of big men

If you are a Bombers fan you’re probably well tired of this supplement saga, so I’m here to offer a little respite from that discussion and talk a little more about their footy on field.

I preface all subsequent future predictions with the assumption that Essendon players avoid penalties and are allowed to play on next season.

Although their recent form has dropped off the Bombers have basically had a pretty good season in terms of their footy.

Aside from winning more games than last year, they have also had some outstanding/inspirational come-from-behind victories.

The most interesting aspect of Essendon’s list, I believe, is their glut of tall players – most of whom I would have in their best 22 just in terms of the value each player has added in their 2013 games.

I base my notion of value added on my own personal formula that you can examine at my website.

The following is a list of Essendon’s ‘bigs’, their ‘value-added’ per game in 2013 and their position.

Only David Hille has been left off the list due to his imminent retirement.

Player (Position) – Value-Added (in goals) – 2013 Games
Cale Hooker (Defender) – 2.04 – 19
Jake Carlisle (Defender/Forward) – 2 – 18
Joe Daniher (Forward/Ruck) – 1.42 – 3
Scott Gumbleton (Forward) – 1.39 – 7
Tom Bellchambers (Ruck/Forward) 1.24 – 17
Stewart Crameri (Forward) – 1.19 – 13
Kyle Hardingham (Defender/Forward) – .95 – 5
Tayte Pears (Defender) -0.87 – 8
Michael Hurley (Forward/Defender) – .52 – 14
Dustin Fletcher (Defender) – 0.5 – 13
Paddy Ryder (Ruck/Forward) -0.42 -15

By my calculations if you simply took Essendon’s most value-added 22 players from season 2013 each of these players would be in the best team.

One look at the dimensions of this list of players however would reveal the impracticality of playing so many tall/big players in the one side.

Also interesting is the rankings that my formula has produced and the stages of each player’s career.

For example Daniher ranks third behind two players who have had outstanding seasons in the backline.

This is on the basis of only three games, one of which was outstanding two of which he was not ‘value-added’.

Some talk has surrounded Bellchambers looking for opportunity elsewhere.

However without Hille as an experienced back-up, Bellchambers and Ryder are the only first-choice rucks on this list.

Gumbleton has also performed well in most of his seven games however despite his age suggesting his career is ahead of him, injuries make him an unreliable prospect.

What might be instructive is to build Essendon’s 2014 ‘spine’ starting with the most value-added options from this year.

Position Player
Full Back: Hooker
Centre Half Back: Carlisle
Centre Half Forward: Gumbleton
Full Forward: Daniher
Ruck: Bellchambers

This ‘spine’ includes Essendon’s two most value-added players from 2013 (Hooker and Carlisle), a consistent a flexible ruck-forward (Bellchambers) and two tall forward options one of whom can relieve in the ruck (Daniher).

This however is far from a first choice line-up given that Gumbleton is unreliable due to injury and seemingly not a great back-up ruck or particularly versatile.

Daniher looks a great prospect but again he has only played three games and really only contributed, albeit very well, in one game.

So looking at the list how can the Bombers accommodate more of these players?

Will they simply cut their losses with Gumbleton and ask Fletcher to gracefully retire?

Certainly this would make selection somewhat easier and open space for some of the other options.

Moreover players like Crameri, Hardingham and Pears probably play’ less big’ than the other options on this list and could effectively complement a forward or backline as peripheral players rather than focal points of key position players.

On this point most people would probably assume that Hardingham and/or Pears are superfluous and prime for trade.

However even if Fletcher does not retire next year he surely will at the end of 2014, this would leave a defensive spot open for Pears or Hardingham and so losing them in the short term is not preferable either.

All of this overlooks another aspect of my analysis, which suggests that both Hardingham and Pears, the least favoured in terms of selection, have actually added more value per game than all three of Hurley, Ryder and Fletcher.

It would be a brave statement to suggest that Hurley and/or Ryder should be traded before Hardingham or Pears and certainly in terms of potential Hurley at least seems like someone the club should persist with.

He has however also had issues with injury, accuracy and consistency and in this sense may not be as safe as some think.

Ultimately I’m going to disappoint you and fall short of drawing a definitive conclusion as to what the Bombers should do.

Perhaps they don’t have to do anything, if each of these players is happy with their present role why would you trade value added players?

My feeling however is that on balance each player can’t be regularly in the best 22 despite being good enough to play regular senior football.

Hypothetically let’s say Fletcher retires and they decide not to persist with Gumbleton based on injury.

He’s probably still worth something to someone, maybe as a back up at Fremantle or West Coast where comes from originally.

So the Bombers lose Gumbleton for a late second round pick (generous?). For mine this makes the Bombers spine look like this:

Position Player
Full Back: Hooker
Half Back: Carlisle
Half Forward: Crameri
Full Forward: Daniher
Follower: Bellchambers

This scenario still leaves Hardingham, Pears, Hurley and Ryder either out or on the periphery.

It also still hypothesises that Daniher will play permanently as a forward/ruck option.

Let’s say that even in a team with this many tall players one of Pears or Hardingham could play on a back flank, logic says you keep Pears.

This still leaves Ryder and Hurley without a specific role. For mine Ryder is the more flexible/versatile player and given Daniher is still developing he’s a better option in terms of ruck support.

This would mean Michael Hurley is the odd man out. No doubt Bombers fans will deride this hypothesis as ludicrous. Also realistically Hurley could play as a third defender and bump out Pears.

This brings us back to the fact that despite being value added players this year both Pears and Hardingham are likely to either stay and play reserves or be moved on.

However suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine what the Bombers could get for Hurley.

Even without Gumbleton and Fletcher the Bombers will not want for key position defenders and forwards.

His market value would be excellent and feasibly the Bombers could afford to lose him.

Who needs a tall forward? The Bulldogs? What would a trade with the Bulldogs for Ryan Griffin do for the Bombers list?

At the end of the day I’m sure none of this will take place.

Hardingham will probably get delisted and Pears will go to GWS for a young midfielder.

No one ever gets creative with the trade period like I would really want them to.

Having said that I don’t think my hypothesis is that unreasonable and truthfully I think the big man situation at Essendon gives them a bit of flexibility to try and snare their 2014 version of Brendan Goddard.