Jumper Numbers

[DemonDing 56]

Just wondering if anyone thinks that when we get these high picks should we be putting extra pressure on them by giving

them a famous number from the get go...?

Only reason i made this topic up was because it just came to my attention that now Paul Wheatley has retired hes famous

No. 31 jumper (Ron Barassi's Jumper) is now vacant do you reckon the club will hand it to the number one pick like they did with Norm Smiths No.4

with Jack Watts..? Or could they give David Neitz's No.9 too the first or second pick?

Does anyone think that this can create extra pressure on a young player having the burden of wearing the jumper of someone like Ron Barassi?

Just wanted people thoughts....

Cheers

[Weekends at Bernie's 64]

i wouldve thought we would give tom scully no. 9

it may create a bit of pressure on the kid, but we done the same thing with jack.

[DemonDing 56]

i think if we get scully with our first pick and they give him No.9 the the club might be getting a few pre paid orders for that jumper.

Didnt the club shop sell out of Jack Watts jumpers last year?

[drdrake 3,160]

go in chronological order Norm Smith No 4 Jack Watts, Ronald Dale No 31 Tom Scully, Neita No 9 Leave open for one more year.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Cut the pretence with the jumper numbers.

Just give them a number and let them make their own history with it.

Too much protocol with too little reason to do so.

[dee-luded 2,959]

No, let them earn it.

I don't think it's good to have the pressure of supporters expectations on a young kid starting out. Just look at the negative talk on Jack Watts this year through the footy world & the Media. Some kids may not be effected, but some may struggle. No, keep the spotlight off them for as much as possible, till their ready.

[Carlos Danger 380]

For the earlier draft picks, the lower the better. 9 and 13 are still available off the top of my head, which seem perfect for Scully and Trengove. Not a big fan of playing musical chairs with numbers or "earning numbers" so to speak, I prefer players to retire with the number given to them.

[Ho Chi Dee 0]

Cut the pretence with the jumper numbers.

Just give them a number and let them make their own history with it.

Too much protocol with too little reason to do so.

Agree there's too much hang up regarding "great numbers" at clubs.

However, personally I just find it looks messy seeing a team run around with an imbalance of high numbers.

Once a regular, good player, drop down to lower number. Its annoying that lack of 'coherence' in numbers on matchdays. Low numbers on players like Buckley, Bartram, Miller, Johnson, Dunn etc. are a waste IMO. If you're good enough to be a regular part of the main 22-26, it looks better to have a lower number.

Solution, make them earn it or a year or two, then drop them down (in a few cases like Watts and Scully its pretty safe to go low early). But I don't care for specifically passing on "great numbers".

Totally personal gripe I know, but seeing a team full of 30s and 40s running around just bugs me.

[LITTLE STINGA 1]

Solution, make them earn it or a year or two, then drop them down (in a few cases like Watts and Scully its pretty safe to go low early). But I don't care for specifically passing on "great numbers".

They are doing this now and started doing it after they gave Watts No4 it's why they didn't give Strauss or Blease the Number they wanted which was 17. They have to keep on doing it now or it will make the club look like that they can't even make their mind up on even small things like jumper numbers which isn't good.

I'd like to see Jurrah 9, Bennell 13, Jetta 17, Spencer 28, Scully 31 and Trengrove\Morabito 35.

[DemonDing 56]

Agree there's too much hang up regarding "great numbers" at clubs.

However, personally I just find it looks messy seeing a team run around with an imbalance of high numbers.

Once a regular, good player, drop down to lower number. Its annoying that lack of 'coherence' in numbers on matchdays. Low numbers on players like Buckley, Bartram, Miller, Johnson, Dunn etc. are a waste IMO. If you're good enough to be a regular part of the main 22-26, it looks better to have a lower number.

Solution, make them earn it or a year or two, then drop them down (in a few cases like Watts and Scully its pretty safe to go low early). But I don't care for specifically passing on "great numbers".

Totally personal gripe I know, but seeing a team full of 30s and 40s running around just bugs me.

Yeah look i think thats what bugging me at the moment there was a game there where a few weeks back we had a 42 43 44 48 49 playing for us in the same game

it looks like your watching an 19's team at grass roots.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Dinners

[DemonDing 56]

They are doing this now and started doing it after they gave Watts No4 it's why they didn't give Strauss or Blease the Number they wanted which was 17. They have to keep on doing it now or it will make the club look like that they can't even make their mind up on even small things like jumper numbers which isn't good.

I'd like to see Jurrah 9, Bennell 13, Jetta 17, Spencer 28, Scully 31 and Trengrove\Morabito 35.

Robbo's number is available now too remember...

[LITTLE STINGA 1]

Robbo's number is available now too remember...

Retire it for a year.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Retire it for a year.

Why?

I dont see the purpose of doing so unless the circumstances are unusual (eg Troy Broadbridge)

Essendon and Collingwood didnt retire the No5 guernsey after Hird and Bucks retired.

Lets skip the unnecessary pretence.

Yeah look i think thats what bugging me at the moment there was a game there where a few weeks back we had a 42 43 44 48 49 playing for us in the same game

it looks like your watching an 19's team at grass roots.

Maybe because we played that way..

[Harry Manback 2]

Why?

I dont see the purpose of doing so unless the circumstances are unusual (eg Troy Broadbridge)

Essendon and Collingwood didnt retire the No5 guernsey after Hird and Bucks retired.

Lets skip the unnecessary pretence.

Maybe because we played that way..

Essendon did Hird a disservice by not retiring his guernsey.

Watching Stanton run around in his No.5 must send shivers down the spines of the Essendon faithful...

[DemonDing 56]

Why?

I dont see the purpose of doing so unless the circumstances are unusual (eg Troy Broadbridge)

Essendon and Collingwood didnt retire the No5 guernsey after Hird and Bucks retired.

Lets skip the unnecessary pretence.

Maybe because we played that way..

Yeah dont agree with putting the jumper away for a year pass it on i reckon.... oh well who cares

LJ can 48 hes hole career as long as the 48 is on a melbourne jumper!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Essendon did Hird a disservice by not retiring his guernsey.

Watching Stanton run around in his No.5 must send shivers down the spines of the Essendon faithful...

It was Hird's choice to do so.

[45HG 1,539]

Buckley's an odd example to use though RR, as Maxwell changed his number to 5 and it seems to have become the new "captain's" number.

I don't see the harm in placing importance in numbers, we're nothing without our history. But it does go overboard and should be nothing more than a gesture IMO.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Buckley's an odd example to use though RR, as Maxwell changed his number to 5 and it seems to have become the new "captain's" number.

I don't see the harm in placing importance in numbers, we're nothing without our history. But it does go overboard and should be nothing more than a gesture IMO.

Collingwood are choked by their history.

All those supporters, all that money, all that history.....and one flag in 50 years.

Its a bum return on the investment.

And before some spiels on MFC.....all we have is the history

[45HG 1,539]

Then no wonder they didn't retire the guernsey, because they needed to pass it on to continue to give it meaning. So it would be an odd example.

My biggest gripe is that after so long not caring which players get which numbers, we're suddenly placing heightened importance on it.

It's almost like the further we've gotten from our past, the more we feel the need to underline it.

[rpfc 28,258]

Then no wonder they didn't retire the guernsey, because they needed to pass it on to continue to give it meaning. So it would be an odd example.

My biggest gripe is that after so long not caring which players get which numbers, we're suddenly placing heightened importance on it.

It's almost like the further we've gotten from our past, the more we feel the need to underline it.

That last line is too good for this site.

Please remove it.

It's out of place is what I was getting at, not that it was offensive.

It's a little offensive.

That was a joke.

[45HG 1,539]

I'm offended.

I was going to insert the idea of simulacra - but couldn't quite remember it well enough to accurately depict it. Basically that the symbol of an object has overtaken the reality of it.

[Harry Manback 2]

It was Hird's choice to do so.

If he had of waited a year he could have given it to his lovechild Michael Hurley...

Looks like he did himself a disservice!!

[Ryan Dee 140]

Just wondering if anyone thinks that when we get these high picks should we be putting extra pressure on them by giving

them a famous number from the get go...?

Only reason i made this topic up was because it just came to my attention that now Paul Wheatley has retired hes famous

No. 31 jumper (Ron Barassi's Jumper) is now vacant do you reckon the club will hand it to the number one pick like they did with Norm Smiths No.4

with Jack Watts..? Or could they give David Neitz's No.9 too the first or second pick?

Does anyone think that this can create extra pressure on a young player having the burden of wearing the jumper of someone like Ron Barassi?

Just wanted people thoughts....

Cheers

I don't think giving a young player a famous number or making him earn it really matters IMO. If a player can't handle the pressure or burden of having a famous number then he is never going to make it anyway. On the other hand I don't think making them earn the number will help or give them any extra motivation either.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If he had of waited a year he could have given it to his lovechild Michael Hurley...

Big deal. Too much pretence.

I dont know why you label the player "lovechild" because Hurley is going to be a star and if Hird is glowing about the player then so should he be. I'd love Hurley at MFC.

[Harry Manback 2]

Big deal. Too much pretence.

I dont know why you label the player "lovechild" because Hurley is going to be a star and if Hird is glowing about the player then so should he be. I'd love Hurley at MFC.

Whilst commentating an Essendon game Hird stated he was very quickly "falling in love" with Hurley... Hence, lovechild. They joked about it 'On The Couch', I joked about it in my previous post...