Darren Kowal was one of our great no.7's.

I presume you're having a laugh.

I have my fingers crossed that all this number-changing crap was a Schwab thing.

As I've said numerous times, I cannot stand players changing numbers.

You come to the club, you are given a number, and that should be that. You take your number and you make your career in it.

No one on here rates number 1 any greater or lesser than number 50, so why should the club?

Viney stays at 7. And, for that matter, everyone else stays where they are.

FFS Melbourne.

I have my fingers crossed that all this number-changing crap was a Schwab thing.

As I've said numerous times, I cannot stand players changing numbers.

You come to the club, you are given a number, and that should be that. You take your number and you make your career in it.

No one on here rates number 1 any greater or lesser than number 50, so why should the club?

Viney stays at 7. And, for that matter, everyone else stays where they are.

FFS Melbourne.

I don't mind players changing numbers if they get a number in the 40 to 50's. Plenty of players do it. It's just all this 'historical' crap that annoyed me.

I don't mind players changing numbers if they get a number in the 40 to 50's. Plenty of players do it. It's just all this 'historical' crap that annoyed me.

If you don't like the 'historical' stuff, why don't you mind players changing if they're in the 40s or 50s?

Because it's always happened? That's historical, then.

Because a number in the 40s or 50s is 'crap'? That's a myth we self-perpetuate by continually changing players' numbers. If we left our players in their numbers, then we wouldn't automatically resort to calling 47 or 51 a 'lesser' number.

I can't imagine he would, and I hope he doesn't.

There are plenty of kids already running around with number 7 on the back, my 5 y.o nephew among them.

If you don't like the 'historical' stuff, why don't you mind players changing if they're in the 40s or 50s?

Because it's always happened? That's historical, then.

Because a number in the 40s or 50s is 'crap'? That's a myth we self-perpetuate by continually changing players' numbers. If we left our players in their numbers, then we wouldn't automatically resort to calling 47 or 51 a 'lesser' number.

Usually because when you get to the club, the high numbers are the only numbers left. If you get a lower number, it shows that you are going to be around for a bit longer than usual. There are the odd exception to the rule but that's the reason why a lot of blokes move to lower numbers. Plus you aren't tucked away at the crappiest corner of the changerooms either.

I think the other stuff with players changing to 31, 9 and 4 had nothing to do with those blokes longevity as players, more us trying to market the 1950's.

Edited October 6, 201312 yr by Guest

Keep the 7 and make it your own.

I liked Ablett Jnr's take on not taking the no.5.

Usually because when you get to the club, the high numbers are the only numbers left. If you get a lower number, it shows that you are going to be around for a bit longer than usual. There are the odd exception to the rule but that's the reason why a lot of blokes move to lower numbers. Plus you aren't tucked away at the crappiest corner of the changerooms either.

I think the other stuff with players changing to 31, 9 and 4 had nothing to do with those blokes longevity as players, more us trying to market the 1950's.

That's the self-perpetuating bit. The only reason you associate a lower number with a longer career is because we continually shift half-decent players down to lower numbers.

There have been plenty of quality players with numbers in the forties and fifties. For example, Shaun Rehn (52), Robert Walls (42), Allan Jarrott (47), David McKay (43), Richard Osborne (44) and plenty of others.

And a player doesn't have to have his father's number to be considered a success. Gary Ablett Jr did quite well without wearing number 5 at Geelong and Jobe Watson seems to have coped without wearing his dad's 32.

WHY????

Number 7 all the way.

How many Sons have played in their Fathers numbers, off the top of my head I can't think of any

Tom and Jack Hawkins (26) ??

Titan - you are arguing something else to changing Jack to 12 from 7.

He has his number and that shouldn't be changed.

But what you are saying simply won't hold up. Evans was given 50. He wanted a lower number because most players want lower numbers or numbers of significance. He got 32.

There is no crime in wanting a lower number after one or two years at a club.

Titan - you are arguing something else to changing Jack to 12 from 7.

He has his number and that shouldn't be changed.

But what you are saying simply won't hold up. Evans was given 50. He wanted a lower number because most players want lower numbers or numbers of significance. He got 32.

There is no crime in wanting a lower number after one or two years at a club.

This is exactly my point. Evans wanted a lower number because the inherent psyche around AFL is that a lower number is 'better'.

Why? Because we continue to shift players down after one or two of their fledgling years.

If we stopped moving players, then number 50 would be seen in the same light as number 32. If we didn't spend our history shifting players down once they got any good, Evans wouldn't feel compelled to want to move down either.

This is exactly my point. Evans wanted a lower number because the inherent psyche around AFL is that a lower number is 'better'.

Why? Because we continue to shift players down after one or two of their fledgling years.

If we stopped moving players, then number 50 would be seen in the same light as number 32. If we didn't spend our history shifting players down once they got any good, Evans wouldn't feel compelled to want to move down either.

This is a thing that's probably been around since they started putting numbers on jumpers. I agree that it's silly and goes against what I'd like to see, but it's never going to change and has no real consequence, so it's probably not worth getting your blood pressure up over.

This is a thing that's probably been around since they started putting numbers on jumpers. I agree that it's silly and goes against what I'd like to see, but it's never going to change and has no real consequence, so it's probably not worth getting your blood pressure up over.

I know it's unlikely to change AFL-wide. Regardless, I'd still like to see Melbourne acknowledge that numbers are not as meaningful as people try to make them sound, and let players forge their own careers in whatever number we give them. Whether that be through not putting players in number 50 to begin with, or by having players complete their career in the one number, I just do not agree with, nor like, seeing players switch numbers for any reason.

I spoke to Todd last week and asked him the same question and he said no. Wants to make his own name.

How many Sons have played in their Fathers numbers, off the top of my head I can't think of any

Ron Barassi Snr & Jr.

I know it's unlikely to change AFL-wide. Regardless, I'd still like to see Melbourne acknowledge that numbers are not as meaningful as people try to make them sound, and let players forge their own careers in whatever number we give them. Whether that be through not putting players in number 50 to begin with, or by having players complete their career in the one number, I just do not agree with, nor like, seeing players switch numbers for any reason.

Again, the Viney situation is different to what we did with Scully and Trengove when we gave them these loaded numbers. And it completely different to an Evans wanting a lower number.

Most blokes want to forge a career in a number of some meaning to them, whatever it may be. It is different to the MFC telling them to forge a career in a number of some meaning to the MFC.

BBO, Lordweaver and Biffen, please stop flooding threads with inane nonsense. It's sad that I just had to delete an entire page of posts from this thread.

I spoke to Todd last week and asked him the same question and he said no. Wants to make his own name.

Because he is awesome.

Good for him!

BBO, Lordweaver and Biffen, please stop flooding threads with inane nonsense. It's sad that I just had to delete an entire page of posts from this thread.

It's fun but

He's going to own #7, the process has already begun. Changing to #12 would be almost as stupid as Grimes changing to #31.

It's a possibility but I really hope it doesn't happen.

Most lopsided poll ever. A better one would be- Should Grimes change back to 16 and let the 31 be put to rest? (Yes)