With 4, 8, 9, 20, 27, 31, 33 & 41 Vacant. 

What numbers do Jake Lever & Harley Balic get?

Do any current players get an upgrade?

 

45 minutes ago, Demonland said:

With 4, 8, 9, 20, 27, 31, 33, 38 & 41 Vacant. 

What numbers do Jake Lever & Harley Balic get?

Do any current players get an upgrade?

Lever 9 

Balic 20 (if he wants the same number).

I wouldn't be surprised if Maynard and maybe J Smith had an upgrade.

NB You have 38 as vacant, but unless Tim Smith seeks an upgrade as well, it's taken.

2 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

NB You have 38 as vacant, but unless Tim Smith seeks an upgrade as well, it's taken.

You are indeed correct about Tim Smith. Dees website needs to be updated too. 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

With 4, 8, 9, 20, 27, 31, 33 & 41 Vacant. 

What numbers do Jake Lever & Harley Balic get?

Do any current players get an upgrade?

It's being pedantic, I know, and I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but I don't like the idea that moving to a lower number is in any way an "upgrade". It's just a meaningless change which serves no purpose other than to annoy those supporters who have already purchased a jumper with that player's original number.

I know that if I was rewarded with a spot on the list and given any number from 1 to 99 I'd want to keep that number for the whole of my career, however long it may last. Players should be encouraged to stick with the one number and to make their own history with it. And the idea that a lower number is somehow a more privileged asset just seems like another way to differentiate players into the "haves" and "have nots" (meaning, in this instance, having the confidence of the coaches). I would have thought that's not the best way to unify a squad.

42 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's being pedantic, I know, and I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but I don't like the idea that moving to a lower number is in any way an "upgrade". It's just a meaningless change which serves no purpose other than to annoy those supporters who have already purchased a jumper with that player's original number.

I know that if I was rewarded with a spot on the list and given any number from 1 to 99 I'd want to keep that number for the whole of my career, however long it may last. Players should be encouraged to stick with the one number and to make their own history with it. And the idea that a lower number is somehow a more privileged asset just seems like another way to differentiate players into the "haves" and "have nots" (meaning, in this instance, having the confidence of the coaches). I would have thought that's not the best way to unify a squad.

It was a figure of speech but I do agree with your point. 

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

It was a figure of speech but I do agree with your point. 

I don't want to turn this into a love-fest, but the term "upgrade" is exactly how it is seen at the moment. Why else would players change their numbers and when they do always* to a lower one? I'm just arguing for a change in that mindset.

 

* I seem to recall that Jeff Farmer went from 33 to 8 and then back to 33 after his form went backwards when he was in the 8.   

I think its true to consider it an upgrade: certainly where rookies are concerned, who are almost universally in the 40s. Once they are rewarded with a spot on the senior list I think it is only fair that they at least have the option of a number upgrade.

Running one's eye down the current list, the following players have changed numbers:

5. Christian Petracca (#26 in first season). In true Petracca fashion this change was inspired by his love of the NBA: Chris Paul for the LA Clippers has the twitter handle CP3 and he wanted something similar - CP5 (obviously 3 was taken by Salem!).

11. Max Gawn (#37 until Jamar's retirement in 2014). Inspired by his deep respect for Jimmy Stynes. 

 16. Dean Kent (#34 in first season)

22. Aaron vandenBerg (#37 for first 2 seasons)

25. Tom McDonald (#43 in first season)

Unfortunately the exercise didn't really serve to prove my point, with Harmes retaining his 43 from his rookie days!

Commercially, I'd like to see Lever in #4. There are currently a large number of kids running around in #4 jumpers. Having Lever take the number on gives them cause to continue wearing the number proudly. 

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's being pedantic, I know, and I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but I don't like the idea that moving to a lower number is in any way an "upgrade". It's just a meaningless change which serves no purpose other than to annoy those supporters who have already purchased a jumper with that player's original number.

I know that if I was rewarded with a spot on the list and given any number from 1 to 99 I'd want to keep that number for the whole of my career, however long it may last. Players should be encouraged to stick with the one number and to make their own history with it. And the idea that a lower number is somehow a more privileged asset just seems like another way to differentiate players into the "haves" and "have nots" (meaning, in this instance, having the confidence of the coaches). I would have thought that's not the best way to unify a squad.

I couldn't agree more and I have made the point before.

It is time these guys learn to work their butts off to make their number famous, not cling to the coattails of those who have gone before them.

Jack Viney is a classic example - could have had his dad's number (after Col moved on) or just about any other number that was not in use,  but chose to make number 7 famous on the basis of what he chose to do.

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't want to turn this into a love-fest, but the term "upgrade" is exactly how it is seen at the moment. Why else would players change their numbers and when they do always* to a lower one? I'm just arguing for a change in that mindset.

 

* I seem to recall that Jeff Farmer went from 33 to 8 and then back to 33 after his form went backwards when he was in the 8.   

Liam Jurrah #48 - an absolute excitement machine: #24 not even half of what he was before.

I am very much of the opinion it's just a number on the back (don't take this as disrespecting past players). I recall Ron Barassi saying something similar when handing his 31 to Grimes during the height of Schwab's era of MFC history.

I believe it's more important to assign numbers based on locker positions to provide greater access for youngsters to learn alongside leaders and veterans, or to strengthen friendships and culture so that it plays a part for when high-end players near the end of a contract (e.g. Lever #4 and Petracca #5 already good mates).

Also as Tough Kent said, it would be good see Lever in #4 so that children can continue to wear and admire that number on their back.

14 hours ago, Tough Kent said:

Commercially, I'd like to see Lever in #4. There are currently a large number of kids running around in #4 jumpers. Having Lever take the number on gives them cause to continue wearing the number proudly. 

Seems like a poor commercial decision. You want the kids to bug their parents to buy new merch with fresh numbers. Put J. Smith in the 4 and they can get 'em back out of he closet in a couple years time and not feel so cheated.

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

Seems like a poor commercial decision. You want the kids to bug their parents to buy new merch with fresh numbers. Put J. Smith in the 4 and they can get 'em back out of he closet in a couple years time and not feel so cheated.

I get what you’re saying. I just think #4 has been a hugely marketable number for the club. Put Lever in it and it will continue to be so.

2 hours ago, Tough Kent said:

I get what you’re saying. I just think #4 has been a hugely marketable number for the club. Put Lever in it and it will continue to be so.

Why would you do that? Just means kids don’t need to buy a new jumper. 

#4 is now back on the shelf

Lever should build his own following

7 hours ago, Skuit said:

Seems like a poor commercial decision. You want the kids to bug their parents to buy new merch with fresh numbers. Put J. Smith in the 4 and they can get 'em back out of he closet in a couple years time and not feel so cheated.

I respectfully disagree. Children grow and will be getting replacement jumpers regardless. I can't see every parent replacing a perfectly fitting jumper when they're to grow out of it within a year or two (As I grew I had the likes of Viney, Stynes and Lyon on my back). For that reason I'd rather see Lever in #4 than it be shelved resulting in some MFC kids having to wear a number with no name to it.

EDIT: Alternatively we may see a few off centre #14's

On 10/11/2017 at 8:28 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's being pedantic, I know, and I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but I don't like the idea that moving to a lower number is in any way an "upgrade". It's just a meaningless change

 

I don't agree.  I like that the tradition of the better players getting the lower numbers, but I'm old and don't like a lot of the modern changes I see around me.

It's not a big deal,  just a preference.  And I like that some numbers at a club are "special".  It gives an opportunity to reward certain players and recognize their contribution.  It all just adds to the richness of a Club's history and culture.

5 hours ago, ignition. said:

I respectfully disagree. Children grow and will be getting replacement jumpers regardless. I can't see every parent replacing a perfectly fitting jumper when they're to grow out of it within a year or two (As I grew I had the likes of Viney, Stynes and Lyon on my back). For that reason I'd rather see Lever in #4 than it be shelved resulting in some MFC kids having to wear a number with no name to it.

EDIT: Alternatively we may see a few off centre #14's

It was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I do feel Lever is the wrong candidate if you want to enshrine the #4 as a jnr. fan fave. Spoils aren't the most glamorous aspect of our beloved game.

So long as they don't give Lever number 31 I will be happy...

4 hours ago, Skuit said:

It was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I do feel Lever is the wrong candidate if you want to enshrine the #4 as a jnr. fan fave. Spoils aren't the most glamorous aspect of our beloved game.

But speccy marks are!

5 hours ago, Skuit said:

It was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I do feel Lever is the wrong candidate if you want to enshrine the #4 as a jnr. fan fave. Spoils aren't the most glamorous aspect of our beloved game.

But then, nor are half hearted tackles.  

Give Lever the # 8

Give Balic the # 20

would upgrade Weideman to # 9 (alongside Brayshaw and Lever)

and upgrade Harmes to # 27 

leaves 

#4 Draft pick 29

#26 Draft pick 36

#31 Draft pick 31 (love the connection)

#43 Draft pick 47

Rookie upgrades

#33 Maynard

#35 Kielty

#41 Filopovic 

I can see #4 being on hiatus for a year to be honest - unless Lever or Balic want it. I can't see a player currently on the list wanting it out of respect for Watts and you wouldn't give it to a draftee because of the expectation that comes with it (club history attached to it) 

On 11/10/2017 at 8:28 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's being pedantic, I know, and I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but I don't like the idea that moving to a lower number is in any way an "upgrade". It's just a meaningless change which serves no purpose other than to annoy those supporters who have already purchased a jumper with that player's original number.

I know that if I was rewarded with a spot on the list and given any number from 1 to 99 I'd want to keep that number for the whole of my career, however long it may last. Players should be encouraged to stick with the one number and to make their own history with it. And the idea that a lower number is somehow a more privileged asset just seems like another way to differentiate players into the "haves" and "have nots" (meaning, in this instance, having the confidence of the coaches). I would have thought that's not the best way to unify a squad.

Agree entirely, LDC.

I can't stand players changing numbers as if the lower ones are "better".

Call me a fence sitter in a sense, but I'm a little column A/column B when it comes to reallocating numbers and the prestige that comes with cretain numbers (generally low ones).

Whilst I do like it when players make the  higher numbers they were originally given their own, I also don't mind it when a player takes on a low number later in their career.  What I would say is that players taking on numbers with prestige should earn/be worthy of that number, rather than it happening before they have earnt the respect that goes with that prestige.  It's not only the low numbers that are the highly sought after ones either, double numbers like 33, 44 and even 31 for the MFC are also somewhat sought after.

In the contemporary setting, I think Guy Rigoni made 43 his own, which I think Harmes is somewhat doing now and would personnaly like that to continue.  I don't mind players like Trac, Oliver and Salem being allocated the low numbers they have, because I think they have already proved them selves to be worthy of the calibre of those that status.  Agree that allocating 4 at this point could be a poisoned chalice.  I wouldn't be opposed to someone like Weid being allocated 8 or 9 (9 has some nice symmetry with Neitz), but think it would take him seriously stepping up in preseason (showing some presence against mature AFL footballers that he quite frankly hasn't to this point) that would suggest that he is at the point of having an impact.

 

11 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Give Lever the # 8

Give Balic the # 20

would upgrade Weideman to # 9 (alongside Brayshaw and Lever)

and upgrade Harmes to # 27 

leaves 

#4 Draft pick 29

#26 Draft pick 36

#31 Draft pick 31 (love the connection)

#43 Draft pick 47

Rookie upgrades

#33 Maynard

#35 Kielty

#41 Filopovic 

Like Lever in 8.

Don't quite know why (probably because I think of 33 as more of a speedster/Wizz type number), but I'd prefer to see Maynard in 20.

Would like to see Joel Smith in 27, as I think he has a bit of Sean Wight about him, the way he plays hard and athletically at the footy and as a defender, that make it a good fit to honor that number (can't recall if Shaun and Sean ever played together).

Ricky Jackson made 45 a cool number. 

I like players keeping the same number, not that it matters. 

But it’s a bit like when a band changes their name for legal or cultural reasons, it is often a very bad thing to do...