2019 season guernsey numbers

[rb4x]

The dyslexic bogans I would expect to be wearing A0 or &?. Why not an alpha or a symbol.

[0918330512]

Who would wear the Big Nothing?

Paul Chambers?

[dimelb]

I’d like someone to wear 0 or 00 like they do in the NBA. Or Nick Davis to have taken the number 60 that his dad Craig wore with distinction in his comeback with the Swans. And it’s a pity there aren’t any Dennis Rodman fans, as a 91 would be a sight to behold!

Who would wear the Big Nothing?

[goswannies]

Apparently the highest number worn at AFL/VFL level is 67 by ....

Lance Franklin
Daniel Wells
Zac Williams
Steven May
Jeff Garlett
Josh Hill
Shane Edwards
Shaun Burgoyn

Each only played one game wearing 67. It was in 2017 for the Indigenous Round to recognise the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum.

Buddy & Gartlett both kicked 5 goals wearing it

The next highest number worn was 65 by Andrew Witts for Collingwood in 1985

[CureTheSane]

What are the restrictions on numbers? Can you have a 0 or a 99?

[0918330512]

I’d like someone to wear 0 or 00 like they do in the NBA. Or Nick Davis to have taken the number 60 that his dad Craig wore with distinction in his comeback with the Swans. And it’s a pity there aren’t any Dennis Rodman fans, as a 91 would be a sight to behold!

[CureTheSane]

All good CTS, I feel that we're pretty much on the same page here.....except maybe on the 'mystique' of Millane's number. To me, it's tainted because of the 'irresponsible' nature of his death, sad as that was. Maybe Collingwood could give that one to a young recruit with a drinking problem who drives when they're drunk.

Yeah no mystique or culture around Millane's jumper.
In death people tend to exaggerate and inflate abilities and reputations etc, but I guess when someones life is over you make allowances for that.
In the end he was a Wobbles player who was held in reasonable regard who died prematurely. I've no issues with retiring the jumper for 10 to 20 years or so,

[CureTheSane]

I didn't read giving Mills number 14 as a signal it is to be reserved for "the next star". I saw it more as a celebration of the fact he was a NSW product (as Bird was before him).

As you mentioned in an earlier post, retiring numbers becomes problematic because it increases the pressure on the club to find the "right recipient" when the number is taken out of retirement. I think Bird was the first NSW player to join the club via the National Draft (ie not the rookie draft) since McVeigh. McVeigh was drafted at the end of 2002, the same year that Kelly retired, so presumably they didn't consider giving it to him once deciding to retire the number for a period. Thus Bird provided an excuse to reinstate the number because he was a NSW product. It was Kelly's status as the best NSW player (in recent memory) to play for the club that was being remembered, I suspect, rather than his absolute champion status within the game.

Mills then joined the club the year Bird left. The number wasn't put out to pasture again once Bird vacated it. It was convenient that he was a highly touted youngster, and even more convenient that he was another NSW product. If we hadn't had a NSW player drafted to the club for the start of 2016, would the number have been retired again? We can't know but I suspect not. I don't therefore don't read quite as much into the handing on of number 14 as you do. Indeed, I think the fact that Bird was a good honest player, and not a star, somewhat relieved the need, or desire, to keep the number for someone with expectations of being a stand-out player.

Fair enough then.

[goswannies]

I agree with CTS, the retirement of a number is an over reaction. When it comes to Adam Goodes or any other great players, I think it's their deeds and exploits and not the number that is the reason for their greatness. In other words the number does not make them great or successful. For example Roger Dangerfield had number 32 with Adelaide but has 35 with Geelong. Does either number make him a better player, so what I am trying to say is, honour and remember the player for his deeds and exploits, for the number is a way of identification, locker room allocation, registration on rosters etc. Numbers do not have magic powers which is passed on.

32 did bugger all for Roger, but Patrick was a star for the Crows in it!

[goswannies]

When Buddy arrived and it was in the interests of all (marketing $$$) that he keep the number he had made famous, Jordan Lockyer was ruthlessly stripped of #23. No idea if he had an opinion about that. These things add a bit of appealing extra colour to the game. They mean something to the players so why shouldn't they mean something to us too?

Ben Matthews certainly had an opinion when Plugger made his comeback. Taking the #4 off Lockett was like cutting Samson’s hair or making Jordan wear #45 when he came back

- - - Updated - - -

Pfft.

17 should be reserved for the irish
27 for Americans
.

The next player to wear 17 after Tadhg was Tommy Walsh IIRC

And Wheeler also wore 48

[bloodspirit]

Thanks for that link, Meg. Right on point.

It makes the additional point that the preferences of the incoming players are also factored in. When Papley wanted to switch to #11 his grandfather's number and it became available, the Club facilitated that. When Buddy arrived and it was in the interests of all (marketing $$$) that he keep the number he had made famous, Jordan Lockyer was ruthlessly stripped of #23. No idea if he had an opinion about that. These things add a bit of appealing extra colour to the game. They mean something to the players so why shouldn't they mean something to us too?

[Meg]

This is what the club said at end 2015 after Adam retired:

‘Adam Goodes’ No. 37 will ......... be put away indefinitely, but not forever, out of respect for the dual Brownlow Medallist.’

Also comments about No. 14 and No. 38.

Jumper numbers revealed - sydneyswans.com.au

[bloodspirit]

My thoughts:

* jumper numbers have a special place in Aussie Rules that they don't in many other sports and it is good to try to continue and enhance this part of footy's cultural heritage

* it makes sense to let added meaning to particular jumper numbers develop. This can be done by thoughtful allocation of jumper numbers e.g. by letting a connection with NSW to #14 grow through successive allocations of that number to NSW players (Kelly, Bird, Mills) or international recruits with #38 maybe. I also liked how Jude Bolton tried to pass his number to Dane Rampe or Rhyce Shaw to AJ. Was funny to see Teddy Richards congratulating Benny Ronke for maintaining the proud goal scoring traditions of #25 after his performance against the Hawks at the G last year.

* this should not be overly strict or restrictive and if it pans out differently to a trend/patter, so be it, that's fine too.

* jumper numbers should not be permanently retired . History should turn a new page and the tradition evolve. I don't have the impression that #37 has been permanently retired at all. Certainly the club has not made any announcement to that effect which you would think they would if that had happened. Rather they are allowing the number to lie fallow a few seasons after the retirement of a club legend in quite particular circumstances. To me it comes across as a mark of respect to the Club Games Record Holder, 2x Brownlow Medallist (etc. etc.), just pausing to acknowledge his passing. When it is once again reallocated, great.

* if they chose to keep #37 for Indigenous players and build up a bit of a tradition in that regard, I wouldn't have a problem with it but nor am I advocating for that.

[liz]

The #14 will be cheapened if it is saved ofr 'the next star' which Mills was certainly pegged as when drafted.
Maybe he was desperate for it, and begged.
Or maybe the club saw it as a way of perpetuating and growing the mystique and regard for the jumper.
I'd be happier if it was raffled off to new players and if one gets it and becomes a star then that would genuinely add to the esteem of the number.

I didn't read giving Mills number 14 as a signal it is to be reserved for "the next star". I saw it more as a celebration of the fact he was a NSW product (as Bird was before him).

As you mentioned in an earlier post, retiring numbers becomes problematic because it increases the pressure on the club to find the "right recipient" when the number is taken out of retirement. I think Bird was the first NSW player to join the club via the National Draft (ie not the rookie draft) since McVeigh. McVeigh was drafted at the end of 2002, the same year that Kelly retired, so presumably they didn't consider giving it to him once deciding to retire the number for a period. Thus Bird provided an excuse to reinstate the number because he was a NSW product. It was Kelly's status as the best NSW player (in recent memory) to play for the club that was being remembered, I suspect, rather than his absolute champion status within the game.

Mills then joined the club the year Bird left. The number wasn't put out to pasture again once Bird vacated it. It was convenient that he was a highly touted youngster, and even more convenient that he was another NSW product. If we hadn't had a NSW player drafted to the club for the start of 2016, would the number have been retired again? We can't know but I suspect not. I don't therefore don't read quite as much into the handing on of number 14 as you do. Indeed, I think the fact that Bird was a good honest player, and not a star, somewhat relieved the need, or desire, to keep the number for someone with expectations of being a stand-out player.

[stevoswan]

All good CTS, I feel that we're pretty much on the same page here.....except maybe on the 'mystique' of Millane's number. To me, it's tainted because of the 'irresponsible' nature of his death, sad as that was. Maybe Collingwood could give that one to a young recruit with a drinking problem who drives when they're drunk.