Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

New Numbers 2009

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

F

FullFathom5

Debutant
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Posts
64
Reaction score
0
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
With the large number of retirements and delistings, some choice numbers are freed up.

Any thoughts on who might get which one?

For instance, what number would Reimers wear? Does Hocking deserve a lower number? Should Ryder change his?
 
Lonergan has said he's keeping 36.

Please Reimers, keep 37, so that my new jumper isn't obsolete after one year.

Cousins --> 9:p
1st round --> 11
Hocking/Hislop --> 14
2nd round --> 32

Leaving 21, 22, 35/39 free.
 
who deserves ramma's number, hopefully they dont screw that up like they did with #5....or should we retire it
 
No numbers should be retired.

And if you've got a problem with Stanton being given the number 5, then you should take it up with James Hird because he's the one who decided it should be given to him.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Give Hurley a high number and then he can take Fletch's when he's gone.

Should we draft him of course.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Ryder Is God said:
No numbers should be retired.

And if you've got a problem with Stanton being given the number 5, then you should take it up with James Hird because he's the one who decided it should be given to him.
Click to expand...

no he didn't.

Knights made the decision and James simply gave it his blessing
 
Stanton, who was taken with pick 13 in the 2003 draft and has.played 76 games, said he was thrilled to be given the honour. Brent Stanton will move from number 24 to number 5.

Coach Matthew Knights discussed the matter with James Hird a few weeks ago and James was keen for the number to be used and not put away for any amount of time. Hird suggested the number be given to Stanton.
Click to expand...

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/news.asp?nid=5494

No I think you'll find it wasn't Knights idea. fail
 
21 or 22 would suit Hurley if we're to draft him.

Dean Wallis having worn 21 and Billy Duckworth having worn 22.

I could see 14 being a good fit for Tommy Hislop, there's a bit of JJ about him.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I would prefer that they gave vacant numbers to new players and recruits, rather than changing current players numbers.
For one, as Jonesy1987 alludes too it makes getting a players number on your jumper problematic. Mark Harvey had 60 games and nearly 100 goals, plus two flags, in #38 then made my little bro's jumper redundant by switching to #1. Why? Surely by then 38 should've meant more to Harves than the lure of wearing someone elses jumper?
Also I can't see the great stock in having a low number, John Platten forged a pretty decent career in #44, why not Gary O'Donnell?
Let a player 'own' a number and make it famous for himself (if he's good enough), he shouldn't need to be given the number someone else made famous. If James Hird had made #49 famous we'd have loved him just the same.
 
dirtywhitepacker said:
11 to Hocking, a lot of Peverill in Hocking. Both of the rookie list. Both labouring mids with a great fierce attitude to their training. Seems a logical fit...
Click to expand...

Hocking does not want to change numbers. Has said if he makes it he want's to do it in one number and make his own record with 39.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom