Yeah nah (as they say)
#10 used to be special, John Coleman’s number, followed by other CoE like Alan Noonan and Garry Foulds. After Foulds retired, I remember GO’D said he was “absolutely stoked” to have a chance at wearing that famous number, and he did it proud, in the 93 GF and thereafter.
It is traditions like that that make a club great. Slotting any new player into any number? Synthetic clubs like GC and GWS can do that.
Sorry, my tired eyes missed that. I agree that we got Anthony and Chris because we already had Neale and Terry.
Sheeds’ sentimentally was one of the things that made him such a great coach. That game at Moorabbin in 1990 is a great football moment.
Like I say, I’m weird about it.
those #s only have value because those champions won premierships.
doesn’t mean ■■■■ until we do again.
Nah, it’s not weird to follow a player’s progress from when he first joins the club. It was great following players from th eU19s through Reserves into the senior team. Also I remember seeing Paul Salmon’s first game in the reserves and thinking he would go well.
There are a lot of numbers that new players can be given to “make their own”.
But EFC does have special numbers and it was a great tradition when those numbers had to be earned.
I liked it when the same player types got the same numbers. So 27 was a ruckman for years.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat those numbers over and over again, etc. Those numbers do mean things, plenty of things, and they will mean more when we are up and about and winning more flags.
Your first line is spot on, your second is such a backhander, that it is DKP worthy.
Please, DKP aspires.
Yep, I’m a big fan of that. Watching Lloyd and Lucas in 18 / 25, knowing that Vanda and Merrett wore those numbers, meant something. Hurley in 18 is a nice symmetry as well. (He moved from 22 to 18 on Lloyd’s request from memory, so moves like that happen.)
Also, there were many times watching in the stands when, from a distance, David Hille could well have been Peter Somerville.
I like stuff like that.
As for number 5… I’d personally let Stanton choose who he wants to hand it over to. He’d have a pretty good idea of who deserves it imo.
Weird how all AFL players are into nba but none of them are wearing crazy numbers yet.
Give Stringer 0 and Smith 88 or something.
I still cant believe hes playing for us
You’re correct - I do indeed, have a very sensible haircut.
On the subject - maybe it’s just romance, and we’re fools.
I get the impression that internally, the culture of most AFL clubs comes down pretty heavily on anyone who tries to stand out too much when it comes to stuff like this. Where the NBA seems to almost encourage extroversion and self promotion, there’s a few stories about how blokes in footy who’ve headed in that direction have been slapped down hard. Not sure if its an Aust vs usa cultural thing, or whether a sport which has more people on a team leads to more of a ‘everyone’s a cog in the machine’ attitude and less showy individuality.
The number debate is always great imo. It represents the fact that our club has both a revered history and a hopeful future. It also means that the EFC is more than just a weekend pastime for ex-players, long time and new fans alike.
Personally I prefer the idea that players are allowed and encouraged to make their own contribution to the mythology of a jumper number. Generally kids that get drafted are motivated types who would see the mantle of a number as a challenge to fulfil. I like this combination of challenge and endorsement in giving a kid a number to live up to.
In Stringers case, and given the circumstances surrounding him joining us, I see no better way of confirming to him his new place and importance to us, and his new start in life, than giving him the honour of number 5. He won’t let it down. In fact, I think it will motivate him all the more. And imagine if the act of giving him No5 brought Hirdy into mix as an off field life mentor for Jake. Talk about a win/win outcome.
Besides, how many special numbers can a club have before it gets hard to distribute them. By my understanding due to tradition and recent history we have at least the following… 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 18, 25, 27, 31, 32, & 43. Even 15, 24 and 44 have claims. Hell, 42 could become associated with Indigenous leadership, 45 with Irish rookies, and 9 & 47 with forever clubman ship in adversity. By the time JD is finished no6 will be confirmed as part of the Daniher legacy. I just make the point that we have to allow new players to make their own way and contribute to the heritage of numbers rather than be excluded from them. I see no better way of building culture.
Funny, eh?
I’m in two minds about it. I like the low-key and modest approach (generally) of Australian sports people. But I also dislike how we are almost embarrassed to have gregarious and flamboyant sport personalities and do our best to cut them down. It’s like the nation has this poisonous jealousy.
Haha fair enough. Start him on #49
Would not be shocked to see them move Heppell down from 21 to 5.
Stanton got moved from 24 to 5 when they felt he’d earnt it after Jimmy’s retirement.
Hep has too.
Stringer for the 4. Still a good number, but #5 is special.
Smith and Saad for 15 and 21.
But potentially give him a high number until Goddard retires which will likely be next year.
I’ve seen BSD’s bonce. Sensible haircut is not the first thing that comes to mind.
And I’m just not sure that two greats wearing #5 constitutes a tradition.
Hird got 5 because it was available at the time. No other reason.
I’d be a little surprised with a Heppell move.
Stanton had only played 4 seasons at the time of his move. Heppell has played 7 (well 6 if we take out 2016).