Playing List and numbers - 2009

borderbarry · Thu 18 Dec 2008 11:23pm

Roo's record as a Saint is better than a lot of those who wore No.4 anyway. And plugger did not do a lot as No.4. He won his brownlow as No.14.

ThePunter · Post: # 687946Post **ThePunter** » Fri 19 Dec 2008 8:45am

Plugger had his best season wearing #4 - 1991. He was also handy in 1992.

Joel Smith was given #4 right away, and Thompson after two seasons. I just think giving it to someone who we rate, but hasn't quite made it yet (Gilbert, Armitage, Eddy, Jones or Geary) would have been good. Now, in this day and age, we have a bloke wearing #51. Ridiculous.

Saints94 · Post: # 687953Post **Saints94** » Fri 19 Dec 2008 9:29am

Why would you give out 49 and 50

Saints94 · Post: # 687954Post **Saints94** » Fri 19 Dec 2008 9:31am

henno wrote:feel sorry for cahill and smith

also funny they didnt give ray fizz's old number

Begley gets Fizz's old number (17)

Armoooo · Post: # 688024Post **Armoooo** » Fri 19 Dec 2008 3:41pm

Fiora wore 22 before Getting moved to 17

PJ · Post: # 688052Post PJ » Fri 19 Dec 2008 5:25pm

I'm not a big fan of retiring numbers unless someone has passed away in regrettable circumstances.

I think history is continually being written. If asked I'm sure the players would want their number to go to a young kid trying to make his mark. Retiring the number makes it a bit like there's a death in the family (new life to the number). I'm sure when you put on a guernsey with history it lifts your head a bit and makes you walk a bit taller.

Perhaps the players chose the higher numbers themselves.

sendmehomehappy · Sat 20 Dec 2008 1:02am

Is this it? I mean, are these numbers set in stone now for the 2009 season?

Can the club reallocate 4, 9 or whatever once they get a preaseason into the newbies or further asess progress of the up and comers, just before the start of the season proper?

borderbarry · Sat 20 Dec 2008 10:50am

Surprised to see Heyne get a lower number than Lynch.

bergholt · Post: # 688559Post **bergholt** » Mon 22 Dec 2008 1:30pm

That's a pretty crappy list of numbers IMO.

There's absolutely no reason to leave 4 and 9 blank. Why not give 9 to Lynch? McEvoy got 5. I understand that established players might want to stay with their number, but why not move Jones to 4, for instance? Or Eddy? Or give it to Ray? It's just a number. Or, personally, I reckon it shoulda gone to Gilbert.

Leave 35 blank if you want, but going all the way up to 51 seems a bit over the top.

St Fidelius · Mon 22 Dec 2008 1:35pm

bergholt wrote:That's a pretty crappy list of numbers IMO.

There's absolutely no reason to leave 4 and 9 blank. Why not give 9 to Lynch? McEvoy got 5. I understand that established players might want to stay with their number, but why not move Jones to 4, for instance? Or Eddy? Or give it to Ray? It's just a number. Or, personally, I reckon it shoulda gone to Gilbert.

Leave 35 blank if you want, but going all the way up to 51 seems a bit over the top.

Not to mention our NSW Scholarship players...

#96 Josh Duncan

#97 Kane Murphy

#98 Jackson Ferguson

ace · Post: # 688608Post **ace** » Mon 22 Dec 2008 3:59pm

Message to players "You want a single digit number you first have to pull a digit out".

dcstkfc · Post: # 688727Post **dcstkfc** » Mon 22 Dec 2008 10:02pm

Would've been a while since we had anyone in the 50s.

saintspremiers · Mon 22 Dec 2008 10:05pm

St Fidelius wrote:
bergholt wrote:That's a pretty crappy list of numbers IMO.

There's absolutely no reason to leave 4 and 9 blank. Why not give 9 to Lynch? McEvoy got 5. I understand that established players might want to stay with their number, but why not move Jones to 4, for instance? Or Eddy? Or give it to Ray? It's just a number. Or, personally, I reckon it shoulda gone to Gilbert.

Leave 35 blank if you want, but going all the way up to 51 seems a bit over the top.
Not to mention our NSW Scholarship players...

#96 Josh Duncan

#97 Kane Murphy

#98 Jackson Ferguson

scholarship players are very unlikely to play for us, so their numbers don't matter.....I'm happy they are in the 90's to put them apart from the real list (which includes rookies).

BigMart · Post: # 688771Post **BigMart** » Tue 23 Dec 2008 10:14am

They are only NUMBERS.....

Stupid having numbers vacant.....the club is bigger than the individual, and you hold the number until your gone and someone steps in, thats footy.....

We are not going to play a midfielder down because harves has retired.....

ace · Post: # 688926Post **ace** » Wed 24 Dec 2008 1:41am

I realise the club is trying to educate the players so that they can all count to 50 but it does not help to leave out numbers like 4, 9 and 35.
It only confuses the jocks.