The Numbers Game

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ItsAllGoodes
    Regular in the Side
    • Dec 2003
    • 675

    The Numbers Game

    New numbers have been allocated - 11 and 14 are in moth balls:



    9. Nick Malceski (was 40) (ex-Fixter)
    18. Andrew Ericksen (was 41) (ex Heath James)
    22. Matthew Laidlaw (ex-Saddo)
    23. Paul Chambers (ex-Nicks)
    25. Ted Richards (ex Schaubs)
    27. Kristin Thornton (ex-Ball)
    29. Jonathan Simpkin
    34. Ryan Brabazon
    35. James Wall
    40. Paul Currie
    41. Ed Barlow
    46. Sam Rowe
    47. Simon Phillips
    48. Kieran Jack
    49. Adam Prior
    Last edited by ItsAllGoodes; 19 December 2005, 05:30 PM.
    Red and white till I die
  • ROK Lobster
    RWO Life Member
    • Aug 2004
    • 8658

    #2
    Re: The Numbers Game

    Originally posted by ItsAllGoodes
    25. Ted Richards (ex Schaubs)
    Should been rested.

    Comment

    • stellation
      scott names the planets
      • Sep 2003
      • 9718

      #3
      Re: Re: The Numbers Game

      Originally posted by ROK Lobster
      Should been rested.
      I believe Roos took care of that last year
      I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
      We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

      Comment

      • ScottH
        It's Goodes to cheer!!
        • Sep 2003
        • 23665

        #4
        Re: The Numbers Game

        Originally posted by ItsAllGoodes
        23. Paul Chambers (ex-Nicks)
        Pity Matera retired, Would have been an interesting match up.
        Originally posted by ItsAllGoodes
        48. Kieran Jack
        Can't wait for Commetti to say "he's got the Jack", after being tackled.

        Comment

        • Charlie
          On the Rookie List
          • Jan 2003
          • 4101

          #5
          Re: The Numbers Game

          Originally posted by ItsAllGoodes
          New numbers have been allocated - 11 and 14 are in moth balls:



          9. Nick Malceski (was 40) (ex-Fixter)
          18. Andrew Ericksen (was 41) (ex Heath James)
          22. Matthew Laidlaw (ex-Saddo)
          23. Paul Chambers (ex-Nicks)
          25. Ted Richards (ex Schaubs)
          27. Kristin Thornton (ex-Ball)
          29. Jonathan Simpkin
          34. Ryan Brabazon
          35. James Wall
          40. Paul Currie
          41. Ed Barlow
          46. Sam Rowe
          47. Simon Phillips
          48. Kieran Jack
          49. Adam Prior
          Malceski got the right number. I thought 18 was a better fit for Richards, and give Erickson 27. Disappointing that Vogels didn't get bumped up, I had hoped he would get 22. 23 for Chambers is good. I had thought Grundy was a chance at 25.

          Surprising that they put Simpkin ahead of Brabazon, too. Hopefully Brabazon actually gets a game - it's 98 games since Luffy last wore 34 in an AFL match.

          It's also disappointing that Buchanan didn't get 14.
          We hate Anthony Rocca
          We hate Shannon Grant too
          We hate scumbag Gaspar
          But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

          Comment

          • j s
            Think positive!
            • Jan 2003
            • 3303

            #6
            Interesting that a few of the youngsters stuck with their rookie numbers....

            42. Paul Bevan
            43. Stefan Garrubba
            44. Matthew Davis
            45. Earl Shaw
            I can understand Bevan hanging on to his PREMIERSHIP number but the others are unlikely to have any particular attachment to a high number.

            [Edit: Checked the list more closely - some new rookies were given low numbers so there are no free numbers under 40 - apart from 11 & 14.]
            Last edited by j s; 20 December 2005, 10:57 AM.

            Comment

            • Sanecow
              Suspended by the MRP
              • Mar 2003
              • 6917

              #7
              I heard that 14 has OP and is unlikely to play again.

              Comment

              • Lucky Knickers
                Fandom of Fabulousness
                • Oct 2003
                • 4220

                #8
                Originally posted by Sanecow
                I heard that 14 has OP and is unlikely to play again.
                LOL.

                Don't some players say I'd like "25" if it's available?

                Is the guernsey nbr really related to the opinion of the club about that player? Does the number position indicate the players importance?

                I don't know much about how they allocate these and the significance of it. Can someone explain?

                Comment

                • hammo
                  Veterans List
                  • Jul 2003
                  • 5554

                  #9
                  I presume current players had first crack at lower numbers but none (apart from Malceski) were interested.

                  I would like to know whether 14 is officially in retirement or whether no-one is willing to take it on.
                  "As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk

                  Comment

                  • Northern_Swan
                    Sweet home Novacastria
                    • Nov 2004
                    • 530

                    #10
                    I would have hung up 18- I think it's jinxed

                    Comment

                    • Ruckman
                      Ego alta, ergo ictus
                      • Nov 2003
                      • 3990

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
                      Don't some players say I'd like "25" if it's available?
                      #25 and #27 could perhaps have gone to a ruckman, but they gave #18 to Ericksen and Earl stayed with #45.

                      Comment

                      • Tuesday
                        On the Rookie List
                        • May 2005
                        • 890

                        #12
                        Re: Re: The Numbers Game

                        Originally posted by Charlie
                        Disappointing that Vogels didn't get bumped up, I had hoped he would get 22.
                        How on earth is that disappointing? He probably didn't want it. I see nothing wrong with the 38. Why would he want the 22?
                        And you can't find nothing at all,
                        If there was nothing there all along.

                        Comment

                        • stellation
                          scott names the planets
                          • Sep 2003
                          • 9718

                          #13
                          Re: Re: Re: The Numbers Game

                          Originally posted by Tuesday
                          How on earth is that disappointing? He probably didn't want it. I see nothing wrong with the 38. Why would he want the 22?
                          I agree. I quite like 38 on Vogels.
                          I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
                          We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

                          Comment

                          • SimonH
                            Salt future's rising
                            • Aug 2004
                            • 1647

                            #14
                            Bodes very well for Malceski's chances of selection. When was the last time a # in the top 10 struggled to get a game?

                            Well, alright, there's the guy who last had #9. And there's McVeigh. And Spriggs. And when on earth did Willoughby get #7 without me noticing? But y'know, on average...

                            Actually, looking at the list, mid-20s to early-30s appears to now have one of the highest proportions of automatic selections, in JBolt, Dempster, Crouch, LRT, Kirk and Bucky. Super Ted, Thornton and Simpkin could be on a good thing by slipping into #s 25, 27 and 29.

                            Comment

                            • goswannie14
                              Leadership Group
                              • Sep 2005
                              • 11166

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
                              LOL.

                              Don't some players say I'd like "25" if it's available?

                              Is the guernsey nbr really related to the opinion of the club about that player? Does the number position indicate the players importance?

                              I don't know much about how they allocate these and the significance of it. Can someone explain?
                              There's no significance to the allocation of numbers. It doesn't mean a thing, unless your dad or uncla maybe played wearing a certain number. but I guess this thread helps fill in the no football season.
                              Does God believe in Atheists?

                              Comment

                              Working...