the number 5???

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:42 am

Yep, pass it on to a likely type.

Retiring numbers is just bullshit (imo)

sconsey · Post by **sconsey** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:06 pm

As mentioned, let Hird pass it on to someone he likes the look of...Or to Winders who wanted to earn the respect of Hird before he retired (has gone a long way to doing that.) Or we could leave it for a couple of years and then hand it to someone who has proven themselves. Even if they had made a name/number for themselves, I doubt they'd knock back the opportunity to wear #5!

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:20 pm

I'm just curious swoodley, but why do you think it is 'bullshit'?

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:54 pm

I'm not Swoodley, but retiring numbers is just another bullshit American idea that we ought to avoid at all costs.

Ranks up there with other shit American concepts such as WWE.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:00 pm

I was respectfuly asking for a reason. Your reason is because it is American. What is wrong about the concept?
I think you have a problem jimmy.

Also WWE isn't a concept. Wrestling is a concept.

dom_105 · Post by **dom_105** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:15 pm

Here we go again.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:17 pm

Only one person is trying to start it again.
SO just to keep it on track I will ask the question again.
Too all those conerned, what is wrong with the concept for retired jumper numbers?
DOesn't bother me if people like the idea or not, just curious as to why, 'we ought to avoid at all costs'?

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:52 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:Too all those conerned, what is wrong with the concept for retired jumper numbers?
DOesn't bother me if people like the idea or not, just curious as to why, 'we ought to avoid at all costs'?

a) The fundamental rationale behind having guernsey numbers is for player identification purposes. There are no other reasons behind having guernsey numbers, notwithstanding the emotive connotations that some people try to impress upon a given number. The concept of 'retiring' guernsey numbers, to me, is some sort of misguided attempt at paying homage to a given player, when in reality 'retiring' a guernsey number does nothing more than make the fundamental aim of guernsey numbers, player identification, more difficult (as with each number retired, there are fewer numbers to choose from).
b) In relation to point (a), there are other, more appropriate ways to remember players already in existence, such as AFL Hall of Fame, Legends, etcetera.
c) Deciding upon whose number ought to be retired and whose shouldn't be is arbitrary.
d) There are 38 players on each AFL clubs' list, each of whom ought to be able to choose, so far as is possible, whatever available number they want. Retiring number guernseys detracts from an incoming player's choice.
e) It's an American precept, and that is a reason in itself to reject the idea. Without putting too fine a point on it, although the average AFL punter probably couldn't succinctly encapsulate what the "Americanisation" of sport entails, i guarantee you that most AFL fans reject the notion of "Americanising" our national game and prostituting its tradition in the name of something foreign.
f) So far as pragmatic concerns go, most American sports allow guernsey numbers to go up to 99. In AFL, whether or not there's a rule to the contrary, it's traditionally very rare for players to elect to take a number higher than 50, particularly in these days of lists restricted to 38 men. Should you begine arbitrarily retiring guernseys, then the 38 players on each list will eventually be forced to break with tradition and take a number higher than 50. It seems pointless to me to foist a new 'tradition' of retiring guernsey numbers upon the AFL when doing so would be incompatible with maintaining the current tradition that players keep their numbers below 50.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:01 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:
Essendon4eva wrote:Too all those conerned, what is wrong with the concept for retired jumper numbers?
DOesn't bother me if people like the idea or not, just curious as to why, 'we ought to avoid at all costs'?
a) The fundamental rationale behind having guernsey numbers is for player identification purposes. There are no other reasons behind having guernsey numbers, notwithstanding the emotive connotations that some people try to impress upon a given number. The concept of 'retiring' guernsey numbers, to me, is some sort of misguided attempt at paying homage to a given player, when in reality 'retiring' a guernsey number does nothing more than make the fundamental aim of guernsey numbers, player identification, more difficult (as with each number retired, there are fewer numbers to choose from).
b) In relation to point (a), there are other, more appropriate ways to remember players already in existence, such as AFL Hall of Fame, Legends, etcetera.
c) Deciding upon whose number ought to be retired and whose shouldn't be is arbitrary.
d) There are 38 players on each AFL clubs' list, each of whom ought to be able to choose, so far as is possible, whatever available number they want. Retiring number guernseys detracts from an incoming player's choice.
e) It's an American precept, and that is a reason in itself to reject the idea. Without putting too fine a point on it, although the average AFL punter probably couldn't succinctly encapsulate what the "Americanisation" of sport entails, i guarantee you that most AFL fans reject the notion of "Americanising" our national game and prostituting its tradition in the name of something foreign.
f) So far as pragmatic concerns go, most American sports allow guernsey numbers to go up to 99. In AFL, whether or not there's a rule to the contrary, it's traditionally very rare for players to elect to take a number higher than 50, particularly in these days of lists restricted to 38 men. Should you begine arbitrarily retiring guernseys, then the 38 players on each list will eventually be forced to break with tradition and take a number higher than 50. It seems pointless to me to foist a new 'tradition' of retiring guernsey numbers upon the AFL when doing so would be incompatible with maintaining the current tradition that players keep their numbers below 50.

You've taken on your Avatar's F****** personality!

Post by **Megan** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:01 pm

Beautifully put Jimmy. Well done.

I would've just summed it up, poorly, with your point e). I don't like the way Australia in all ways, not just sport, is becoming more like America. I resent it greatly.

dom_105 · Post by **dom_105** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:02 pm

Not to mention that another champion of this club also wore the number 5, TD.

What does that say about him, if we retire #5 and deem it "Hirdy's number". Bit of a slap in the face I think.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:25 pm

Up to the American reason, I think that is a far point. However, why does the number need to be 'passed on'? Just retire Hird and who ever wants it can have it.

One a side note, Something I've gathered form this topic. If an American idea is a good one, it shouldn't be rejected just because it is 'American'. Decisions should be made based on the idea alone, not where it was first used.
If you are against the idea of number being retired for the first four reaosn brought up by jimmy fin. If you are against it just because it is 'American', well that is a flaw in the person.

I could go on that rant for a long time. The hatred of America, but it doesn't belong here.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:56 pm

BenDoolan wrote:You've taken on your Avatar's F****** personality!

Yeah, but wouldn't you like to be like Ando as well

?

It's a liberating feeling, i tells ya. You get paid heaps for having no idea about anything, selling shit sandwiches to the public and pissing people off at every opportunity!

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:50 am

jimmyc1985 wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:You've taken on your Avatar's F****** personality!
Yeah, but wouldn't you like to be like Ando as well ?

It's a liberating feeling, i tells ya. You get paid heaps for having no idea about anything, selling shit sandwiches to the public and pissing people off at every opportunity!

Hey, I never thought of it ike that! Keep up the good work!!

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:31 am

Essendon4eva wrote:I'm just curious swoodley, but why do you think it is 'bullshit'?

Sorry I didn't get back to this earlier but I've not been near a computer since I posted my original statement.

My main reasons have probably been mentioned in the above posts but basiscally it boils down to the following:

1. Many great players have played for our club over the years and we managed to keep going without retiring their numbers.

2. Some numbers have great historical significance within the club and become a source of pride for those players who are lucky enough to be given those numbers....Numbers 3, 5 & 10 spring to mind immediately

3. The history of retiring numbers a la the NBA doesn't really work for AFL. The retired numbers in the NBA etc are hung from the building rafters and I don't think that would work too well in the AFL so although the number might be retired, how would it be done in terms of displaying it for future games etc.

4. When the Champions of Essendon format was raised, 60 players had their names put forward. Imagine if we retired all those numbers. We would have players running around with 100+ numbers on their backs.

5. Purely a personal response...I just don't like the concept in terms of the Bombers...I want someone to wear number 5 next year and for that player to know what an honour has been bestowed upon him.

So there you have it...I hope it answers your question.

tom9779 · Post by **tom9779** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:41 am

dom_105 wrote:Not to mention that another champion of this club also wore the number 5, TD.

What does that say about him, if we retire #5 and deem it "Hirdy's number". Bit of a slap in the face I think.

exactly. numbers should never be retired for this reason.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:19 pm

Thanks for answering swoodley.

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:27 pm

Nash.

Maybe Hocking.

Not Winderlich.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:24 pm

BenDoolan wrote:
Megan wrote:I like what St Kilda did, allow Hirdy to hand it over to someone he likes the look of.
In that case it will be Tommy Hislop.

He made the comment after Sunday's game that Heath Hocking "will be a star, that kid" in a post-match interview. Could be him...

rockhole · Post by **rockhole** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:50 am

I am more inerested in a permanent reminder of Sir James' contribution to Essendon.

I wrote to Peter Jackson requsting that the city side grandstand at the "Dome be named the James Hird Grandstand and he said he would take it up with "Collo at the end of the season.

I intend to keep chasing him to ensure that this request at least gets an airing.