2023 Jumper Numbers

[mjp]

I quite like these allocations.

All the best boys.

I echo the 'all the best' sentiment but I don't like the allocations.

I don't think players should be given numbers like '5' and '8' without a little bit of the 'prove it' happening first.

Chris Grant didn't start in '3'.

I would be happy if we set '5' aside for Busslinger, but in the meantime he wears 45.

Of course, if he went well in 45 I would argue he should never change it and become the first 200-game Bulldog to wear 45, but that's an argument for another day.

'5' is a pretty legendary number at the club. I think you should earn it.

[Axe Man]

I echo the 'all the best' sentiment but I don't like the allocations.

I don't think players should be given numbers like '5' and '8' without a little bit of the 'prove it' happening first.

Chris Grant didn't start in '3'.

I would be happy if we set '5' aside for Busslinger, but in the meantime he wears 45.

Of course, if he went well in 45 I would argue he should never change it and become the first 200-game Bulldog to wear 45, but that's an argument for another day.

'5' is a pretty legendary number at the club. I think you should earn it.

I am assuming nobody was interested in moving up to 5 like Weightman did with 3. Would you just leave 5 vacant for a year in that case? It would be quite unusual to leave a single digit number free.

[MrMahatma]

I am assuming nobody was interested in moving up to 5 like Weightman did with 3. Would you just leave 5 vacant for a year in that case? It would be quite unusual to leave a single digit number free.

If they're numbers that are revered, then it shouldn't really matter if they're vacant for a decade. Maybe that then means there's even more pressure when someone takes it on I guess.

Heaven help whoever gets #4 next!

[soupman]

Wouldn't be many better/high profile lockers around than getting one flanked by Marcus Bontempelli and Bailey Smith.

Maybe Lachie Hunters 12 at Melbourne between Gawn and Oliver?

[bornadog]

I echo the 'all the best' sentiment but I don't like the allocations.

I don't think players should be given numbers like '5' and '8' without a little bit of the 'prove it' happening first.

Chris Grant didn't start in '3'.

I would be happy if we set '5' aside for Busslinger, but in the meantime he wears 45.

Of course, if he went well in 45 I would argue he should never change it and become the first 200-game Bulldog to wear 45, but that's an argument for another day.

'5' is a pretty legendary number at the club. I think you should earn it.

Agree, the new recipients of numbers have not been thought out.

Some great names wore the number 5

Peter Featherby
Bruce Reid
Ian Williams
Allen Daniels
Ron R. James
Rohan H. Smith
Matthew Boyd
Josh Dunkley

Similarly number 8 was worn by a few tough guys

Alan Mannix
Ian Morrison
Rick Kennedy
Bernard Toohey
Daniel Southern
Mitch Hahn
Stewart Crameri
Jackson Trengove
Stef Martin

[BornInDroopSt'54]

No-one's mentioned that Cody's namesake - Dale at Richmond, the original Flea - also wore number 3.

Flea overshadowed Royal as top rover in the media but Royal was better.

[GVGjr]

I echo the 'all the best' sentiment but I don't like the allocations.

I don't think players should be given numbers like '5' and '8' without a little bit of the 'prove it' happening first.

Chris Grant didn't start in '3'.

I would be happy if we set '5' aside for Busslinger, but in the meantime he wears 45.

Of course, if he went well in 45 I would argue he should never change it and become the first 200-game Bulldog to wear 45, but that's an argument for another day.

'5' is a pretty legendary number at the club. I think you should earn it.

I get what you are saying and there is merit in it but I'm not a fan of players changing numbers unless it's something like what we did with Cody and our most famous of numbers. In other word, number changes should be kept to a minimum. Any kid who gets his favourite players jumper on his back shouldn't now have someone else on it the following season.
Wally nominated Cody so it makes sense and maybe the new boys should be made to earn it. That seems reasonable to me but I wouldn't have loved Chris Grant anymore or less if he stayed with the number 29.

[1eyedog]

I echo the 'all the best' sentiment but I don't like the allocations.

I don't think players should be given numbers like '5' and '8' without a little bit of the 'prove it' happening first.

Chris Grant didn't start in '3'.

I would be happy if we set '5' aside for Busslinger, but in the meantime he wears 45.

Of course, if he went well in 45 I would argue he should never change it and become the first 200-game Bulldog to wear 45, but that's an argument for another day.

'5' is a pretty legendary number at the club. I think you should earn it.

Honestly stopped caring when Everitt got 3.

[mjp]

Honestly stopped caring when Everitt got 3.

And he hadn't earned it.

I think you are echoing my point.

And without intending any disrespect to Mitch Wallis, he was a good servant but not a 'great' of the club. Why he should be nominating who gets the #3 next is something I don't understand. If #3 stayed vacant I would have been all for it...if #5 stayed vacant I would have been all for that. Draftees in single digit numbers just feels wrong to me and whilst Weightman isn't a draftee I still think ending the curse of #19 was his role in life.

[lemmon]

Honestly stopped caring when Everitt got 3.

I'd love Bont to be in the 3. Best player of our modern era taking up the mantle.

[F'scary]

I saw player # 11 today driving after training. I was driving behind him and he drove like he plays. When we got to the first intersection he did a neat side step to get into the left lane and then continue straight ahead. At the next intersection he turned right and I noticed that like his kicking, he veered to the left a bit and his turn then had a bit of hook about it. At the next intersection, I am pleased to say that he was able to increase his stride to beat the change of the lights and left me in his wake.

[G-Mo77]

It's not just a number. Giving a kid who'll struggle to even get a game number #5 is ridiculous. 5 has some legends attached to it and should be earned not given.

[1eyedog]

I think only the fans think like this.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I think only the fans think like this.

Kind of, but I think there's merit in the implication of earning something rather than just being given it.

AFL players (and draftees) get given a lot - nothing wrong with making them earn something, even if it's just a number. Helps the process of players buying into club history too.

Agree with mjp and the above posts re: care factor after Everitt got 3. Feel we've continued to 'dilute' the significance since, with Wallis in 3/Dunkley in 5 etc. These players are 'good', but far from 'great', which is what 3, 5, 6, 7, 14 etc. deserve.

[Scraggers]

I echo the 'all the best' sentiment but I don't like the allocations.

I don't think players should be given numbers like '5' and '8' without a little bit of the 'prove it' happening first.

Chris Grant didn't start in '3'.

I would be happy if we set '5' aside for Busslinger, but in the meantime he wears 45.

Of course, if he went well in 45 I would argue he should never change it and become the first 200-game Bulldog to wear 45, but that's an argument for another day.

'5' is a pretty legendary number at the club. I think you should earn it.

Agree with all this ... we should be holding numbers that mean so much to the Bulldog faithful