Aussie rules considers names on guernseys

[number55]

When you're talking about the original founding members of the VFL/AFL I think it is relevant, as are a certain club's "Team of the Century", but if it was done by one of the newer expansion teams then it would be a waste of time.

The Bears have an important place in the history of the development of the VFL/AFL in QLD and Fitzroy had a long history and still have a lot of die-hard support in Melbourne, so I think the "succession number" is a worthwhile thing for the Lions to run with.

[Alphabet Man]

Also of note, the Lions have petitioned the AFL to allow them to put player's "number of debut" on the front of their jerseys in the same vein as the Australian Cricket team has on the baggy green. Alistair Lynch would wear #1, Voss would wear #2 etc etc. Lynch gets #1 because he played more games for Fitzroy than Voss played for Brisbane Bears before the merger. If the AFL agrees the number will be embroidered just below the v neck on the front of the jersey.</font>

Melbourne did that on the back collar for the heritage round in 2003

[plattopus]

It's a great idea for the most recently formed clubs... but the foundation clubs wouldn't be able to provide everyone in their side with an accurate number. Records from the early 1900s have a few holes in them... I remember when they launched the book with the names of every player ever to play VFL/AFL football, the co-author said that you can never be 100% sure that you're accounted for everyone. So if they miss one person from back in 1897, it's stuffed up every single number after it.

But for clubs that know for certain who has played for their club since its inception (plus Brisbane since the merger) it would be a great idea.

But that aside... about the possibility of expansion/relocation and which cities are next in line for clubs... Tassie doesn't have a big enough population to support an AFL club. They get OK crowds to York Park whenever games are played there, but not up to average AFL standards. If they were to introduce a team to the state, it would be inherantly disadvantaged a la the Bulldogs and Kangaroos with traditionally small followings. A little more development is needed before they even consider a Tasmanian AFL side.

And if they introduced a second Sydney club in the next few years it could completely destroy all the work of the Swans over the past decade. Sydney barely break even being the only team in Australia's biggest city, so if you split them up over two teams, both would eventually fail. It almost happened with Freo and West Coast, and WA is 100x the football state NSW is.

I personally think that the Kangaroos will be the next team to relocate, and they'll move full-time to Canberra. That'll stop the AFL from introducing a second Sydney team, which will help the Swans, and the Kangaroos will have a much larger population base from which they can get supporters. They're not surviving in a 10-team city, so Canberra might be their best option.

I also think that a team from the Northern Territory will eventually make its way into the competition... maybe at the expense of the Bulldogs.

[rmered]

It's a great idea for the most recently formed clubs... but the foundation clubs wouldn't be able to provide everyone in their side with an accurate number. Records from the early 1900s have a few holes in them... I remember when they launched the book with the names of every player ever to play VFL/AFL football, the co-author said that you can never be 100% sure that you're accounted for everyone. So if they miss one person from back in 1897, it's stuffed up every single number after it.

Not neccessarily so, Essendon kept extensive records of who played each week.

I have the player numbers in order of appearance from 1897 if you'd like.

Their records go back to the 1880's actually.

But I can't say the same for every club.

[plattopus]

That's exactly my point... you can't be sure that every club knows their complete history. So Essendon might be able to do it, but a lot of other clubs might not.

And also... how would the Bombers know if there was a mistake in their records? It could happen... it was decades ago, and there's no way of confirming the accuracy of player details.

It's a bit risky for foundation clubs... that's all I'm saying. At least the non-Victorian clubs are absolutely 100% certain of who has been on their list since their inception.

[rmered]

That's exactly my point... you can't be sure that every club knows their complete history. So Essendon might be able to do it, but a lot of other clubs might not.

And also... how would the Bombers know if there was a mistake in their records? It could happen... it was decades ago, and there's no way of confirming the accuracy of player details.

It's a bit risky for foundation clubs... that's all I'm saying. At least the non-Victorian clubs are absolutely 100% certain of who has been on their list since their inception.

I guess there's always the thought that history is made by those who record it, not those who make it.

However, why is it that recent records are regarded as being better than older records?

I'm not saying just in this example, but generally.

Plus, there have been books kept from before 1897 on every game, and the Encyclopedia of AFL Players is not only an excellent resource, it is very accurate as well.

It was based on records kept by a man who wrote in exercise books, every team from every game. Noone who knows the story of him doubts the accuracy of his records.

Numbering the players shouldn't be all that hard.

(Unless you're Test Cricketer Micheal Slater.)

[plattopus]

Why are recent records better than old records?

1. Most of the people in charge of interstate clubs (not to mention people of the general public) were alive when these clubs came into existence... hence they can actually remember first hand if the data is accurate or not.

2. We have TV footage of every game, so we can physically see each player out on the field.

3. There are dozens of bodies keeping statistics on the game nowadays... back in the 1800s, there was some guy writing in excercise books (not knocking him... but he's no Champion Data).

4. Records from the early years could have been lost or damaged in the hundred years that have passed since their writing.

I'm not saying that noone should do it because there's a 1% chance that they've missed someone... I'm just saying that some clubs would probably think it's such a small part of the uniform that it's not worth the effort of crawling through records to count everyone.

[Alphabet Man]

That's exactly my point... you can't be sure that every club knows their complete history. So Essendon might be able to do it, but a lot of other clubs might not.

And also... how would the Bombers know if there was a mistake in their records? It could happen... it was decades ago, and there's no way of confirming the accuracy of player details.

It's a bit risky for foundation clubs... that's all I'm saying. At least the non-Victorian clubs are absolutely 100% certain of who has been on their list since their inception.

St Kilda has played 1501 players over its 113 or so history in the AFL (130yrs since it was foudned)

Raphael Clarke was number 1500 and Nick Stone is number 1501 and St Kilda's got all players in number order and when there are multiple debutats at the same game they allocate it in number order

[Alphabet Man]

Their records go back to the 1880's actually.

why not since 1872? when yous were started