Andrew Johns denied 77...

Discuss all things Wigan Warriors. Comments and opinions on all aspects of the club's performance are welcome.
User avatar
robjoenz
Posts: 5458
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 5:25 pm

Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by robjoenz »

The RFL have blocked Warrington's attempt to register Andrew Johns as no.77 on the grounds that it isn't a consecutive squad number. I think it said on the SKY commentary the other night that they'd only used 23 players all season.

The Warrington Marketing Manager said he was disappointed and thought it was very imaginative saying they would market him as the player that was so good they named him twice. Hmmm, that's a bit like Boltons marketing for 'Jay-Jay' Okacha and Raul asked for no. 77 when Robinho was looking to take his no. 7 shirt at Real Madrid. Very imaginative!
User avatar
damien morrissey
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:34 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by damien morrissey »

I cant say that his squad number makes much difference to me but trust Warrington to play silly beggars with Johns number.
User avatar
damien morrissey
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:34 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by damien morrissey »

I dont think this makes you a traditionalist Doug i still prefer to see the 1 - 13 used and see players fighting to be in there position ie. Moran fighting to pick up the 7 instesd of it being his automatically even though he is injured.
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by cpwigan »

I'd rather players had 1 to 13 and 14 to 17. I cannot even remember the reasoning behind squad numbers, to help lazy journalists ???? Surely it's very confusing to first time / novice rugby league fans either watching the game live or on television. Uneeded complication, bring back traditional numbers!!
GeoffN
Posts: 12559
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:40 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by GeoffN »

robjoenz posted:
I think it said on the SKY commentary the other night that they'd only used 23 players all season.
Might be interesting to compare all the league positions with the numbers of players used.
cpwigan
Posts: 31247
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by cpwigan »

Having recently introduced a younggster to watching the cherry n white I realised how much of a hinderance squad numbers are. You can no longer say the scrum half wears a shirt with number 7 etc
User avatar
damien morrissey
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:34 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by damien morrissey »

From most of the people i have spoken to away from this forum want to return to the 1 - 13. The marketing people should leave well alone but am many years to late on this topic. I can see why they did it with the cost involved in personalising shirts and the money it generates but come on it is done in Aus why not over here.
Fraggle
Posts: 6020
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by Fraggle »

Doug Stand posted:
Good to know CPWigan and Damien that I'm not alone in my fight for 1-13 numbering scheme...
I'm not sure when it came in this squad number business ... but I suspect the marketing people had something to do with it.
I don't mind it in other sports like football, basketball... Rugby Union don't do it do they? I just think it's ridiculious... Connolly last year had number 33... I just think it's wrong.
But marketing is such a big part of the sport these days, and financially we probably can't survive without it. If the clubs can sell more shirts with names and numbers on then we'll probably be stuck with it. The sport has to compete for people's money, and without the money we have no sport.

Rugby Union still isn't as strong at club level as at a national level, fans seems to identify more with their team than with the individual players (you don't see people with club shirts with Johnny Wilkinson on the back, not that I could tell you which club he plays for!) so it's not really a comparison.
http://fraggle.fotopic.net

"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.

Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
wiganrldeanh
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 7:25 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by wiganrldeanh »

I agree with most of you that having No 1-17 depending on starting positions is better as you can tell who plays what position. But by having the same number all the time, we can easily reconise players from the stands as we are used to the numbers.

Also for example, if dallas was to go full back then im sure he'd have to have a smaller shirt than Radlinski and arent the shitrs taylored? Therefore if a player was to change position, the club would either have to change the number on the players shirt or get them a new one (which both cost money).

Also the merchandising aspect which was mentioned earlier.
User avatar
robjoenz
Posts: 5458
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 5:25 pm

Re: Andrew Johns denied 77...

Post by robjoenz »

That's a good point about marketing Fraggle and a good point about shirt sizes Dean. Personally, I cannot see what is wrong with either using position numbers or squad numbers only that for the above reasons squad numbers makes more sense.

It's fairly easy to identify what position a player is playing in but those sat at the back of the stand may find it easier to identify a certain player by his shirt number. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
Post Reply