Talking Footy

Just watching the news tonight and I saw Shane Warne pass down "his" Number 23 to Michael Clarke in a planned ceremony in front of cameras. Clarke was humble in accepting his number and promised to live up to the competitive ideals as followed by Warne in his time in the team number.

I must admit to being slighty bemused by the whole affair.

Since when have players "owned" numbers in cricket. Clearly, it has it's origins in football, but is this the way we want cricket to go. To me, it seems like a bit of a wank and smacks of egocentric behaviour and attitude.

23 is just what it appears to be - a number between 0 and 100.

crocodileman wrote:

To me, it seems like a bit of a wank and smacks of egocentric behaviour and attitude.

I wasn't aware that this had taken place, but that sums the whole situation up exactly IMHO.

What a surprise that Warney was involved in such an "event".

And why couldn't Clarkey just take No. 22 or 24 and be done with it

Clearly, there's a sense of symbolism attached - at least to Cricket Australia. Possibly, the marketing arm of CA sees Clarke as the "next big thing" and someone the cricketing public would love to watch.

Let's just hope that the number 23 doesn't jinx Clarke!

crocodileman wrote:

Clearly, there's a sense of symbolism attached - at least to Cricket Australia. Possibly, the marketing arm of CA sees Clarke as the "next big thing" and someone the cricketing public would love to watch.

Let's just hope that the number 23 doesn't jinx Clarke!

True I suppose, in reference to the marketing side of things.

But when you think about, the numbers used in Cricket, IMO anyway, don't really have that sense of, I dunno, awe or symbolism about them that they do in football or other sports. Maybe they do for some people, but to me they dont really. Maybe Cricket could be heading in that direction, as you mentioned before.

Wonder if Clarke will do the same when he moves on from the game?

I'm wondering if an international cricketer has been brave (or silly) enoughh to take on number 69?

crocodileman wrote:

I'm wondering if an international cricketer has been brave (or silly) enoughh to take on number 69?

I'm not entirely certain, but from memory I believe a certain player does/did wear the No. 69.

In addition, I believe it was one of the Pakistanis

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

crocodileman wrote:

I'm wondering if an international cricketer has been brave (or silly) enoughh to take on number 69?

I'm not entirely certain, but from memory I believe a certain player does/did wear the No. 69.

In addition, I believe it was one of the Pakistanis

He probably won it gambling on the outcome of one of their games!

crocodileman wrote:

Dizzys_on_fire wrote:

crocodileman wrote:

I'm wondering if an international cricketer has been brave (or silly) enoughh to take on number 69?

I'm not entirely certain, but from memory I believe a certain player does/did wear the No. 69.

In addition, I believe it was one of the Pakistanis

He probably won it gambling on the outcome of one of their games!

Wasn't there also a South African who wore 69?

Warne's 23 was in relation to his sponsorship at the time by Nike, and as with everyone else here, I don't know why Clarke needed to be given this specific one - surely we haven't used all 100 numbers yet.

Will anyone remember that 23 belonged to Warney in 100 years time? His name may be recalled for ever but perhaps not his number...