Remove this Banner Ad

Jay Van Berlo

  • Thread starter Thread starter turbo182
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

turbo182

turbo182

All Australian
Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Posts
855
Reaction score
359
Location
Richmond, Vic.
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
SMOSH/Celtics
IF Nathan van Berlo has his way there will be another player of Dutch/New Zealand descent at Adelaide next season.

Jay van Berlo - Nathan's 18-year-old brother - is making AFL recruiting scouts stand up and take notice by starring in consecutive WAFL games for West Perth.

After finally deciding to take his football seriously, surfing fanatic Jay has played five straight games for the Falcons.

The defender/midfielder was best-afield last weekend after being rated as West Perth's second-best player the previous week.

"Jay's been going really well," Nathan, who also hails from the Falcons, said.

"He's decided to take his footy seriously this year and it's really good to see him enjoying it. He's come out and really worked hard on his fitness and hopefully he keeps playing well.

"Whether something happens with Jay at the end of the year - and I'd love to see it - we'll just have to wait and see."

van Berlo, whose parents are Kiwis - his grandparents on his father Garry's side were born in Holland before moving to New Zealand during World War II - said Jay always had displayed talent but only began taking his football seriously after Nathan was drafted to Adelaide with the 24th pick at the 2004 national draft.

"When he was growing up Jay was a pretty cruisy sort of guy and was totally into his surfing. He would go down for a wave before and after school," Nathan said.

"But once I got into the (AFL) system he's come over to see me here, seen exactly what's involved and how an AFL club works and decided it's not too bad.

"He's now got the attitude that he would like to try to play AFL and if he gets in it would be great."

Nathan's other brother, 13-year-old Mitchell, also shows promise as a footballer. "He plays at school and is loving it also, so who knows where he might end up," he said.

A triple van Berlo treat for Adelaide perhaps?

I know this is an old article, but does anyone think we'd be interested in a second VB?

I know I sure would be!

Haven't heard anything since after he played two blinders for West Perth in the WAFL...
 
he wouldn't have to try and over come the shock of moving interstate as he could move straight in with Nathan.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I've seen him play on TV once and he looked promising, but from all reports that was his best game. It was a good game, but I'm not so sure that he's draftable. Does anyone know his D.O.B because if he's born in 1990 then he can't be rookie listed, but from what I understand he is draft eligible this year.
 
Vic Crow said:
I've seen him play on TV once and he looked promising, but from all reports that was his best game. It was a good game, but I'm not so sure that he's draftable. Does anyone know his D.O.B because if he's born in 1990 then he can't be rookie listed, but from what I understand he is draft eligible this year.
Click to expand...

Article says he is 18 so must be an 80's child!!!
 
So let me get this straight, If he is born in 1989 he can be rookie listed, but if he is born in 1990 and is more of a rookie he can't be
 
UL NVR WLK ALN said:
So let me get this straight, If he is born in 1989 he can be rookie listed, but if he is born in 1990 and is more of a rookie he can't be
Click to expand...
You can be drafted if you're born in early 1990 (before May 1) as a bottom aged player, but you can't be rookie listed.

If you're born in 1990 you still have another year of National Championships or TAC Cup footy (if from Victoria) so it's of greater benefit for that players development to stay in the junior system. Additionally most of those bottom aged kids are still in school and they might be moved interstate on a much lower rookie list pay with no guarantee of a second year on the AFL list.

It's a pretty attractive option to be drafted as a bottom ager but being rookie listed as a 17 year old would be detrimental in a lot of cases, so there are rules against it.

If a player is born in 1990 then you can't really say that they're "more of a rookie" because they've still got another year of development in junior football up their belt. In this years draft Palmer is a good example of someone who was overlooked last year as a bottom ager but has spent another year playing junior footy where he killed it at the Champs and has taken that form into the WAFL Seniors. Who knows what would have happened if he went onto a rookie list, which is a marginal shot at best?
 
Vic Crow said:
In this years draft Palmer is a good example of someone who was overlooked last year as a bottom ager but has spent another year playing junior footy where he killed it at the Champs and has taken that form into the WAFL Seniors. Who knows what would have happened if he went onto a rookie list, which is a marginal shot at best?
Click to expand...

Another example of this would be Mathew Pavlich, would have been Rookie listed with the Crows no worries probably, that and I think only 1 bottom age player can be listed each year per club, we took McGregor.

Pavlich wasn't drafted in his first year, yet came back and was #1 draft pick I think a year later.
 
James_37 said:
Another example of this would be Mathew Pavlich, would have been Rookie listed with the Crows no worries probably, that and I think only 1 bottom age player can be listed each year per club, we took McGregor.

Pavlich wasn't drafted in his first year, yet came back and was #1 draft pick I think a year later.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that the rule was a little different back then. I wasn't really following the draft when Pav got drafted but wasn't it sort of like a zone priority selection or something ie. only us and Port could take him?

There is no limit to how many bottom agers you can take. I'm pretty sure all three of Melbourne's picks in 2004 (Bate, Dunn, Newton) were bottom agers.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Vic Crow said:
I'm pretty sure that the rule was a little different back then. I wasn't really following the draft when Pav got drafted but wasn't it sort of like a zone priority selection or something ie. only us and Port could take him?

There is no limit to how many bottom agers you can take. I'm pretty sure all three of Melbourne's picks in 2004 (Bate, Dunn, Newton) were bottom agers.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pretty sure it was a rule that each team could only take 1 17 year old. Ken was ours, everyone skipped Pav. Went #4 next year.
 
Vic Crow said:
I'm pretty sure that the rule was a little different back then. I wasn't really following the draft when Pav got drafted but wasn't it sort of like a zone priority selection or something ie. only us and Port could take him?

There is no limit to how many bottom agers you can take. I'm pretty sure all three of Melbourne's picks in 2004 (Bate, Dunn, Newton) were bottom agers.
Click to expand...
Dont think so- the only limit I was aware of was that only one 17 y/o could be drafted. Everyone got theirs early, so we waited till the end of the draft to get ours. Hence the Pav debate.
 
Rookie him +1

Any other brothers of current players we can get should be rookie'd. All the ones I can think of in the AFL at the moment are immensely successful.
 
Vic Crow said:
I'm pretty sure that the rule was a little different back then. I wasn't really following the draft when Pav got drafted but wasn't it sort of like a zone priority selection or something ie. only us and Port could take him?

There is no limit to how many bottom agers you can take. I'm pretty sure all three of Melbourne's picks in 2004 (Bate, Dunn, Newton) were bottom agers.
Click to expand...
No dude! It was based on a number of 17 year olds clubs could take each draft. Back then a club could only take one 17 year old in a single National Draft.

Pvlich was a 17 year old kid just like the rest of them and he could have been picked up by any of the 16 club. We strongly considered Pavlich. It was a decision between Pavlich and McGregor and what won it in the end was McGregor's willingness to play AFL footy in his first year while Pavlich said that he would be concentrating on year 12 if he was drafted. The rest as they say is history. Pavlich got overlooked by every club that year and went on to become pick 4 in the draft the following year.

Thats why its a bit unfair to bring that decision up every single time Pavlich gets mentioned. At least we considred the kid, unlike 15 other clubs. Sure we ****ed up pretty badly but we fared a lot better with our 17 year old that year than a lot of other club.
 
CarnCrows said:
Dont think so- the only limit I was aware of was that only one 17 y/o could be drafted. Everyone got theirs early, so we waited till the end of the draft to get ours. Hence the Pav debate.
Click to expand...
No worries. I know whenever Port fans give us hell about McGregor we reply with the dud 17 year old they took and I always thought it was just a Port vs. Crows thing. Probably just because he was under both of our noses and both should have known better.

Let's never talk about it ever again.

James_37 said:
Would be more than happy to rookie him, with his brother already here he could quite possibly flourish.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm all for it. The only downer is that the Rookie Draft is about two and a half weeks after the National Draft. Oh, the tension!
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Yeah, but I wouldn't think that'd be a huge problem. I don't think he's really sought after.
 
screw the rookie list make him vice captain to Nathan :D

nar seriously recon he's worth a shot on the rookie list
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom