Author Topic: Wim Rijsbergen 1-on-1 with Andre Baptiste live now !!! (Read 6424 times)

Trini _2026 · « **on:** September 23, 2006, 04:24:06 PM »

i9.95 Andre is going to challenge him on his comments about the pro league and SSFL

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 23, 2006, 04:41:20 PM »

Points

mexico would not play us if did not put out our the best team

he saw clubs training and they don't have enough balls and a goal post with no net etcetc

they train the under 20 and share the field with W Connection

when the under 20 they train and it rains the field turn muddy like a pool

we need an artificial turf

coaches need to try to improve themselves and the players will improve and it's impossible to be a coach in holland and germany with out a license

he say we need a coaching center for everything and holland had one since he was 12..

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 23, 2006, 04:51:08 PM »

He and leo say they took the job because they believe we can qualify. they viewed the tapes an saw we need to be orgainzed in our defese and midfield

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

the secondary schools dont develop players they just play them and they just want to be champs. But at national level the object of a coach its just develop youth players and not to win games .

Small Magician aka Wazza · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2006, 04:52:43 PM »

Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 04:41:20 PM

Points

mexico would not if we would not if we did not put on our the best teams

he saw clubs training and they don't have enough balls and a goal post

they train the under 20 they have to share the field with W Connection

with the under 20 when they train and it rains the field turn muddy and like a pool

we need an artificial turf

coaches need to try to improve themselves and the players will improve and it's impossible to be a coach in holland and germany with out a license

he say we need a coaching center for everything and he says holland had one since he was 12..

i like dat

Jah Gol · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:01:37 PM »

He's making a lot of sense.

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:03:30 PM »

Andre mentioned people say why wim . them wim replied why did they need them to come in the first place..

Jah Gol · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:05:18 PM »

Andre asked a question about the persistence with Stern.Whim replied " How many guys are knocking at the door ?"

This is the same way I feel.

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:14:49 PM »

he wim has nothing against nahkid .......... he gave a piece of his mind on how he should treat people ........... and he wished nahkid the best

talk done whayuhsay

jai john · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM »

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....

Jah Gol · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:18:32 PM »

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....

Indefensible ? Why ?

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:19:18 PM »

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....

why becuase it is latapy and he should play even though it aint it in the team best interest

triniairman · « **Reply #11 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:33:29 PM »

I hope this eh one of them post where the people who was saying Beenie this and that for not playing Latapy jump on the bandwagon because they hearing a Professional give the real reason why he was not played more.I LOOKING OUT FOR ALLURE

Carib-Briton · « **Reply #12 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:35:41 PM »

Sounds like I missed a good talk show.

jai john · « **Reply #13 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:38:57 PM »

Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 05:19:18 PM

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM
he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....

why becuase it is latapy and he should play even though it aint it in the team best interest

If i tell you that you should take off your nose and have two more eyes you would probably tell me .... I would probably see better but how would i smell ?
I tell you why it is indefensible .... because latapy has in the past and still demonstrates that he knows what to do when he gets the ball.
all of a sudden someone says he cant play beacuse he cant chase the ball..that assomes if he does play as soon as you gave it to him he loses it and the team has to do it all again... well the team didnt use him in the first two games and what was the advantage ?
Go and look...and I am tired repeating this ....and see how many times he found Dwight and dwight found him in the 24 mins played against paraguay...a team that just gave away an own goal in the last minute against england.
How many times did latapy give the ball away or not use it effectively...how many times he offered himself to Wise as an option and was refused ...how many times he received the ball and cut through the paraguay defense...how stern now looked happy...how dwight was able to chance coming foward knowing the ball would not be lost...
How everone who you talk to after the world cup was asking why the no. 10 wasnot used more

How people like you could be so easily convinced to not believe what you still contnue to see..
I hope you dont see this as a personal attack it is not meant to be but i feel very strongly on the matter and am willing to put the latapy issue behind me . but that does not mean I agree with what is being said in siome quarters.

Jah Gol · « **Reply #14 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:45:36 PM »

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:38:57 PM

Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 05:19:18 PM
Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM
he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....

why becuase it is latapy and he should play even though it aint it in the team best interest

If i tell you that you should take off your nose and have two more eyes you would probably tell me .... I would probably see better but how would i smell ?
I tell you why it is indefensible .... because latapy has in the past and still demonstrates that he knows what to do when he gets the ball.
all of a sudden someone says he cant play beacuse he cant chase the ball..that assomes if he does play as soon as you gave it to him he loses it and the team has to do it all again... well the team didnt use him in the first two games and what was the advantage ?
Go and look...and I am tired repeating this ....and see how many times he found Dwight and dwight found him in the 24 mins played against paraguay...a team that just gave away an own goal in the last minute against england.
How many times did latapy give the ball away or not use it effectively...how many times he offered himself to Wise as an option and was refused ...how many times he received the ball and cut through the paraguay defense...how stern now looked happy...how dwight was able to chance coming foward knowing the ball would not be lost...
How everone who you talk to after the world cup was asking why the no. 10 wasnot used more
How people like you could be so easily convinced to not believe what you still contnue to see..
I hope you dont see this as a personal attack it is not meant to be but i feel very strongly on the matter and am willing to put the latapy issue behind me . but that does not mean I agree with what is being said in siome quarters.

You failed to note that Latapy was brought on in the second half after Paraguay had the lead and were looking to protect.That portion of the game was the least intense in all 3 games we played.

Tongue · « **Reply #15 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:45:45 PM »

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:38:57 PM

Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 05:19:18 PM
Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM
he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....

why becuase it is latapy and he should play even though it aint it in the team best interest

If i tell you that you should take off your nose and have two more eyes you would probably tell me .... I would probably see better but how would i smell ?
I tell you why it is indefensible .... because latapy has in the past and still demonstrates that he knows what to do when he gets the ball.
all of a sudden someone says he cant play beacuse he cant chase the ball..that assomes if he does play as soon as you gave it to him he loses it and the team has to do it all again... well the team didnt use him in the first two games and what was the advantage ?
Go and look...and I am tired repeating this ....and see how many times he found Dwight and dwight found him in the 24 mins played against paraguay...a team that just gave away an own goal in the last minute against england.
How many times did latapy give the ball away or not use it effectively...how many times he offered himself to Wise as an option and was refused ...how many times he received the ball and cut through the paraguay defense...how stern now looked happy...how dwight was able to chance coming foward knowing the ball would not be lost...
How everone who you talk to after the world cup was asking why the no. 10 wasnot used more ???
How people like you could be so easily convinced to not believe what you still contnue to see..
I hope you dont see this as a personal attack it is not meant to be but i feel very strongly on the matter and am willing to put the latapy issue behind me . but that does not mean I agree with what is being said in siome quarters.

everybody I talk to did not disagree with how Latas was used boss.

jai john · « **Reply #16 on:** September 23, 2006, 05:54:42 PM »

Quote

You failed to note that Latapy was brought on in the second half after Paraguay had the lead and were looking to protect.That portion of the game was the least intense in all 3 games we played.

Quote

That is not the paraguay team I saw in the WC ..trying to protect ?? and from when ...before latapy came on or after ..... or I suppose they just stepped off the gas which is why latapy was able to see so much of the ball...and both teams were tired so he looked good right ?
bennie said so ...or was it wim..... in any case if they said it it must be true !

Jah Gol · « **Reply #17 on:** September 23, 2006, 06:32:32 PM »

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:54:42 PM

Quote
You failed to note that Latapy was brought on in the second half after Paraguay had the lead and were looking to protect.That portion of the game was the least intense in all 3 games we played.
Quote

That is not the paraguay team I saw in the WC ..trying to protect ?? and from when ...before latapy came on or after ..... or I suppose they just stepped off the gas which is why latapy was able to see so much of the ball...and both teams were tired so he looked good right ?
bennie said so ...or was it wim..... in any case if they said it it must be true !

It has nothing to do with what I heard. Those were my observations.

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 23, 2006, 06:52:12 PM »

^{I tell you why it is indefensible .... because latapy has in the past and still demonstrates that he knows what to do when he gets the ball.

all of a sudden someone says he cant play beacuse he cant chase the ball}

who is doubting that the question is how many times would he have had the ball

Yuh really think he would ah light up england and sweden eh
Any you being a latapy fan should know that he had been marked out of games by lesser opponents

^{Go and look...and I am tired repeating this ....and see how many times he found Dwight and dwight found him in the 24 mins played against paraguay...a team that just gave away an own goal in the last minute against england.}

Wow and what does that say?
England scored early in the game against paraguay

^{how dwight was able to chance coming foward knowing the ball would not be lost}

Well he had no choice not to come foward in that game ent plus he was going foward when latapy was not on

dcs · « **Reply #19 on:** September 23, 2006, 08:00:08 PM »

I vex I miss this.

So wait...Andre "the Fearless One" Baptiste didn't have Wim on the ropes?

Wim wasn't at a lorse for words with Andre's constant onslaught of pressing questions and observations?

Wim nose not bloody after this interview.....Andre didn't show him up to be a fraud?

Did Andre openly disagree with anything...and what in particular.

Or did Wim answer the questions easily while trying to stay awake

palos · « **Reply #20 on:** September 23, 2006, 09:38:39 PM »

Quote from: dcs on September 23, 2006, 08:00:08 PM

I vex I miss this.

So wait...Andre "the Fearless One" Baptiste didn't have Wim on the ropes?

Wim wasn't at a lorse for words with Andre's constant onslaught of pressing questions and observations?

Wim nose not bloody after this interview.....Andre didn't show him up to be a fraud?

Did Andre openly disagree with anything...and what in particular.

Or did Wim answer the questions easily while trying to stay awake

Andre surprisingly to me wasn't obnoxious. He did ask some pointed questions...especially early on in the interview, example....what the pro league needs to improve etc but Wim, while no way close to Beenhakker in terms of being articulate, I guess won him over by the forthrightness of his answers.

Andre did ask about the Nakhid incident and Wim answered it very directly. No animosity on either side which was good to hear as I must admit, I figured Andre would have gone overboard with that issue, especially as he and Nakhid is padnah and what he Andre Baptiste had previosuly said on the topic.

nearing the end of the interview, Andre was makin joke wit de man and Wim displayed a sharp but dry sense of humor. Example....Andre was givin some men from I95 fatigue sayin dey way out of shape to play dis football match dey supposed to play and if Wim had any suggestions for them. Wiythout missing a beat, Wim say play on a smaller field. Dat was quite funny.

This was by far the best interview I have heard Andre Baptiste give. Not so much that it was a great interview or anything, but just for me, I have come to expect a setta noise from de fella and in this interview, he asked good questions and was quite civil doing so.

Just my opinion.

By the way...thanx to Triniman for providin de heads up about the interview. I would have missed it otherwise. Triniman gave a good synopsis of what went on as well.

Respeck Triniman.

truetrini · « **Reply #21 on:** September 23, 2006, 09:49:39 PM »

triniman is de most improved poster on de forum....!

He come to terms wth he canuckness and he chill with dat!

TrinInfinite · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2006, 10:55:59 PM »

Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 04:51:08 PM

He and leo say they took the job because they believe we can qualify. they viewed the tapes an saw we need to be orgainzed in our defese and midfield

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

the secondary schools dont develop players they just play them and they just want to be champs. But at national level the object of a coach its just develop youth players and not to win games .

agreed we did need the fittest guys 2 play, but introducing latas for 20mins or 15 mins wouldnt have killed us, we lost 2-0 in the ending, at least if latas came on and we lost 2-0, we still would have created opportunities to score... honestly it still hurts my heart tuh see latas not play, hopefully one day we have a local coach who can see the ability of our players and put it 2gether on the field, instead of foreign coaches, SH may be the man in time, hopefully, but for now locals arent ready and intl coaches rule....

whayuhsay · « **Reply #23 on:** September 24, 2006, 01:57:54 AM »

Allyuh fellas still defending the decision to bench Latapy?

I done, I realize debate on this issue or questioning Beenie on this forum is an invitation for a cussout, and if yuh pelt stone back, yuh getting a warning.

Quote from: Jah Gol on September 23, 2006, 05:18:32 PM

Quote from: jai john on September 23, 2006, 05:16:16 PM
he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

Scuse me please ...and when we got the ball ??
.... what happened was that we quickly gave it back and had to chase it again .... no Wim ...leave the latapy issue alone ...it is indefensible..
tell us about the way foward ....
Indefensible ? Why ?

che · « **Reply #24 on:** September 24, 2006, 07:16:49 AM »

Most of what Wim said made sense. But I believe benching Latas was a mistake. He should have been used in the last 30 min of each game.

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 24, 2006, 07:54:49 AM »

Quote from: TrinInfinite on September 23, 2006, 10:55:59 PM

Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 04:51:08 PM
He and leo say they took the job because they believe we can qualify. they viewed the tapes an saw we need to be orgainzed in our defese and midfield

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

the secondary schools dont develop players they just play them and they just want to be champs. But at national level the object of a coach its just develop youth players and not to win games .

agreed we did need the fittest guys 2 play, but introducing latas for 20mins or 15 mins wouldnt have killed us, we lost 2-0 in the ending, at least if latas came on and we lost 2-0, we still would have created opportunities to score... honestly it still hurts my heart tuh see latas not play, hopefully one day we have a local coach who can see the ability of our players and put it 2gether on the field, instead of foreign coaches, SH may be the man in time, hopefully, but for now locals arent ready and intl coaches rule....

that wha wrong with you all latapy muss play he must not get bench a whole game . They are only human and they didwhat they thought was best fuh the team ... So it eh hurt yuh heart that jason scotland eh play also?

TrinInfinite · « **Reply #26 on:** September 24, 2006, 09:32:48 AM »

Quote from: triniman on September 24, 2006, 07:54:49 AM

Quote from: TrinInfinite on September 23, 2006, 10:55:59 PM
Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 04:51:08 PM
He and leo say they took the job because they believe we can qualify. they viewed the tapes an saw we need to be orgainzed in our defese and midfield

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

the secondary schools dont develop players they just play them and they just want to be champs. But at national level the object of a coach its just develop youth players and not to win games .

agreed we did need the fittest guys 2 play, but introducing latas for 20mins or 15 mins wouldnt have killed us, we lost 2-0 in the ending, at least if latas came on and we lost 2-0, we still would have created opportunities to score... honestly it still hurts my heart tuh see latas not play, hopefully one day we have a local coach who can see the ability of our players and put it 2gether on the field, instead of foreign coaches, SH may be the man in time, hopefully, but for now locals arent ready and intl coaches rule....

that wha wrong with you all latapy muss play he must not get bench a whole game . They are only human and they didwhat they thought was best fuh the team ... So it eh hurt yuh heart that jason scotland eh play also?

yea it did, scotland should have played, johns extended run was bullshit and wim made an idiotic statement by saying who else we have, thats bullshit, so right there i dont agree with him on that neither, scotland should have gotten a run regardless...

Trini _2026 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:18:34 AM »

Quote from: TrinInfinite on September 24, 2006, 09:32:48 AM

Quote from: triniman on September 24, 2006, 07:54:49 AM
Quote from: TrinInfinite on September 23, 2006, 10:55:59 PM
Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 04:51:08 PM
He and leo say they took the job because they believe we can qualify. they viewed the tapes an saw we need to be orgainzed in our defese and midfield

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

the secondary schools dont develop players they just play them and they just want to be champs. But at national level the object of a coach its just develop youth players and not to win games .

agreed we did need the fittest guys 2 play, but introducing latas for 20mins or 15 mins wouldnt have killed us, we lost 2-0 in the ending, at least if latas came on and we lost 2-0, we still would have created opportunities to score... honestly it still hurts my heart tuh see latas not play, hopefully one day we have a local coach who can see the ability of our players and put it 2gether on the field, instead of foreign coaches, SH may be the man in time, hopefully, but for now locals arent ready and intl coaches rule....

that wha wrong with you all latapy muss play he must not get bench a whole game . They are only human and they didwhat they thought was best fuh the team ... So it eh hurt yuh heart that jason scotland eh play also?

yea it did, scotland should have played, johns extended run was bullshit and wim made an idiotic statement by saying who else we have, thats bullshit, so right there i dont agree with him on that neither, scotland should have gotten a run regardless...

idiotic statement? But who else is there to challenge stern john for that starting spot in the wc? zamora was not elligible? you would bench yuh best striker? well yes thats why they are the coaches and we are not .... everybody is coach now

TrinInfinite · « **Reply #28 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:34:16 AM »

Quote from: triniman on September 24, 2006, 10:18:34 AM

Quote from: TrinInfinite on September 24, 2006, 09:32:48 AM
Quote from: triniman on September 24, 2006, 07:54:49 AM
Quote from: TrinInfinite on September 23, 2006, 10:55:59 PM
Quote from: triniman on September 23, 2006, 04:51:08 PM
He and leo say they took the job because they believe we can qualify. they viewed the tapes an saw we need to be orgainzed in our defese and midfield

he said we were not strong enough to go foward and put pressure against England AND Sweden. He said we need the fittest guys to play if we have the ball alot its good for russell to play...but if we had to run and fight for the ball against england and sweden its not wise for russell to play becuase we needed player to run for the ball and chase it etcetcetc we needed the fittest

the secondary schools dont develop players they just play them and they just want to be champs. But at national level the object of a coach its just develop youth players and not to win games .

agreed we did need the fittest guys 2 play, but introducing latas for 20mins or 15 mins wouldnt have killed us, we lost 2-0 in the ending, at least if latas came on and we lost 2-0, we still would have created opportunities to score... honestly it still hurts my heart tuh see latas not play, hopefully one day we have a local coach who can see the ability of our players and put it 2gether on the field, instead of foreign coaches, SH may be the man in time, hopefully, but for now locals arent ready and intl coaches rule....

that wha wrong with you all latapy muss play he must not get bench a whole game . They are only human and they didwhat they thought was best fuh the team ... So it eh hurt yuh heart that jason scotland eh play also?

yea it did, scotland should have played, johns extended run was bullshit and wim made an idiotic statement by saying who else we have, thats bullshit, so right there i dont agree with him on that neither, scotland should have gotten a run regardless...

idiotic statement? But who else is there to challenge stern john for that starting spot in the wc? zamora was not elligible? you would bench yuh best striker? well yes thats why they are the coaches and we are not .... everybody is coach now

schupsss, yuh missin de point, playing another striker wouldnt have killed us bc stern at times did not do anything, i was there, i saw it live bredda, i not trying to a b a coach but im also not a conformist, i make statements bout tings i see and observe, i wont juss sit here and be docile and agree with everything de whip says bc some of it is real shit, if your main striker is not striking at least try another striker, so whip and dem have no guile if dey didnt?

che · « **Reply #29 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:50:40 AM »

TI, you biting hard today boy.

Author Topic: Wim Rijsbergen 1-on-1 with Andre Baptiste live now !!! (Read 6424 times)

truetrini

TrinInfinite

TrinInfinite

TrinInfinite