A good question. We wrapped up the Cup officially here last night, with a look at 2010 and that brewing controversy.
But from here, we're not really sure. The blogs have been a huge success; I have to wait for the p.r. folks, but as I have let slip already, enormous numbers of people joined us here on Fox, and particularly at this blog for which we are all very grateful. Now, usually we'd go back to our normal Wednesday slot and start writing columns again. We also have that small matter of a book to finish up and deliver next month. And, after being away from home since mid-May, we would like to see the inside of our house again.
That said, a case is being made to keep these blogs open and going. So, if Fox decides to do that, we'll keep on going. If not, we'll likely move this forum over to our website, which is (sort of) up at www.jamietrecker.com. Li will actually be administrating that with our partners at Lakonic and within the month, we should be live full-time there as well.
In the meantime, keep checking back here for updates, which we shall try and post daily as time time permits.
On that note: Some of you have sent in suggestions on what topics you'd like to see addressed. Some of them we were able to get to while others (such as: if Munich and Germany was clearing out during the second round; and other topics we'll actually be writing about in our book) we weren't. That noted, keep them coming, and we'll try to get to as many as we can.
Once again, thanks for all your support. I don't think we've ever received several hundred emails thanking us for writing about something, and we're all very flattered and appreciative. We genuinely could not have done it without you. Thank you again for all your support.
Great blog Jamie. Excellent discussions and great analyses. I just wish that Fox Soccer televised the next World Cup instead of the other network. Bret Mussberger doing soccer analysis....God help us all.
I think the blogs are succesful because peopple are passionate about the game, the World cup and they want things right. And the World Cup this year was not right. From the begininng the bad refereeing started frustrating people. And up to the end we watched cheating go unpunished and the frustration with that kept us blogging.
The refs were surely not going to call two trips on Malouda in the box in the final and the Italians knew this and went ahead and tripped him when he got passed them. Itlay as we all know, we're allowed to have De ROssi play in the final. What a nice reward for a malicious unprovoked act in the group stage! And so that's corrupt FIFA for you. They are great with their decisions in governing the game! The FIFA is a money grubbing, corrupt organization with a nucklehead Blatter as president. So yeah, we have to blog because of what we see we need to be heard!
hey Mwhining,
if you don't like what you see, then don't watch it and shut the hell up. The only corruption was giving Zidane the golden ball. I love how everybody calls Italy a bunch of divers when thats how France got their last 2 goals of the cup. I guess we see only what we want to. I'll give you the second take down on Molouda was a foul, but the ref knew he blew the first one so thats why he didn't call it. Get over it, Italy was the better team this year, just be a gracious loser and accept it.
I enjoyed your commentary beginning with your analysis of over four weeks ago of each team in the tournament. You're the reason I ended up watching 38 games. It killed everything else in my life. A pure addiction. Thanks a lot. Lol.
I think a friend had a solution though to one of the many problems plaguing the World Cup from being truly accepted in the Ol' USA. Besides finding some way to satisfy Americans' continuing and hungry desire for "action" by securing a way to score more goals, his idea of having the penalty or shoot-out kick begin from mid-field, instead of from 8 yards out from the net, in order to give the goal keeper some reasonable chance of having a chance in stopping a 110 mph soccer ball, is a good one.
You get the kicker, or striker, to begin his run from say 50 yards away (instead of the usual 8), and then he could begin his classic, skillful dribbling and feinting against a goal keeper who now has the option of charging from his net to at least cut the angle of attack and the angle of the ball once it is struck; and, at optimum, cleanly tackle the "mother" (as the "Boyz n' da Hood" would say here in Brooklyn), and knock the ball away. No easy, pat goal then as it is now with the kicker only 8 yards away from the net.
Starting at midfield would make the shoot-outs and the penalty kicks much more exciting, and it would make it much more meaningful for the American audience anent the talent and the better team. It would also give the goalies a sporting chance. It would probably be one of the most exc
Last edited by Beachsideron on July 12th at 9:49 AM.
As I was saying, it might make it one of the most exciting plays in soccer too---------the anticipation of the dribble, the feinting, and the goalie charge to the ball. Hell, maybe we should make the whole darn game that way!!
Some problems with that idea, though. Do you think there could be a penalty on the penalty kick for fouling, diving and faking injury? Or a second penalty on the second penalty kick on the penalty of the first penalty kick. Maybe that's why FIFA hasn't adopted that solution of doing it from midfield. The penalties would never end. Just a thought. I mean there must be some kind of finality to the whole shebab, shouldn't there? Some form of stare decisis, or res judicata, if you will?
By the way, is it true that the idea of the penalty kick originated in Ireland in the 1890's when brutish bigger guys (defensive enforcers) were taking too much advantage of the much smaller, more skillful players?
MY SOLUTIONS:
1)THE ROMAN WAY
Go back to the Roman glory days. Give each player the option of carrying either the "Long" sword (England, Scotland, Ireland and Germany's probable choice), or the "Short" sword (Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, and Portugal's likely weapon of decision).
Now you're talkin' action, and plenty of goals too. Trust me, there would be no cheap "kickin' in-the-groin or thigh" fouls anymore, nor any head butts either. But there would be a whole lot of respect on the pitch.
2)THE MAYAN WAY
The Mayans had a different solution for their brand of football 1500 years ago. Besides using
Besides using a decapitated enemy head in a wrapped cloth (delicately designed by the distaff side of the particular Mayan villages, by the way), the winning side received the very enviable award of being immediately sacrificed to the gods atop one of those very large, stepped towers the archeologists are always uncovering in the Central American jungle and in the Yucatan. Nothing like real encouragement to head butt someone of the opposing side just to secure the victory.
Do you think the phrase "pyrrhic victory" had some of its derivation from those Mayan contests? Just a thought.
Anyway, different mountain top, different god. But a solution!!!
Yes, Henry did exagerate a foul. I don't like that either.
But in the final the penalty call was right. It was a foul. The second foul was not called. Materrazzi held down Viera on Italy's goal. That goal should have been called back. The offsides on Italy was truly offsides. Before the kick there were three Italian player offsides moving for the ball as it was kicked. That's the rule. Good call.
I am the senior soccer writer here at Fox Sports as well a regular contributor to many, many newspapers and magazines.
If you like what I write, then please buy my book "Love And Blood" from Harcourt, now available.
Sign up for Jamie Trecker's Rather Unobtrusive Mailing List by sending us an email at jamie.trecker @gmail.com,
This blog's rules: You may attack people's ideas, but you may not attack them personally. Violators will have their comments deleted and be banned from posting on this blog.
