So what’s the deal with the latest World Cup soccer ball? I didn’t even know there was a controversy until I see the Los Angeles Times this morning: The World Cup’s ball of confusion
By Kevin Baxter June 8, 2010 | 10:18 p.m (Reporting from Johannesburg)
Each World Cup has a new soccer ball, and for this World Cup Adidas tried to make a ball that will perform well at any altitude, hot or cold temperature, sunshine or rain. It took 50 people 5 years to develop.
Some players are complaining that the ball is very unpredictable. Adidas says the blame should be directed at South Africa’s thin air. Adidas also says that this is the “most stable, accurate and perfectly round ball ever”. (see the graphic accompanying the article.)
What’s the story here? Is it really a horrible ball? It’s been tested in professional leagues for a while. Has anyone seen one of the balls “in the flesh”?
Apparently there was even controversy over the ball in the 1930 World Cup. They ended up using Argentina’s ball for one half, and Uruguay’s ball for the other. link
Well, I think the biggest problem is the combination of the ball and playing at altitude (Joburg is at over 1700 meters). The thinner air causes balls to go fater anyhow and I’ve also heard people say the Jabulani leaves your boot particularly quickly, sothe combination might cause some problems
I must say that from a cc ouple of friendlies I’ve seen (played in Joburg) that the ball does seem to behave strangely, I at least felt I could see it do ‘unpredictable’ things.
It seems that the controversy this year covers the same points as the last go-round. Adidas is claiming (as they did in 2006) that the new ball is the “roundest ball ever” and that its special grooves make it move faster through the air, while the players claim the ball moves erratically when booted, making it harder to pass and shoot accurately.
I’m new to watching soccer so I don’t really get why the ball has to be so damn round that only a NASA laser array can detect any deviation. I also don’t know why Adidas gets so much control over how to make the ball for such an important event. Money I guess. I can’t imagine Wilson producing a football for the Superbowl with ten stitches and a vinyl finish because their “ball science” says it will perform better.
Btw, in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the buttock-clenchingly awful official unveiling of the new ball. Highlight is Sepp Blatter’s hilarious “joke” towards the end, so good that he milks it for about 20 seconds.
Brief hijack. I won one of the 2006 official balls in a raffle. It’s wonderful, but I had never played with a $135 ball before. That model is also available with pink markings. It turns up occasionally in my women’s league and due to the shapes in the design is known as “the pantyliner ball.”
“most stable, accurate and perfectly round ball ever”.
If addidas was to make a golf ball or tennis ball under those specifications they would certainly not get a better product, either aerodynamically or for the game.
FIFA seems to have determined many years ago that the “best” goals are those scored from long range strikes or free kicks, so anything that allows either a greater curl or a multidirectional flight (curl both ways or curl and dip) is an improvement.
What’s the problem? The ball’s going to be unpredictable for everybody, if the reports are true. It’s the same with the prima donnas who complain about the ground quality of some Premiership teams. They can play in a slutch patch, for all I care.
Frankly, I’ve always found it funny that the footballing authorities are insistent on not having goal line technology, and so forth, because lower league and amateur leagues can’t afford the same technologies, whilst insisting on using balls that cost an arm and a leg to purchase. As far as I know, it’s only football that does this: you can buy a rugby ball from JJB sports for £20 that the professionals use. Scrap all this rubbish about developing new balls, and have them play with something amateur players use.
I’d think that an unpredictable ball will favor more aggressive teams over more defensive minded ones and worse, worse teams over better ones (as the better teams are better at least in part because of their greater ability to control the ball). Since I root for Brasil I guess I should be worried. However, as the players have griped about the ball in every single Cup I’m able to remember, I’m sure everybody is exaggerating a lot and won’t loose any sleep over it.
I’m not seeing a downside to favouring more aggressive styles of football. Last thing we want is a tournament full of Italian-style 11 men behind the ball yawn-fests!
Not at all. Home team supplies the ball, the ref assesses it, fondles it, bounces it, and might ask to increase or decrease the inflation. Occasionally if he/she really doesn’t like the ball, the away team will offer one until the ref is happy.
.jpg){kind=link}
