Jabulani

[Majiball]

You should publish your findings Phil. I'm sure the sports scientists at Loughborough University who designed the ball will be delighted to read your report.

I'll arrange for them to be published, one up man ship and all that.

Publish findings, Universities designing balls!!!

Pardon? Who do you think tests most of the guff you all wear for football? No one moaned about the 2008 ball or the 2006 one, they know their stuff.

"sports scientists at Loughborough University".

Obviously the finest brains there then!

They've royally screwed up, virtually every player agrees...the only ones I've heard defending it are sponsored by Adidas.

Look at Lampard's free kick that hit the bar yesterday, he had to strike it with such a weird technique; he hardly puts much power into it.

Funnily enough they are rated No.1. in the country for sports science. But alas thats what happens if you go to sports science univeristy, should have come to the worlds leading football science research centre!! Can't get them all right.

Sounds like the ball didn't go where you intended it to!

LOL.

[philipl]

I have a high regard for academics and research-based innovation but nobody is flawless.

That said, there are plenty of examples where highly designed academically referenced concepts should never have seen the other side of a university lab wall. Academics like te rest of us can get too close to the subject and lose all sense of objectivity.

Either football coaching is regressing worldwide at an alarming rate or that ball is crap. You cannot have it both ways maji- just look at the evidence of your own eyes.

[Majiball]

I have a high regard for academics and research-based innovation but nobody is flawless.

That said, there are plenty of examples where highly designed academically referenced concepts should never have seen the other side of a university lab wall. Academics like te rest of us can get too close to the subject and lose all sense of objectivity.

Either football coaching is regressing worldwide at an alarming rate or that ball is crap. You cannot have it both ways maji- just look at the evidence of your own eyes.

I never said it was a good ball, but if your going to give me choice then I'll blame the coaches.

Loughbourgh was used in the main for testing and the such, whilst they had input it in the main was adidas. The ball's not great I've played a few times with it already and swerve is very different to a normal ball, yes it should have had more testing time without doubt. Its flight stability is unpredictable, but there's only so much you can do when you can't test it with the guys who will use it. You are forced to use low level footballers or students and its not the same. It was offered out to all and sundry and as always they don't want to help. I've said mistakes can be made and in this one they have but loughbourgh are a top top university in this field and if there where better relations and aid between the likes of us and them, and football clubs/FA better results could be obtained.

You'll notice the Germans aren't complaining about it and they've been using it for 6 months, Every club in England could have had this ball and the national team, they said no. England could have had a serious advantage this tournement.

The blame doesn't just fall at the feet of loughbourgh.

[Kelbo]

I never said it was a good ball, but if your going to give me choice then I'll blame the coaches.

Loughbourgh was used in the main for testing and the such, whilst they had input it in the main was adidas. The ball's not great I've played a few times with it already and swerve is very different to a normal ball, yes it should have had more testing time without doubt. Its flight stability is unpredictable, but there's only so much you can do when you can't test it with the guys who will use it. You are forced to use low level footballers or students and its not the same. It was offered out to all and sundry and as always they don't want to help. I've said mistakes can be made and in this one they have but loughbourgh are a top top university in this field and if there where better relations and aid between the likes of us and them, and football clubs/FA better results could be obtained.

You'll notice the Germans aren't complaining about it and they've been using it for 6 months, Every club in England could have had this ball and the national team, they said no. England could have had a serious advantage this tournement.

The blame doesn't just fall at the feet of loughbourgh.

A University testing a football which appears in the final of a major competition is to me unacceptable, these balls should have been used by each nation for at least 12 months before use in a major finals, I am not advocating Unis shouldnt test the football, simply that their testings alone shouldnt be the OK to use the ball in the World cup finals.

[cn174]

A University testing a football which appears in the final of a major competition is to me unacceptable, these balls should have been used by each nation for at least 12 months before use in a major finals, I am not advocating Unis shouldnt test the football, simply that their testings alone shouldnt be the OK to use the ball in the World cup finals.

All nations were given the option to start using the balls 6 months before the tournament. England chose not to due to having Nike balls in the PL and Umbro balls for England.

[philipl]

There have been times when even the Germans have been made to look like rank amateurs when it comes to crossing, trapping and shooting.

If it were a half-decent ball, surely somebody by now would have said "actually, I like it."

[Majiball]

A University testing a football which appears in the final of a major competition is to me unacceptable, these balls should have been used by each nation for at least 12 months before use in a major finals, I am not advocating Unis shouldnt test the football, simply that their testings alone shouldnt be the OK to use the ball in the World cup finals.

Who should test it then? Football teams, please see cn174's post.

We have all the equipment and the "experts" in these fields. But if all you have to use is say a university level footballer? How can you get accurate results? Technique won't be good enough, maximal strength won't be good enough and so on. Universities do not make the decisions, they collect the data may make recommendation's and that is then sent to the scientists employed at the company involved, who make the decisions. Adidas will have had set criteria, FIFA as well for the ball all of their scientists must have been happy with them otherwise it wouldn't have been used?

I agree it shouldn't be the be all and end all but when no-one of appropriate level is willing or wants to help what do you do? Please remember, mate that the players that will have been used will play about the same level as your first team, would you if given the choice use your team to test this ball? Or would you use elite level players? If you had no choice what would you do.

If england and the rest had taken it on when asked, then the ball could have been made better. Its a brand new design, less effected by wind and the such its just not quite right. People say its too light it cuts through the air much better than any football ever produced, has less drag. it won't swerve like a normal football because of this. But it will travel faster and once a better balance is struck between the two it will be a great ball.

Blaming Loughbourgh is akin to blaming Capello solely for Englands defeat at the world cup and thats just wrong. For me its highly unfair to lay the blame at Loughbourgh's feet as adidas had set requirements for the ball as well as FIFA and if those were not meet or they weren't happy? would it have been used???

I'd like to highlight other examples, boots. The new light ones that offer little protection to the metatarsal area of the foot. Testing is done on these and the feedback has been that they will produce more injuries. They get made anyway, so is the increase in those injuries the universities fault or that of the company who ignores the data and does it anyway??? Because of the other benefits? Same with sole types IE blades and so on?

All nations were given the option to start using the balls 6 months before the tournament. England chose not to due to having Nike balls in the PL and Umbro balls for England.

Thank you cn174, as always MONEY gets in the way of development.

Elite level footballers can feel a ball better, have better technique and as such can give much better feedback, so that changes can be made. If you don't get help and advice from players of this level and only from players of sub-standard technique and the such, there is no way you can be 100% certain about anything. Everyone thinks science is an exact thing, its not its best guess based on the data you have available.

There have been times when even the Germans have been made to look like rank amateurs when it comes to crossing, trapping and shooting.

If it were a half-decent ball, surely somebody by now would have said "actually, I like it."

But they are not in the press blaming the ball, they did the sensible thing and decided to use it so they could get used to it. A poor work man blames his tools.

Loughbourgh played a part yes, but they will not have made any decisions merely provided results based on what they have access to. Adidas and FIFA have their own team of sports scientists and the such who make decisions, not Loughbourgh. Adidas have loads of players on their books why weren't they asked what they think? Why weren't they asked to go down to loughbourgh and help with testing?

Its not on to just blame Loughbourgh, many more were involved and played much bigger roles.

This design has a lot of potential once its flight stability is sorted it will be used by a lot more.

Please read this not everyone is slating it. The majority of the people complaining are goalies, people who's teams flopped at the world cup. OK Messi has said its different and not as easy as normal, but yet he's been playing pretty well with it.

It needs work but it exceeds every criteria that FIFA have for a ball by a long way and players will take time to adapt. I do wonder if it was tested at altitude, but again universities do the testing that is asked of them, no more. If that wasn't done then thats an oversight from both adidas and FIFA for not asking for it to be done.

[LeChuck]

Please read this not everyone is slating it.

Petr Cech, Frank Lampard and Michael Ballack say they like it.

All three are sponsored by Adidas. I'm sure you can figure out what is going on there.

I'm not sure why you're defending this blatant cock up. The blame obviously lies with Adidas, they made the ball.

[Majiball]

Petr Cech, Frank Lampard and Michael Ballack say they like it.

All three are sponsored by Adidas. I'm sure you can figure out what is going on there.

I'm not sure why you're defending this blatant cock up. The blame obviously lies with Adidas, they made the ball.

But people on here are solely blaming Loughbourgh University and the point I'm trying to make, which you seem to grasp is its not solely their fault and they played a small role in the grand scale of things.

[Kelbo]

But people on here are solely blaming Loughbourgh University and the point I'm trying to make, which you seem to grasp is its not solely their fault and they played a small role in the grand scale of things.

I for one have not nor will blame Loughbourgh University, I expressed my surprise that it was they who tested it and from there it was decided to be the ball used in the Finals of the World Cup.

Whilst I am unsure of my ground here, though if like industry in general, German football will have a sponsorship link with Adidas, most industries based in Germany use German machinery etc.

England have sponsorship links with Umbro, Mitre and Nike and therefore using the ball may not have been an option, indeed, it may not for those reasons have been an option for other countries.

Unfortunately, sponsorship deals are quite strict and I do remember a legal argument regarding a Man U advert where players over the years were involved in an advert for boots, some of those plyers were sponsored by a different manufacturer and the advert had to be discontinued, compensation had to be paid etc.

Even at non league level, we have a major sponsor, inadvertantly, a picture of one of our players appeared in the newspaper wearing the previous sponsors shirt and all hell broke loose.

This is how things are and this is why I believe, somehow, all International matches for one year prior to the World Cup, should be played with the ball which is intended to be used in the finals, that way each team would start on equal terms without fear of an argument at a later date.

[philipl]

Let's trot out another University then.

I know Rogan Taylor's mob are not everyone's cup of tea but try this from Gerry Cox who is associated with Liverpool University's Rogan Taylor:

GERRY COX: NEW BALLS, PLEASE

3:53pm Thursday, 1st July 2010

I don't know how much adidas pay FIFA to use the Jabulani, but surely it cannot be enough to justify the damage it has caused to this World Cup. Without doubt the controversial ball is the biggest single reason for the poor quality of football seen so far.

Of course there have been many poor performances by teams and players, most spectacularly those fallen giants Italy, France and England. Some of the surfaces have not been conducive to neat passing football, and there have been plenty of teams set out in defensive formations, with a packed midfield behind a lone striker.

But nothing compares with the hated ball. I have been canvassing opinions throughout the tournament, and they range from the diplomatic to the outright hostile. No-one has had a good word to say about it, and many have condemned it as an abomination.

Here is Gomes, the Tottenham and Brazil goalkeeper: 'It is a horrible ball. It is not just bad for keepers, but strikers too. When you play with a normal ball you can play beautiful football, but not with this ball. It is impossible. Players like Cristiano Ronaldo like to strike the ball from long distance but even he cannot get it on target. I am sure you would have more goals and free-kicks scored if we had a normal ball instead of this one.'

I was at the Nigeria v South Korea game when Park Chu Young struck the first goal to be scored at this World Cup directly from a free-kick, after 34 games and nearly 50 hours of football. I was also at Brazil's dismal goalless draw with Portugal when Ronaldo, arguably the best taker of a free-kick in world football, tried and failed three times. Two efforts went high over the bar, and when another flew well wide of goal, Ronaldo stood with hands on hips wondering what he had to do. No wonder.

Few players appear to be able to strike the ball with any confidence. I watched Cesc Fabregas, one of the best footballers in the world, approach the ball gingerly and with hesitation as he was about to shoot, unsure where it would end up.

A few days later I watched Wes Sneijder, the terrific Dutch playmaker, look baffled as he kept over hitting passes. Nobody seems able to predict where the ball will go. As Denmark's Daniel Agger said, 'it make players look like drunken sailors', while Diego Maradona arguably the greatest of them all, said: 'I've tried it myself (in training). This ball doesn't go round the corner, and you can't get in a good cross to the far post because the ball flies straight. We are not going to see any good moves in this World Cup because no one can get the ball and control it."

Imagine forcing every golfer in the US Masters to play with a new type of ball, with an unpredictable flight, and then wondering why none of them can break par? Or deciding to spring a new type of ball, with unexpected bounce and flight patterns, on the tennis players at Wimbledon and then being dismayed at the number of errors.

At least FIFA have acknowledged the problem, when Jerome Valcke admitted they are listening to the criticism. But it is too late now to salvage this tournament's reputation, which will be as possibly the best World Cup off the pitch, the worst on it.

The message for the next tournament is clear: New balls, please!

[Majiball]

Gerry cox is a reporter, Rogan taylor is a well respected member of the football science industry, but you may want to check what he's an expert in. You may also want to check what they acctually research and offer advice on.

This is a biomechanics field and its highly probably they don't know much in that field and Rogan Taylor would admit as much if asked, before sending you to us or Loughbourgh.

Profile of Liverpool Universities football industry department

[philipl]

But it is still an utterly rubbish football and unsuited for the job it is supposed to do.

Yes?

[Majiball]

But it is still an utterly rubbish football and unsuited for the job it is supposed to do.

Yes?

Have you played with it?

The point I have been trying to make is that people on here blamed Loughbourgh, when all they did was test it within the parameters set out by Adidas, nothing more. They did not make any decisions or the such past recommendations that were or were not taken on board by the manufacturer.

Do you acknowledge blame does not lie at their feet?

[philipl]

I have seen enough hours of this World Cup to know that either there has been a sudden catastrophic decline in footballers' technique or the ball is rubbish.

Whoever was involved in approving that ball as it now exists cocked up.

If you say it was Loughborough Univesity who were responsible for the testing and Adidas wanted a crap ball, I'll accept that.

[dave birch]

But some teams seem to have "adapted" to it reasonably well.

[Majiball]

Adidas designed it, Loughbourgh tested it within the parameters adidas asked for.

I have played with it and it is different it does travel further than normal. That is because it has a lower drag co-efficent than a normal ball as it is perfectly round. So its seems lighter but in reality it cuts through the air better. This however will effect swerve as that relies on drag to emphasis the effect created by the kicker. In effect the ball has far less friction and so behaves very differently.

Is it crap? Well i've always played with the standard design ball, so it is very difficult to get to grips with it. It flies further and truer than a normal ball which basically means you have to re-learn how to kick it. I most likely would not have introduced it for a world cup because of that. But, long term once you get used to it you would be able to strike a ball harder, truer and with more accuracy as you wouldn't have to consider drag and the such.

I think it needs work, to strike a better balance between it cutting through the air and grip on your touch as it almost slips of your foot. Another aspect is that obviously at altitude there is far less drag caused by the air than at sea level and because the ball creates less drag this becomes very prominante at 3,000 ft. I don't think adidas or FIFA really thought to much about the whole situation and I would seriously question their science departements competence, after giving it all some thought.

I would say the ball is not suited to being used at altitude.

[philipl]

Only some of the stadia are at altitude- several are by the coast and 5000 feet is not much compared with the Mexico World Cup for instance.

[broadsword]

What an absolute load of jazzed-up minging nonsense.

Apart from greed, there's absolutely no reason to bring out a world-cup ball. This is the biggest tournament in the World, why put it at risk by using a ball that only a select number of nations have had access to.

You want to use a tried-and-trusted ball, not some load of rollox designed by some speccy twit with skidmarked y-fronts designing a football in a lab while he squeezes his spots.

There's been enough world cups that have managed perfectly well without the jazzy-fingers ball or whatever it's called. It behaves like a fat helium-filled minger that's just had a drawing pin shoved up her jacksie.

Available at all good sports shops for a bargain 80 quid. Magnificent.

[Majiball]

Only some of the stadia are at altitude- several are by the coast and 5000 feet is not much compared with the Mexico World Cup for instance.

The stadiums in order of altitude are: football City and Ellis Park Stadium, 1753m; Royal Bafokeng Stadium, 1500m; Free State Stadium, 1400m; Peter Mokaba Stadium, 1310m; Loftus Versfeld Stadium, 1214m; Mbombela Stadium, 660m; Cape Town Stadium, Moses Mabhida Stadium and Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium near sea level.

From a website:

In case you didn’t know, it’s the football World Cup in South Africa at the moment. The tournament’s being held in high altitude in some cases, so a couple of workmates told me that thin air could be affecting the movement of the ball through the air, but I'm sceptical. So what’s the science? Rick Britton

Chris - Well actually, there is quite a bit of science behind this and in fact, your mates, Rick, are probably right it turns out. If you look at how footballs behave when they spin through the air as they fly, when they fly at slow speeds, what they are doing is parting the air stream and the air forms a nice even layer on either side of the football. It forms what’s called laminar flow around the football and because the air is sticking to the surface of the ball, it’s applying a drag to it. But if you speed the ball up even more, so you go past a threshold point at which the air flowing past the ball is no longer in this lamina configuration. It becomes so called turbulent. Suddenly, people have found, the drag on the football plummets and becomes much, much lower, even though you've increased the speed and the increase would be only at small amount, you suddenly got a very, very low level of drag, and it then begins to increase again gently.

So when footballers are doing these incredible, sort of ‘banana’ shots, what they're doing is cannoning the ball away at about 30 metres a second, 70 miles an hour, and at that speed, the air is travelling in a turbulent way past the ball. So the amount of drag is actually quite low, but as the ball slows down, it then goes into the ‘high drag regime’ as it’s known. In other words, the speed becomes such that instead of the air being turbulent around the ball, it begins to stick to the surface of the ball again and that increases the drag very markedly, and this abruptly decelerates the ball, and it can also make a changed direction which is why the ball can slew into the goal in this bizarre way that we sometimes see. So, speed is of the essence and therefore, the amount of that’s sticking to the ball is important. So if you look at what’s going on in Jo-burg, that stadium is at about 4,000 feet. There’s an index that people use on aeroplanes which is called the indicated air speed. This is a record of how fast the air is apparently going past the aeroplane, and we know by rule of thumb that it’s about 2% wrong for every thousand feet in height you go up. So in other words, at 4,000 feet, it would be 4 times 2% which is an 8% error. In other words, the ball will be feeling drag as though it were going about 8% more slowly than it really is. So when your footy player is booting the ball, having trained at sea level, knowing how the ball performs in air of the density you're going to get at sea level, actually the speeds they're booting it at to make these effects happen are going to be all wrong because the ball is actually travelling and experiencing drag about 8% lower than it ought to at sea level. Therefore, this will if you're a highly seasoned, highly practiced footballer, unless you have an opportunity to realise this is what’s happening, there could be an error in the way that you're going to boot the ball. It’s amazing to think how much there is going on in physics in football, isn’t it?

Then factor in the fact that this ball already has a lot less drag than the normal ball, this means its deceleration will happen later and also that it won't swerve as much as the air sticks less to the ball.

Taken from the BBC:

It's official - this is the most boring World Cup in history. A sweeping statement, I know, but according to statistics for the first round of group matches, there have been fewer goals scored at this stage of the competition than at any point in the last 80 years.

And it's not as if there are just one or two goals in it. Mexico 1986, the closest to South Africa 2010 in terms of goals scored, managed seven more after the first 16 games.

Mexico was the worst for goals scored before this one. i wonder if that had anything to do with the post from another website above? Less goals with a ball that is designed to cut through the air better, at altitude? Shocker.

Please also remember that mexico was the last competition to use the original leather balls, which are much heavier and have higher drag forces.

[DP]

Bring back the Mitre Multiplex! A proper ball.

If you didn't head that right, you had a headache for a week.

[Majiball]

Do you remember the old solid plastic balls for playing on concrete?

I took one clean in the face once and got subbed as I couldn't walk properly afterwards.

[dave birch]

Bring back the leather version, the ones that leave the imprint of the stitching and laces on your forehead.

[DanLad]

Mitre Delta.

Classic footy.

Bring back the leather version, the ones that leave the imprint of the stitching and laces on your forehead.

Reminds me of the Stan Mortenson tale about Matthews crossing!

[Rover4ever]

But some teams seem to have "adapted" to it reasonably well.

Yes, the ones who played with it for 6 months before the tournament