Less than spectacular World Cup?
Too few goals
scored? Too many sloppy passes, poor ball controls and fumbles, especially by
goal-keepers? How about those jaw-dropping misses in front of the goal? Maybe
there is a good reason: the highly controversial Adidas Jabulani, the official World
Cup match ball, designed at Loughborough University in England.
Jabulani means “celebrate”
or “rejoice” in Zulu, but the ball is hardly living up to its name. The
reaction to the ball has been largely negative, especially from goal-keepers. Brazilian
goalie Julio Cesar calls the ball “horrible”, the cheap kind that you would
find in a supermarket! In fact, most goal-keepers have been equally critical,
including Buffon (Italy), James (England) and Casillas (Spain). Some of the epithets
used to describe the ball: dreadful, nightmare, awkward, disaster.
Jabulani or Jumanji?
Strikers are
complaining too. Messi, Robhino, Fabiano, Pazzini and others lament the crazy,
unpredictable behaviour of the ball, with apparently a mind of its own (some have found Jumanji a more apt name for the ball,
after the Robin Williams supernatural movie).
Coaches are frustrated too. England’s Fabio Capello calls it the
worst ball we have played with at a World Cup. It’s impossible for the keeper
to anticipate the trajectory, he claims. The ball moves too quickly, makes
shots at the goal a lottery, and also prevents long passes from ending up in
the right place. Even the usually composed Sven Goran-Eriksson, manager of
Ivory Coast, expressed his frustration and has called for a meeting to look
into fixing the problem once the competition is over.
Ever
complaining celebrities?
But then, players like to complain
about everything. English goalie, Joe Hart, sees the Jabulani in a rather positive
light: “They're doing anything but staying in my gloves. It's hard work with
them, but good fun. It makes the game exciting and I think that's what they are
trying to do with it.”
Wayne Rooney
claims that they are getting used to the ball: “I can imagine it’s
been a nightmare for goalkeepers but for forward players when you get your shot
off it’s an advantage I feel. So I think we’re getting more used to it with
every day that goes by.” England’s mid-fielder, Frank Lampard seems complacent
too: “It's a very strong ball, true to hit.”
Adidas remains resolute in defending the ball,
which they claim was fully tested and offered to the teams well in advance of
the tournament. Adidas is hoping that
players do master the Jabulani and begin to attack more as the tournament
progresses. 
Engineering the “perfect” ball
So, if you thought a ball was just a
ball, think again. We are a long way from what England’s Geoff Hurst placed at
the back of the net thrice to win the 1966 World Cup final: 18 pieces of
leather, stitched together and fastened with laces!
The new World Cup ball is a much
sleeker and sexier version made from just eight pieces of synthetic material thermally
bonded together. It
has indentations (or “areo grooves”) in a specific pattern that run along the surface
in an optimal aerodynamic way to help give the ball a consistent trajectory and
supposedly helps give the player more control. It has only 12 panels on the
surface, as compared to the traditional 32 flat panels. Fewer panels means
fewer inconsistencies in the stitching, and the ability to have more curved
panels (as opposed to bending flat panels into a spherical shape). The
Jabulani thus provides larger striking surface due to fewer seams. The surface
of the ball has also been covered with projecting bits to help with tactile
feel on the foot. The balls are made in China, with some accessories from India
and Taiwan.
The result, Adidas claims, is an
undistorted and perfectly spherical ball ever made. “We want a ball that is
very consistent that allows the best players to shine,” says Dr. Andy Harland of Loughborough
University. He used a robot to
kick the ball and could reproduce corners, free kicks, passes and shots on
goal, even more reliably than David Beckham!
His robot tests showed that the Jabulani was better than previous World
Cup balls. It flew through the air more smoothly and hit its targets more
reliably. Harland's team used a wind tunnel to aerodynamically design and test the
grooves that guide the ball as it flies through the air.
"What we've tried to do with the
inclusion of grooves," Harland explains, "is to make sure that the
ball looks much more symmetrical in flight, so it flies in a much more
controlled way and gives the control back to the player to get it to do what
they want to do."
Or is
it Altitude?
The gripes by many, Harland says, are
possibly because some of the World Cup venues are located at high altitudes,
rather than any problem with the ball. At higher altitudes, the air is thinner
and so the ball moves faster.
A study by Adidas shows that altitude
will have an impact of up to 5% on a ball's speed. A 20-yard free kick at
Soccer City in high-altitude Johannesburg will reach the goal line 5% faster
than it would at Moses Mabhida stadium in Durban, which is at sea level. Among
the 10 host stadiums, Soccer City stands at 5,558 feet. Other stadiums at
altitude include Bloemfontein at 4,432, Pretoria at 4,364, Polokwane at 4,035
and Rustenburg at 3,783 feet. In addition to Durban, Cape Town and Port
Elizabeth are also coastal.
The physics of the Jabulani
Based on independent studies at the
University of Adelaide, Australia, physics experts argue that the Jabulani will play "harder and faster,"
bending more unpredictably than its predecessor.
"The aero grooves represent a
radical departure from the ultra-smooth Teamgeist ball, which was
used in the last World Cup," says Professor Derek Leinweber, Head of the
School of Chemistry & Physics at the University of Adelaide. "While
FIFA has strict regulations on the size and weight of the balls, they have no regulations
about the outside surface of the balls. The aerodynamic ridges on the Jabulani are likely to create enough turbulence around
the ball to sustain its flight longer, and be a faster, harder ball in play. The
Jabulani is expected to 'bend' more for the players
than any ball previously encountered, " Leinweber says.
FIFA requirements
Based on data from robotic kicking and
wind tunnel testing at Loughborough University and Adidas lab in Germany,
manufacturers of the Jabulani claim that it is a very accurate ball that goes beyond
what FIFA expects. Here is how the Jabulani stands against official FIFA
requirements:
• Circumference: FIFA specifies that
the ball should be between 68.5 and 69.5 cm. The Jabulani is slightly on the larger
side (69.0 +/- 0.2 cm).
• Roundness: The diameter is measured at
16 different locations. FIFA expects a maximum of 1.5% difference. Jabulani has
a maximum of 1.0% difference.
• Water Absorption: The Jabulani is
impressively resistant to water. FIFA prescribes a test where a ball is pressed
and rotated in water 250 times, leading to a maximum of 10% weight increase. For
the Jabulani, there was no increase in weight!
• Weight: between 420 and 445 grams;
Jabulani weighs 440 +/- 0.2 grams.
• Uniform Rebound: In this FIFA test,
the ball is dropped ten times onto a steel plate from a two meter height. The
difference from the lowest to the highest bounce can be no more than 10 cm.
Jabulani bounced in a range from 143 to 149 cm (i.e. a difference of 6 cm).
• Loss of Pressure: Air pressure is measured
three days after inflation. FIFA’s expects a 20% maximum loss. With Jabulani,
the loss was 10% at the most.
On paper, the Jabulani is probably the
most spherical and accurate ball ever made. But on the field, it is a different
story. Each World Cup comes with its share of controversy, usually related to wayward
human behaviour on the pitch, such as arguable referee decisions and questionable
sportsmanship. This time, what is expected to be the most predictable element
on the field, seems to be losing it too.
Owen
Gibson of The Guardian argues: “The extent to which the much-maligned
Jabulani ball can be blamed depends on who you are talking to but the
statistics would tend to suggest that a lack of confidence in how it will
behave is affecting the number of shots on target.” Indeed, the 1970 World Cup witnessed 3 goals per game. In 1990, it fell to
2.2, and in 2006, it was at 2.3. In the current edition, 25 goals were
scored over the first 16 games i.e. an average of 1.6 . goals a game, although
the average grew to 2.1 after 40 games with 83 goals.
Nonetheless,
criticisms keep flowing in. The latest one is from Argentina’s coach, Diego Maradona,
despite the fact that his team won its first three games: “We should have a ball that helps develop the game, gives it an
interesting twist. But this one —well I don’t call it a ball— we are not going
to see any good moves in this World Cup.”
The Jabulani is
technologically superior compared to previous models, but has clearly failed to
gain acceptance. The message is loud and clear enough to already send Adidas researchers
back to the drawing board for the next World Cup.
No comments:
Post a Comment