[wc2010] The ball, is it good or bad?


  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Has the new WC ball ruined the game?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      20


Recommended Posts

I wouldn't say "ruined", but certainly has made "interesting" as in hypothetically, it should challenge both the players and goalkeepers. Hypothetically, we really should have seen more goals. It'll be interesting in the match 2 group stage, I think that most teams have been too defensive. Germany for example, scored 4 goals without really trying against Australia. They attacked from time to time and were well rewarded. This ball can reach the back of the net but requires a little more work.

I have to admit I've seen this ball do the weirdest of things though. Although it is meant to be more accurate, it does go wonky in mid air from time to time.

The problem with replacing the ball for the world cup is no one has had long enough to understand the ball. ?The premier league changed the ball, but once people had training and a season of football, they were fine. ?

This ball we're clearly seeing a lack of long shots, the nearest we've seen is Mbia for Cameroon, everything else has blazed over. ?I think the ball is affecting long shots and free kicks, they are just boring blazing wide or high. ? Goal keepers are also kicking it further and it tends to stay in the air with a cross field cross.

The problem with replacing the ball for the world cup is no one has had long enough to understand the ball. ?The premier league changed the ball, but once people had training and a season of football, they were fine. ?

This ball we're clearly seeing a lack of long shots, the nearest we've seen is Mbia for Cameroon, everything else has blazed over. ?I think the ball is affecting long shots and free kicks, they are just boring blazing wide or high. ? Goal keepers are also kicking it further and it tends to stay in the air with a cross field cross.

I'll basically have to agree with this, I think teams should have been given Jubilanis for more time as well as playing preparation matches with it. I've not seen a decent free kick and the guys doing them are amongst the best out there.

This is like saying the turf is different or the fans are more rowdy (which the latter is true with those horns). The announcers even mentioned it during a couple of matches. Complaints happen every WC. Next, the goalies will blame not catching the ball on how it feels. :rolleyes: Thank you England! :D

I have the version which you get from the sports shops and it seems pretty good. There has been some decent goals with the ball so I cannot really see a problem, I think the moaning is because the players did not have the best game, and they cannot blame the pitches as they are in fantastic condition, so the next culprit is obviously going to be the ball its self.

I'll basically have to agree with this, I think teams should have been given Jubilanis for more time as well as playing preparation matches with it. I've not seen a decent free kick and the guys doing them are amongst the best out there.

I've read on the BBC that the ball has been used in domestic football in Germany, France and Argentina since February, but not in England due to a deal with a rival manufacturer.

No, I wouldn't say its ruined the World Cup. But I do think the players might not be fully comfortable with it, as we can see from the lack of on-target long range shots and free kicks.

How early do the teams get their hands on the actual balls they are going to use in the game? They need to get them earlier on in their training so they can get used to the new balls.

I heard a complaint that the ball was 'too round'.

Ha.

The ball is a true sphere has no bias so only technique via foot movements will help it bend.

At least when the ball is thumped it don't bend all over the place.

I heard a complaint that the ball was 'too round'.

Ha.

The ball is a true sphere has no bias so only technique via foot movements will help it bend.

At least when the ball is thumped it don't bend all over the place.

I thought a true sphere was impossible? Instead the football is just spherical, which eliminates the argument of it being "too round."

Eh, I'm just arguing semantics. Your point still stands.

Well the only team that from the list above (who had the ball before the world cup) Germany are the only ones which have played well, but I wonder what the stats are on long shots. ?The only Argie player (who played the 1 game) who had a season with the ball would have been Ver?n!

France were very poor and I can't really remember any long shots on target.

as someone who played goalie im not the bigguest fan of it. The problem with these balls (all the newer ones that are all just one peice) is that you have no idea where they are going to go. They hit a patch of wind on the way to you and they just go flying. and they bounce like crazy.

I have the euro cup '08 ball and that one was actually pretty good (nike tiempo i thiknk its called).

They said the same thing when Nike introduced the Total 90 balls in the premier league, everyone complained, then they got used to its movement and now it's just the norm. I think it's mainly down to it being the 1st game of the Tournament, traditionally cagey affairs.

Although I still think they should bring back the old leather Mitres one of them on the thigh and you were down for the count. Ahh memories

The ball is fine, most of the teams have practiced with it for months anyways, so they have literally have no excuse other than maybe the pitch and the amount of bounce, but even that is a weak argument. I don't mind the horns as I drown them out, but I would validate that as an issue before I would the ball.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Alphabet Raises $84.75 Billion To Feed Its AI Compute Hunger https://www.techtimes.com/articles/317953/20260607/alphabet-raises-8475-billion-feed-its-ai-compute-hunger-warren-buffetts-berkshire-buying.htm
    • Good point Anti-spoofing protection for cloud mailboxes Anti-spoofing technology in Microsoft 365 specifically examines forgery of the From header field (also known as the 5322.From address, From address, or P2 sender), because email clients show the From header value as the message sender. When Microsoft 365 has high confidence the From header is forged, the message is identified as spoofed. https://learn.microsoft.com/en...g-protection-spoofing-about
    • I sort of agree with you on that. I had a telescope - a real hefty thing, although only around 500CHF - that got me so fascinated about the stars and planets. I would stare for hours, amazed that I could see the craters of the moon or the rings of Saturn in "realtime" (quotations because, y'know, speed of light and whatnot). A friend of mine has a telescope like the one mentioned in the review, and the pictures are amazing to look at. But there is something missing for me. I may as well just go to NASA's website and look through their gallery.
    • As opposed to catching bad press because it's the engine's fault? The engine has all the tools a dev needs to optimize their game, Epic isn't gonna hold their hand to make sure they use them. Also, Epic isn't forcing anyone to use Lumen, Nanite or super high resolution meshes and textures. Just because Nanite can render meshes with millions of polygons doesn't mean you should use it like that, in fact, Epic recommends you avoid doing that. Most of the stuttering can easily be fixed by cutting down on unique materials by using master materials, using instanced meshes, generating a PSO cache, pre-compiling every shader before loading the game and also managing what must be loaded and unloaded at runtime. It's up to the developer to set all that up properly.
    • I think it depends on what you're looking for to do, and the time you have to spare. With my Dwarf 3, I easily spend 3-4 hour sessions; half an hour driving to an un-light polluted place, another half hour unpacking and setting up the smart scope + tripod for equatorial tracking, then 15 more minutes mucking around with settings and shooting calibration frames, spending a few hours shooting, merging with past photo sessions, etc. It's crazy how time flies and I often get home later than I expected. It's something I still need to set aside a good part of an evening to do, all in all. For one session, where you often need like four for best results when it comes to deep space objects. Even with a smart scope like Dwarf 3, regular non-astro photography is still way more approachable to people getting into photography. I find this is a time consuming niche no matter how I go about it. With practice, I can probably begin cutting time here but I think where smart scopes find their home is among people who love to shoot the night sky but don't have the spare time to go deep with the "navigator level" attunement to the night sky itself in addition to everything else. Having said this, _if_ you have even more time to spend on this hobby, it will probably be even more rewarding to do it more by hand and learn the skies and the details of how it all works.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      246
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!