Faceless Empire

Didn't they decide not to use the new one? I was watching some video on how that thing moves and there is no way a goalie could deal with that. I vaguely remember them saying they weren't going to use it because of it's increased velocity over the standard ball.

No, they're using it--although maybe you and I are thinking of different "new ones."

They're pretty controversial. The players are complaining about it a lot; a lot of them think it feels like a cheaply made ball, and I've read more than one of them compare it to something you might buy at a grocery store.

The officials, however, keep standing by it, saying that it's actually more stable in the air than a traditional ball, and the players just aren't used to how it handles.

Maybe it is more stable in the air, but bounces unevenly?

I have no idea what to think. It sounds like there wasn't enough discussion with players during its design, though.

I'm finding I really like following the games on the NY Times. I like their setup a lot:

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/1 ... -paraguay/

It's nice with the ESPN radio broadcast:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/

I noticed the NY Times live feed, even though it's text, is a little faster than the ESPN broadcast. The ESPN broadcast seems about 30 s - 1 min behind the NY Times feed.

Watching it in HD is really nice, but it's nice to be able to work and catch the game without it being too intrusive.

The one I was referring to was all heat sealed so it didn't have any seams, and it truly was fucked up in the ways it would move.

It could changed directions twice in a single kick, i.e. weave left then right - and not just slight movement.

We may be talking about a different ball. I think the name of the ball started with a "J" and meant something like celebration in an african languange. Aha! found it! Jabulani

The video's they were showing were pretty nuts to watch. Apparently it is being used, but I thought I had heard they weren't going to use it.

I don't know...I was reading about it and watching a bunch of videos and it's hard to know what to think about the new ball.

On the one hand, some of those videos do make the ball look like it can suddenly change direction (ala a screwball in baseball), and there are a lot of players complaining about it. There were some scientists saying that the ball isn't symmetrical in the same way in all directions, so the spin and stuff will differ depending on what part of the ball is struck, which might explain the odd movement. Some people who have purchased the ball have made comments that when the ball is made correctly, it's a great ball, but if there are any defects at all, it behaves much worse.

On the other hand, World Cup players always complain about new balls, especially goalies. Think about it: if they complain about the new ball, they have something to blame when something goes wrong; if they say it's a great new improvement, and then screw up, they can't blame anyone but themselves. Also, it's pretty clear that many of the players who are criticizing the ball are sponsored by competitors of Adidas (e.g., Nike) who have a financial incentive to complain about the ball. Finally, what some of the scientists were saying was that the ball is more reliable, but also more complex, so once you learn how it responds differently to different input (e.g., kicking it at different orientations), you'd be able to more reliably pull off more tricks. I think they were saying that it could lead to more things like the variety of pitches you see in baseball.

After watching it all, I guess I have to say that I don't like the fact it's asymmetrical--compared to, e.g., the classic design introduced in Mexico in 1970. I can see why that would lead to more tricks when you can make use of it, but also more unintended behavior. Soccer really isn't a sport like baseball where you have an opportunity to set up the kick ideally all the time. The free kicks are situations where it might come into play, but in regular gameplay, I don't think you'd want the ball to behave differently depending on what orientation it was struck in.

England vs US Lego style..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t62Y0Z5 ... r_embedded

Yeah I saw that--thought it was pretty fun to watch.

I just saw this and was like "WTF?":

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06 ... ref=soccer



I feel really, really bad I missed that game.

i just wanted to point out that France was pretty bad in the mexico game.. they shouldn't have even qualified..

US was robbed today.....I watched the game this morning and the first half was hard to watch. The second half was some of the best I have seen. The 3rd goal was just that a goal!

Yes they were robbed. Ridiculous.

I swear I posted something about that, but I don't see it here. Strange.

Second Round Baby!!!

So party at your house on sat. ghimo?

I know. I'm still a little upset that they weren't given credit for that one goal--which would have put them further ahead in the standings--but I guess you can't beat the top of the group.

I'm also a little surprised at the outcomes--if you had told me before this started that France and Italy wouldn't have even made it to the second round, I'd be shocked.

I wasn't shocked about France, considering how they got in ( on a Handball ). Italy was a big surprise.OOf this topic is old!