Is it the World Cup Ball?
There was no shortage of chatter before the competition even began about the Teamgeist balls being used this year. After one day of play many commentators are already saying the ball is responsible for a record first day of scoring. Is this really the case?
If you look at yesterday’s goals, I think the ball might have contributed to two out of the eight goals at most. Both were long range bombs by Germany. Take a look at the goals by Lahm and Frings and you can see how much the ball darts in the air.
Were these simply well struck balls that would have gone in even without the new ball or did the Teamgeist helium balloon design contribute to them? I think the answer will only be known after more games are played and scoring averages from years past can be compared.
What do you think?
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
By Jack | June 10th, 2006 at 1:51 pm 
I think it is more of a case of poor defence. Germany got caught twice. Costa Rica didn’t mark well. The goals in the Ecuador game were also Poland breakdowns.
Posted from 
Germany
By Ali Siddiqui | June 10th, 2006 at 2:04 pm From what I’ve read about the ball is that it’s alot more smoother so thus making it a bit more aerodynamic than the previous old balls where the grooves could easily alter it’s path.
That and maybe this World Cup we’re going to see alot more brilliant players on the field than usual?
Posted from 
Canada
By On The Pitch | June 10th, 2006 at 2:22 pm Did Teamgeist Bend or Bob?
Can the higher scores of the opening World Cup matches be attributed in part to the new Teamgeist ball from adidas?…
Posted from 
United States
By zé | June 10th, 2006 at 3:15 pm I’ll still maintain that blaming the ball is just that, a blame game. The new ball was made to ahere *more* strictly to FIFA’s standards, not to make it more erratic. If anything, it is actually more predictable now, as long as you’re taking into consideration the initial curve the striker has put to it of course.
More information about the ball:
http://www.soccerballworld.com/Teamgeist.htm
Posted from 
Brazil
By Stuart | June 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pm I’m not buying it. While they ball MAY be trickier for the keepers to handle since it’s so smooth, any good baseball fan will tell you that surface texture is what makes for a good curveball. I didn’t see any more movement on those German shots yesterday than with pervious balls. It’s all in how you strike it. I just think Klinsi had his side appropriately coached to smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. Hopefully other sides will follow their lead and pull the trigger from range rather than trying to setup the perfect scoring sequence. Will make for an exciting tournament.
Posted from United States
By Prophet | June 10th, 2006 at 5:48 pm Opening goals resulted from combination of open games and poor marking, not the ball. Some teams would wish the ball was more helpful, as many will fail to score and go the way of France in 2002.
Posted from 
Barbados
By Mahdi | June 10th, 2006 at 8:03 pm I really don’t like this ball. It seems too light. During the Sweden-Trinidad game, alot of players would simply tap the ball with their heads during corners and crosses and whatnot, and the ball would go flying.
Posted from United States
By Dave | June 11th, 2006 at 2:13 am I have to Say i was looking forwawrd to watching the analysis of the matches by the BBC. However it has in my opinion been of a very low standard so far. The first England game being a prime example, i know the punidts will be and to a certain extent have to be postive but after the first half agaisnt Paraguay, Alan Hansen was saying that Stevie G was having a great game, when it looked to me and everyone i was watching it with that he was having a poor game putting it kindly.They did make some valid points about Joe cole playing well. Also Gary asked Alan Shearer what england should do in the 2nd half and his response was “More of The Same” Even after by there own standards a poor showing with a set piece goal, also they didnt really go into any detail on paraguay’s pressure in the 2nd half which forced england on the back foot. Id love to see a more honest view from the punidts about the english players, to many times when english players have had bad games they forget to mention the player who had a bad game.
I know in the highlight Show they go into more analysis but they were still trying to over hype the postives of the first half. By Englands previous standards in games it was a poor half and it got worse in the 2nd.
I would love to see england bring in an objective pundit, which cannot really be alan hansen, i know hes scottish but hes played his career in england and as been a pundit for so many years on england games/ the english league. Please for the sake of your viewers please improve an become more objective.
Hope some people agree with me
Posted from 
Ireland
By Arif | June 15th, 2006 at 11:38 am I read a lot about the +Temageist ball. it truly complies with the FIFA standards. However, some keepers complained that the ball took unusual flights and had extra bounce. But it was accepted by most of players.
Posted from 
Bangladesh
By FIFAworldcup.com - The Un Official Site of Fifa World Cup 2006 | June 16th, 2006 at 12:30 pm Goalies’ Technological Fear
The first game sent out a red alert warning to all goalies that a one month nightmare is in sight when Germany’s Torsten Frings fired a cannon ball like shot from 40 meters to score a goal. The match ended 4-2 with a total of 6 goals; which br…
Posted from United States
By FIFAworldcup.com - The Un Official Site of Fifa World Cup 2006 | June 16th, 2006 at 12:30 pm Goalies’ Technological Fear
The first game sent out a red alert warning to all goalies that a one month nightmare is in sight when Germany’s Torsten Frings fired a cannon ball like shot from 40 meters to score a goal. The match ended 4-2 with a total of 6 goals; which br…
Posted from United States
By tobii john | June 28th, 2006 at 7:58 pm I like the new ball it produces more goals and makes the game more interesting. the new ball has only 14 panels so when you shoot it, it knuckles
Comments are closed
