It’s not the Jabulani combined with altitude

July 11, 2010

I just ran the numbers, and there’s pretty much no evidence that the Jabulani is to blame for the low scoring of this World Cup. So this is essentially a teaser post. I’ll put up the numbers after tomorrow’s final.

I admit it: I was wrong that it was likely that one of the reasons we had a low-scoring World Cup was the Jabulani combined with the altitude. Call me gullible. It was a theory advanced that seemed plausible.



June 29, 2010

Lost my power last night, so I couldn’t post. I left this in reply to a comment that the complaint about the ball is a canard.


Every recent World Cup, the goalkeepers complain about the ball before the World Cup and a little bit during. But pretty much only the goalies.

But this is the first World Cup where _everyone_ has been complaining about the ball _since they got to South Africa._ That last part is key, because the ball had been tested in league play, but apparently not in any situations with altitude. And the current theory is that the ball performs quite well at sea level, but quite differently above sea level.

If there wasn’t something different, how come this is the first World Cup where everyone is complaining? How come it is the first World Cup where I can see that the ball is performing differently, and I’m pretty contrarian by nature? Even FIFA (an organization not known for recognizing its errors, to say the least) has acknowledged that the ball may have problems.

Why are there so few goals in World Cup 2010?

June 16, 2010

As I noted below, there are no goals in World Cup 2010. But why? There are a few possible candidates: parity, vuvuzelas, the new ball, altitude and just variance.

World Cup 2010 Boring?

1. Global spread of the game has increased parity. The World Cup expanded in 1982 and then again in 1998. You can see spikes in the number of goals, which is probably logical, as more weak teams qualify when the field expands and thus lose by a large number of goals.

2. Vuvuzelas. Those things are so obnoxiously deafening that they make it hard to communicate.

3. Jubulani. The ball has received lots of complaints from lots of players. The ball has been used in this year’s Club World Cup, African Nations Cup, the MLS, and the Argentine first division.

4. Altitude.

5. Variance. Only 16 games have been played so far. That’s a very small sample size. Perhaps by chance all the first round matchups were very even.

My take:
* It’s not the vuvuzelas. In the 2009 Confederations Cup, largely held at the same venues, scoring was not down in the slightest bit. So wipe that possible explanation off the list.

* It’s not the altitude, obviously. Nor is it just the ball. But maybe the altitude combined with the new ball, according to this ESPN post by Chris Jones:

Early games here at the World Cup have been marred by poor play and few goals, which several players have attributed to the unpredictable flight of the Jabulani, the new ball by adidas.

In tests and in trials, in Germany’s Bundesliga as well as professional leagues in France, Argentina, Portugal and the United States, the Jabulani received few complaints. But its introduction to the rarefied air of South Africa’s World Cup venues has been far from controversy-free.

After defending the ball repeatedly, Thomas Schaikvan, an adidas spokesman, conceded yesterday that the Jabulani and altitude might not mix. “We want to create a more stable ball,” he told Press Association Sport. “But playing at altitude is not the same as playing at sea level. That is just plain science.”

A common line of defense for the ball — “The Germans didn’t seem to have a problem with it,” repeated time and again after Germany’s 4-0 opening defeat of Australia — now has heard its rebuttal. The Germans played at Durban, one of only three South African venues at sea level.

* The lack of scoring is probably mostly just variance, but I think that there is a non-zero parity effect since the World Cup field hasn’t been expanded recently. And perhaps there is something to the Jabulani combined with the altitude.

We will get more evidence when more games have been played, of course. As I write this, the first game of the second set of group play matches is at 3-0. That’s mean reversion!

%d bloggers like this: