Talk:Adidas Jabulani

FIFA Club World Cup

Should it be mentioned that this ball is also used as the matchball of FIFA Club World Cup 2009? --IJK_Principle (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC) fick dich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.68.37 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception

All negative so far - anyone had anything good to say about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.223.58 (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's only negative reviews. No one had said anything good about it. by Jeihot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeihot (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Few-Viewpoints sign for one single comment in favor of the ball had come up. I have added it on the body of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeihot (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do Addidas insist on creating completely useless balls. And why do the muppets at FIFA not use a real manufacturer like Nike? The biggest competition in the sport needs the best manufacturer to make the balls, not some useless also ran. Cls14 (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a message board, nor is it your blogWhatzinaname (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen blogs where people put the negative criticism down to sponsorship deals; difficult to prove but maybe worth mentioning that you can click on the brands at www.just-keepers.com say that Iker Casillas wears Reebok gloves, Buffon wears Puma, James and Hart wear Umbro and Cech wears Adidas. (Chorleypie (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Sponsorship affiliation ought to be added to players who criticise the ball as well as to those who come out in favor. Otherwise a NPOV violation occurs, imho. Madcynic (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Has everyone seen this? Should it be included somewhere? Maybe not. —Wiki Wikardo 23:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

MOAR 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

Other ball pages like the Adidas Teamgeist have the specifications as of diameter, weight... When it's claimed the ball is really light, this kind of info could help as we could compare with others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marpicco (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing, so I added a table of specifications sourced from a Popular Science article. The article I referenced has more information in it regarding the tests that are performed and there is a video of its production if anyone wants to add more information to this article. Obesefrogs (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments go for the names of players giving his opinion, positive or negative, to be rigorous the article should mention which company do they sponsor. I wonder if those players arguing against are sponsored by rival firms whereas those for the jabulani or with good words are sponsored by adidasNoxxiette (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Images on Flickr

I see there's a number of available images of the ball on Flickr. Including this one with Kaka playing with it. Any appropriate for the page?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC) The specifications of the ball do not include the nature of the surface. I am a biomechanics lecturer and experienced football player. There appear to be three sections of the ball which affect the flow of air over the ball differently to the rest of the ball. Consequently it will behave differently depending on its orientation. It may be fun to see the keeper struggle with it but it is not fun to see the striker totally unaware as to where the ball will go when he hits it. Get rid of any ball that does not have the same surface in all parts of the ball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozwiz1 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Goal statistics

This is pure original research and belongs nowhere near here. The change to the ball is hardly the only changed variable between this and previous World Cups. I'm removing it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gauge00 (talk · contribs) has restored this with the justification "At first, jabulani is blamed on goal drought, and this statistics will it is T or F". This isn't a homework essay, and we can't use statistical evidence to "prove" or "disprove" things. I'll be removing this again unless a good justification for overriding this principle of Wikipedia is given. I see it's already been removed: it shouldn't be re-added again without discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jokey manner

"The name might come from the Zulu word for 'celebrate', but many observers hold it directly responsible for the notable lack of goal celebrations in the opening stages of the 2010 FIFA World Cup." Not sure this is a good thing to have in an encyclopaedic article, as it's like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkybassist (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but I would hope we don't have to be bone-dry in our tone as long as our facts are verifiable. Can't we entertain as well as inform? Happypoems (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Altitude, Germany, Seedorf.

Adidas made a statement that what players are attributing to the ball, could be better explained by the high altitude and therefore reduced air resistance and drag. Worth mentioning I think, if someone can find a reference.

Also I read somewhere that the German Bundesliga has been using it for 6 months. I just did a quick google search and there are loads of references. It's thought to be one of the reasons behind their 4-0 victory.

Lastly, the link below is a clip to a BBC vid of Seedorf testing the ball. He explains quite a bit, and does some impressive shooting. Thought it might be appreciated by some. Maybe some of it could prove useful for the wiki entry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8748961.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.65.159 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider creating a separate article on 'Criticism of Adidas Jabulani'

There is certainly much to say about the Jabulani ball, which would probably increase in quantity as the World Cup progresses (whether for the better or for the worst, we still don't know). As you can see, there is innumerable statements made by various players and coaches. Perhaps creating a separate article on the 'Criticism/Reception of Adias Jabulani' would be a good idea. I'm open to discussion here. AngChenrui (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of" articles tend to act as flypaper for inappropriate personal rants and the like. The problem here is that the current nature of the subject means that criticism is going to continually be added to it by random passers-by as the media covers games; as that passes I imagine the less notable criticism will be removed and the rest refactored appropriately. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved a long list of quotes from notable players and managers to wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jabulani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.64.12 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some refs

Just dropping by to add two articles from the Daily Telegraph over the ball's performance that may possibly be useful in developing the article: World Cup 2010: British university in firing line over Jabulani ball goal drought and World Cup 2010: Jabulani ball controversy reflects badly on Fifa and England . WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Organized effort to screw up this wiki

I'm not tolerating the nike people or the general world cup complainers to turn this wiki into a biased joke.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who do you mean by the "nike people" and the "world cup complainers"? The criticism comes from a number of high-profile goalkeepers, players and managers. A large number of newspapers have been writing about it as well http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&tbs=nws%3A1&q=jabulani&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=462db7ae433a2cae. I can't see how it's biased to report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.64.12 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's biased because it assigns undue weight to tabloid rabble-rousing. That X player has complained about the ball does not automatically imply that every such complaint warrants inclusion here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no undue weight anywhere. It's just explaining the quotes that have been made by notable people, in this case the players and managers at the world cup. The only way to be biased is to not include them. I also think the whole nike conspiracy thing and "organized effort to screw up this wiki" heading are pretty biased in themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.64.12 (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Altitude

Another ref [1] suggesting the effect of altitute hasn't received sufficient consideration in the complaints about the ball Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Powerorange

I read this ball (Powerorange) in the 2010 catalog of Adidas. It is a special Jabulani for snow game with orange colour because of winter. Who has

data about that ball? Hoising (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ball criticism

I am a world class football player, and I will say that this ball is perfect. It does whatever I want, which leads me to believe that anyone who criticises it is simply a mediocre footballer. 74.192.194.74 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NASA section

The section "NASA Confirms the Criticisms" cites an article that, if anything, goes against the criticisms. It says that older balls knuckle at lower speeds, and the ball designs are being made smoother. The wiki section that cites the article seems like a gross misinterpretation. Capefeather (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)