Football Question

i know it's a bit of a rarity in the off season

but


have you got one that needs answering

i have, do they still stich a ball in panels? and how many make up the average premiership ball?

important stuff, no flaming please or i will be forced to report you to the mods.

soccer am did a thing on the difference between all of the balls used in the english game...

can't remember how many panels but i know they are glued together now and not stitched - apparently this is because gluing ensures the balls are rounder!

back to pigs bladder that's what i say!!

Originally Posted by toseeunited

soccer am did a thing on the difference between all of the balls used in the english game...

can't remember how many panels but i know they are glued together now and not stitched - apparently this is because gluing ensures the balls are rounder!

back to pigs bladder that's what i say!!

what £#%&!ing use are you then

it changes every season, must make a difference to the flight and spin, surely.

A standard football is made of 32 hexagon panels. It is usually leather bits, sewn up by a child, to make a ball.

Does that help? It's the truth.

They are both sewn AND glued. The individual panels are glued onto the outer bladder, and the seams between each panel are stitched together.

Originally Posted by Camel

i like my balls

I'm sure you do!

Are they made using the requisite 32 panels, though? Each? That's what we need, nay; demand to know. It was a football question - your football question, if I'm not mistaken - after all.

Originally Posted by Grimson

They are both sewn AND glued. The individual panels are glued onto the outer bladder, and the seams between each panel are stitched together.

that was my belief.

but do you think the no. of panels make any difference. this is especially interesting from a gk point of view.

Originally Posted by Camel

that was my belief.

but do you think the no. of panels make any difference. this is especially interesting from a gk point of view.

Of course it does. Air resistance and such things. More grooves, more rough material for air resistance

Originally Posted by Camel

that was my belief.

but do you think the no. of panels make any difference. this is especially interesting from a gk point of view.

I'm pretty sure the Nike Premiership football has fewer panels than 32. Just a guess based on looking at it.

I don't knowif it's the panels that make the difference, but the balls today are lighter and spin less (and hence, swerve irregularly more).

Originally Posted by Grimson

I'm pretty sure the Nike Premiership football has fewer panels than 32. Just a guess based on looking at it.

I don't knowif it's the panels that make the difference, but the balls today are lighter and spin less (and hence, swerve irregularly more).

ok, so less panels=more spin?

less weight=more swerve?

Originally Posted by Argentina

Of course it does. Air resistance and such things. More grooves, more rough material for air resistance

Not true.

The rough surfaces break down the laminar boundary layer flow on the surface of the ball and will actually make it go further.

Hence why a Golf ball has dimples in it, to make it travel further.

(Geek hat off )

The U21 European Championship, last month, used a ball with 14 panels. They were "thermally bonded", no less. Apart from that competition, the 32 faceted one has, pretty much, been the standard since the 1970s, I thought.

I'm not an hexagonal panel spotter, so I might be wrong.

Originally Posted by Camel

ok, so less panels=more spin?

less weight=more swerve?

I don't know about the panels, but I do think less weight=more swerve. I would think simple physics: the heavier the object, the more likely it will track true to its forward momentum. And a lighter ball will be more affected by wind.

Originally Posted by voxra

The U21 European Championship, last month, used a ball with 14 panels. They were "thermally bonded", no less. Apart from that competition, the 32 faceted one has, pretty much, been the standard since the 1970s, I thought.

I'm not an hexagonal panel spotter, so I might be wrong.

Afraid not voxy. The adidas world cup ball didn't have hex panels, it had weird dumbell-shaped panels, and the Nike prem ball has 6 double-hex panels, (whatever those are). Most of the recent tournaments have used new, nonstandard balls.

Prem ball:
http://www.acasports.co.uk/product_i...oducts_id=4739

World Cup ball:

Originally Posted by Enjoying Insanity

Not true.

The rough surfaces break down the laminar boundary layer flow on the surface of the ball and will actually make it go further.

Hence why a Golf ball has dimples in it, to make it travel further.

(Geek hat off )

and hence make it more subjective to spin?

Originally Posted by Grimson

Afraid not voxy. The adidas world cup ball didn't have hex panels, it had weird dumbell-shaped panels, and the Nike prem ball has 6 double-hex panels, (whatever those are). Most of the recent tournaments have used new, nonstandard balls.

Prem ball:
http://www.acasports.co.uk/product_i...oducts_id=4739

World Cup ball:

i am a layman with qualifications in physics amognst other subjects but that ball looks designed to move in the air.

i'd be interested if there are stats compared to previous generation balls

Originally Posted by Grimson

And a lighter ball will be more affected by wind.

Any excuse!

Originally Posted by Grimson

Afraid not voxy. The adidas world cup ball didn't have hex panels, it had weird dumbell-shaped panels, and the Nike prem ball has 6 double-hex panels, (whatever those are).

Fair enough. I haven't been to a premiership game for two years, so I'm not in a position to say.

A bog standard football still has 32 panels!! It just does. Grrrr.

Originally Posted by Camel

and hence make it more subjective to spin?

There has to be surface roughness/texture for spin to impart a bend to the ball's flight. So theoretically, I would expect more panels = more seams and irregularity = more potential spin.

I say potential, because with a football, the main factor in imparting spin is the tackiness of the ball's surface. The more friction between foot and ball, the more spin imparted. A slick, muddy ball is difficult to bend, because the foot will slide across the surface of the ball, rahter than 'grab' it.

EI, is this correct?

Originally Posted by Camel

i am a layman with qualifications in physics amognst other subjects but that ball looks designed to move in the air.

It did. I don't think there is a statistical way to quantify it, but some of the goals/shots at the World Cup swerved diabolically. Not a true bend due to spin, but madcap swerving. And many of the goalkeepers said they'd never seen a ball react like that.

Originally Posted by Grimson

There has to be surface roughness/texture for spin to impart a bend to the ball's flight. So theoretically, I would expect more panels = more seams and irregularity = more potential spin.

I say potential, because with a football, the main factor in imparting spin is the tackiness of the ball's surface. The more friction between foot and ball, the more spin imparted. A slick, muddy ball is difficult to bend, because the foot will slide across the surface of the ball, rahter than 'grab' it.

EI, is this correct?

i'd agree that the way the ball is struck by the foot of the player probably plays more of a part in how it behaves in the air rather than the actual construction of the ball.

it would be interesting, though, to have some subjective data on how the ball behaves irrespective of that external influence