Usually, the headlines coming out of a football match relate to the action out on the pitch. It’s very rare that the football itself – that spherical, inanimate object that makes the sport what it is – even warrants a mention. Not unless someone is complaining about it, anyway.
True to form, Mikel Arteta couldn’t wait to lambast Puma’s Orbita 1 ball, which has been used in the EFL Cup throughout the 2024/25 season. His Arsenal side missed a hatful of chances in their semi-final defeat to Newcastle United, with Arteta blaming the ball – rather than the wasteful finishing of his players – as the reason for the loss. Is the Spaniard just making excuses or can different brands and types of football have a genuine impact on the outcome of a game?
It’s Tricky
The new season awaits 🤝⚽
Introducing the 2024/25 PUMA Orbita Sky Bet EFL Ball.
#EFL pic.twitter.com/GL45IGU1HU— EFL (@EFL) June 25, 2024
Arsenal took Newcastle to the cleaners in that EFL Cup tie in January. They fired in 23 shots at the Magpies goal and these weren’t speculative long-range shots either, with the Gunners racking up an eye-watering 3.09 of xG without being able to put the Puma Orbita 1 in the back of the Newcastle net.
That ball is used solely in the EFL Cup – a Nike-branded ball is used in the Premier League, and had failed to barely warrant a mention in the earlier rounds until Arteta decided to blame the profligacy of his players on its ‘tricky’ aerodynamics.
“We kicked a lot of balls over the bar, and it’s tricky that these balls fly a lot so there’s details that we can do better,” the Spaniard claimed. “[It’s] very different to a Premier League ball, and you have to adapt to that because it flies differently,”
Of course, the maligned ball hadn’t failed to stop Arsenal romping through the earlier rounds of the EFL. Nor did it prevent Alexander Isak or Anthony Gordon from scoring for Newcastle against the Gunners. Mind you, Puma’s Orbita 1 is somewhat different to the standard match ball, boasting a ‘3D textured 1.2mm PU surface’ that, apparently, leads to improved aerodynamics, while the eight-panel configuration results in a better connection’ for those kicking or heading it. That’s as per the manufacturer’s marketing spiel, anyway.
In defence of Puma, an EFL spokesperson revealed that the Orbita 1 has been ‘tested in accordance with the FIFA Quality Programme for Footballs, and meets the FIFA Quality Pro standard,’ before delivering their coup de grace: “All clubs play with the same ball.” Maybe, just maybe, Arteta was talking balls on this occasion.
World Cup of Woe for Goalkeepers
It’s not the first time that a particular match ball has come in for criticism. But with the Adidas Jabulani, it wasn’t a fairly nondescript domestic cup competition that was affected. No, this reprehensible sphere was in play at the biggest tournament of them all: the World Cup.
The 2010 edition of the global spectacle was played in South Africa, with the name Jabulani translating from Zulu to ‘be happy.’ But the players, and particularly goalkeepers, were less than thrilled by the ball zooming around – Brazilian shot-stopper, Julio Cesar, likened it to a plastic football purchased from a supermarket.
He wasn’t the only one miffed by the Jabulani. Robinho claimed that the ball’s designer ‘never played football’, while Brazilian colleague Luis Fabinho was so spooked he labelled it ‘supernatural’, with reference to the unlikely deviations in flight that the Jabulani took. And the goalkeeper’s union was united in defiance against the ball, with Iker Casillas, Gianluigi Buffon and David James labelling it ‘horrible’, ‘absolutely inadequate’ and ‘dreadful’, respectively.
‘Worst Ball Ever’
To make matters worse, the flight of the ball seemed to be affected by the thinner air at high altitude in South Africa’s stadiums, leading the normally placid Fabio Capello to describe the Jabulani as the ‘worst ball ever’. The marketing bluster from Adidas suggested that the Jabulani would, in fact, be one of the best balls ever seen on the world stage, for one good reason: the series of grooves imposed upon the leather, which they termed ‘Grip ‘n Groove’.
But the rough surface seemed to create problems, with the ball passing through the air unpredictably. And so shots were blessed with a ‘knuckle ball’ effect more commonly seen in baseball, which causes the ball to move laterally or vertically in bizarre and unexpected ways. Still, there was at least one happy camper. Diego Forlan, the former Manchester United and Uruguay striker, had managed to get his hands on a Jabulani months in advance of the tournament.
He recognised that the ball shifted through the air in weird and wonderful ways, spending hours on the training ground practising his shooting with it. By the end of the 2010 World Cup, he finished joint top goalscorer along with Thomas Muller, David Villa and Wesley Sneijder.
An Almighty Balls Up
Presumably, Adidas learned their lessons from 2010, right? Well, not exactly. By the time the 2018 World Cup rolled around in Russia, they had released their new ball, the Telstar 18. And reviews were, shall we say, mixed. In preparation for the World Cup, Spain and Germany played in a friendly using the Telstar 18. And they were less than enamoured with what they discovered.
”I bet you as much as you like that we’ll see at least 35 goals from long range [in Russia], because it’s impossible to work out,” wagered Spanish goalkeeper, Pepe Reina. Adidas had replaced the Grip n’ Groove of the Jabulani with an almost a plastic-like sheen to the Telstar 18, and once again goalkeepers complained of the ball ‘moving around’ and being difficult to grip.
In the end, Reina’s bet would have lost, as despite some long range screamers being scored in the tournament, the ball – which Adidas had decreed to be the ‘most perfect piece of equipment ever used in the game’ – behaved better than it had in trials and friendly games. Why can’t they go back to the good old days when a football was just some leather panels stitched together, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel each time?
