So who has the hardest shot in the football

KdjaCL

applehunter wrote:

Hopefully he can keep on doing what hes doing.

So you can get more money for him?


kdjac

madds

Seem to remember Johnny Metgod (tall, balding Dutch midfielder) of Notts Forest had a fair crack on him back in the late 80's.

stooge

can anybody get a link to the david hirst shot against arsenal that was reportedly 114mph?

Van persies goal at the weekend agaisnt sunderland was one of the fastest Ive seen. Craig Gordon dived when the ball was already in the net! :rolleyes:

PHB

What about the Rooney strike against Given? That was pretty ****ing fast. Also, I remember a video by Seedorf which could only be described as a thunderbolt!

Here it is
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=xuYuKXnaW8M

Davey Devil

PHB wrote:

Think of it like this. If you hit a cricket ball with a bat, or you hit a tennis ball with a bat, which goes further? Both are designed in a roughly similar way, but the tennis ball is gona go much further, yet it's lighter.

That sounds like rubbish to me. I'm pretty sure a top hitter like Yuvraj Singh couldn't hit a tennis ball this lenght.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82kONez0_tU

PHB

Why? Imagine the tennis ball was thrown at the same pace and he connected with it as much. Think of Rounders, remember how hard you could hit it even though you don't have the skill of Singh.

Davey Devil

I've never seen anyone smash a tennis ball this far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EsRRjHgLc8&mode=related&search=

herbieflowers

Seaneh wrote:

Milan had a brazilian centre back like 10 years ago called Cruz who hit some screamers, used to call his free-kicks cruz-missiles... oh I miss channel4 italian footie.

haha, classic Peter Brackley...

Davey Devil

PHB wrote:

Think of it like this. If you hit a cricket ball with a bat, or you hit a tennis ball with a bat, which goes further? Both are designed in a roughly similar way, but the tennis ball is gona go much further, yet it's lighter.

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html

6. Force on a cricket ball

Drop a cricket ball on a cricket pitch and the ball bounces up off the pitch. How long does the ball remain in contact with the pitch and how big is the force on the ball? Cricket balls are relatively stiff compared to say a tennis ball, and the contact time is shorter. A tennis ball spends 0.005 seconds in contact with the court or the strings of a racquet. A cricket ball spends about 0.001 seconds in contact with the pitch or in contact with a bat. The force on the ball has to slow it down to a complete stop and then accelerate it back in the other direction, all in the space of 0.001 seconds. Suppose that a 0.16 kg cricket ball hits a bat at 100 km/hr and then comes off the bat at 100 km/hr in the reverse direction. Imagine a car accelerating from 0 to 100 km/hr in 0.001 seconds. That's a lot of acceleration. A Porshe can do it in 5 seconds, but a cricket ball does it 10,000 times faster. The average force on the ball is 8,800 N, enough to lift a mass of 880 kg off the ground. The peak force on the ball is about double that, enough to lift a 1.76 tonne car off the ground. That's why it hurts to get struck on the head or anywhere else with a cricket ball.

Basically alot of the speed is taken out of the tennis ball on impact because a tennis ball is softer it compresses more.

astrofool

A tennis ball also benefits from the elastic effect from the strings of the racket, while a cricket bat is a lot less elastic, + the tennis ball is more effected by wind resistance. If you could get a cricket bat that was more elastic and still strong enough not to break, i'm sure you could make that cricket ball fly pretty far

Could the strings on a racket survive a 200kph collision with an object the mass of a cricket ball? (cricket ball travelling at 100kph meeting racket being swung at 100kph).

Xavi6

Seaneh wrote:

Milan had a brazilian centre back like 10 years ago called Cruz who hit some screamers, used to call his free-kicks cruz-missiles... oh I miss channel4 italian footie.

Andre Cruz wasn't it? think he was at Napoli for years before that. Franck Lebouef could hit them too if I recall right.

PHB

Basically alot of the speed is taken out of the tennis ball on impact because a tennis ball is softer it compresses more.

Yeh fair enough, which is the point was initially making just a bad example. It's not about the weight of the ball, it's about the design and how well it absorbes the force of the ball. If you have a good similar design, and you have a choice between a heavy ball and a light ball, the light ball is always gona go further because less force goes back into the foot/bat

astrofool

PHB wrote:

Yeh fair enough, which is the point was initially making just a bad example. It's not about the weight of the ball, it's about the design and how well it absorbes the force of the ball. If you have a good similar design, and you have a choice between a heavy ball and a light ball, the light ball is always gona go further because less force goes back into the foot/bat

But that's negating wind resistance, which affects a light object alot more than a heavy object

GLaDOS

Heavier ball = more momentum, which would help for longer shots

KdjaCL

Sciencenerd has spoken so heavier ball goes faster, imo it makes sense always thought they added fins and aerodynamics to balls to make them curl more and be hard to stop due to zig zaggity of it all.


kdjac

fortuneg

KdjaCL wrote: »

...thought they added fins and aerodynamics to balls to make them curl more and be hard to stop due to zig zaggity of it all.


kdjac

Woah!
Lets not get too bogged down in scientific mumbo jumbo jargon!