WHO WILL WIN THE WORLD CUP
With the world cup just a matter of days away and the players to feature in it already called up, it’s normal for football fans to try and draw their minds in thinking about their respective favorite countries. While others may be willing to try and throw around some money as they bet on who could possibly win the most decorated trophy in football, others are looking at the odds of success for their countries and players (at least those they support). If I may quote, Albert Einstein once said “those who have never failed, are those who haven’t tried out some thing new”, am going to try and empirically predict who the world cup winner could possibly turn out to be since I share a thing or two in common with Albert Einstein. Date of birth (23/04) and we are both scientists, so to say.
Interestingly, all the past WC winners did win in style and followed some pattern with minimal deviation. For some reason, these winners did so in years that summed up to 3964. If I may start, the year 1982 in Spain, Italy won against West Germany 3-1 being the score. Anyway, 1982 + 1982 = 3964. This is OK as it can be our centroid. On wards on wards, in 1986, Argentina snatches the trophy from West Germany but had also won it in 1978 at the expense of Netherlands scoring three in each of the finals. Interestingly, 1986 + 1978 = 3964. 1990 proved to a very exciting year to many. Well, if not to you, what used to be West Germany will prove you wrong as this was their year cruising past Argentina in the grand finale. Wait a minute; these guys had caused their fans celebrate in cibeles in 1974. At this point, I need not tell the reader that 1990+1974=3964 but for the sole reason of making my point, 1990 + 1974 = 3964. Brazil finishes the job against Italy in 1994. Remember the Roberto Baggio miss, I know you were born and had a thing for soccer. Well, these guys had just replicated what they had done in 1970 though this time round it was in the 90 minutes. Yeah, I know its being too monotonous but, 1994 + 1970 = 3964. Funny enough, the WC is usually won by those that have won it before and on such a date that an anomaly occurs, fancy the host nation to win the title. OK, in 1998, France won this prestigious trophy after pouncing on Brazil but had never done this before. In correspondence to the 3964 law, England had done so in 1966 on home soil. Interestingly, they had both been host nations and this proved to be one of a few anomalies in this law. However, it was half because they were both host nations. Brazil, dragged the whole world back to the 3964 law as in 2002, they won the world cup after scrappy performances against the likes of Turkey. It becomes an insult to all football analysts world over if even one single soccer fan knows not that Brazil won the world cup in 1962. Go ahead and punch on those figures in your calculator, 2002 + 1962 = 3964. It’s a shame that 2006 falls in neither category as a disorganized Brazil was eliminated by a solitary Thierry Henry goal. Anyways, these things happen and we are left with the onus of predicting the coming two world cups.
If we go ahead and follow the 3964 law, West Germany should be leading in contention but it’s no more on the world map. This could really prove to be an anomaly as its open for the taking. However, i give none of the former world cup winners a chance in a million odds to take this trophy. Am left with probable options of strong nations like Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, USA or even an African nation like Ghana, Algeria, South Africa to mention but a few. On a lighter side of the coin, if it happens to be a previous world cup winner, fancy Italy to take it because it has always capitalized on these anomalies.
Guys, did I mention that the 2014 World cup is to be hosted by Brazil which they last hosted in 1950? It’s no coincidence that 2014 + 1950 = 3964, fancy Uruguay or Brazil to take that trophy but for sure, that trophy won’t be leaving South America. This is just my thinking.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?