We were 2/3 in yesterday’s results for the World Cup, using the Google Trends Conspiracy Method (GTCM). All these acronymys, I’m going to have to pick one sooner or later, we still have 3 more weeks of this. Ha. Anyhow, here’s what happened:
- Yesterday’s Matches:
- Ecuador (3) – Costa Rica (0)
- England (2) – Trinidad-Tobago (0)
- Sweden (1) – Paraguay (0)
So I’ll admit that I was wrong on Ecuador, but it was a really hard trend graph to read. Costa Rica only beat them out by a smidge on the normal results and Ecuador was actually ahead in the news trends, so I basically took a guess.
The other matches went off without a hitch though, In-Ger-Land took care of the Trinitoes without a problem, and Sweden, however worried I was, took out Paraguay.
Now, the action for today has already started, but here’s the rundown on the matches:
- Today’s Matches:
- Argentina (6) – Serbia-Montenegro (0)
- Netherlands vs. Cote d’Ivoire
- Mexico vs. Angola
It’s already obvious that Argentina completely destroyed Serbia-Montenegro today, which we pretty much knew was going to happen. As I write this, the Netherlands are tied with Cote d’Ivoire at 0-0 20 minutes into the game and Mexico is waiting in the hotel to drive to the field for the Angola annihilation. Yee-ha.
Ok, and to finish this off… I’m going camping in a few hours and won’t be back until Sunday. Because of that I’ll toss up the predictions for tomorrow…
- June 17th Matches:
- Iran vs. Portugal
- Ghana vs. Czech Republic
- USA vs. Italy
There you have it. Iran and Portugal is going to be a tight one. Same issue there with the news results and regular results being different, so we’ll see. And I don’t really expect the USA to keep winning, but if they do– it definitely proves the Google Trends World Cup Conspiracy (GTWCC). Ha, there’s another one for you.
The only requirement for your mention to be recognized is a link to this post in your post's content. You can update or delete your post and then re-submit the URL in the form to update or remove your response from this page.
Learn more about Webmentions.