Netherlands, Spain Get Ready for Historical World Cup Final
The star teams of the Netherlands and Spain are facing each other in South Africa 2010 World Cup final Sunday night.
The match, which will produce a brand-new new world champion that has never held the title before, will take place at 9:30 pm local time on the Soccer City Stadium in Johannesburg, after Saturday night when Germany beat Uruguay 3:2 in the match for the third place.
The 2010 World Cup final is historical not just because it will add a new nation to the teams that have won the trophy but will also mark the first time that an European country will win the title outside of Europe.
The Dutch have won all of their six matches in the World Cup so far. Together with Argentina, they were the only other team that got the maximum of 9 points out of their three matches in the preliminary group as they beat Denmark 2:0, Japan 1:0, and won 2:1 against Cameroon.
The Group of 16 match, the Netherlands threw out Slovakia from the World Cup with a 2:1 victory, and presented the big surprise as they beat Brazil 2:1 in the quarter finals. After a similarly tough match, the Dutch also won against Uruguay 3:2 in the semi-final.
The Netherlands are the second most scoring team so far with 12 goals (the Germans have 13) in the World Cup; their opponents have scored 5 times in their goal.
Unlike the Dutch, the Spanish did not get off to the best start as they lost their first match in the World Cup to Switzerland 0:1. After beating Honduras 2:0 and Chile 2:1, however, they ended first in Group H.
In second phase of the tournament they achieved three minimal 1:0 victories against Portugal, Paraguay, and Germany respectively. The Spanish have scored only 7 goals in the World Cup so far but have also had scored to them only 2.
- » Grigor Dimitrov Struggled but Reached the Third Round of the Australian Open
- » Ronaldinho: Brazilian World Cup Winner Retires From Football
- » Grigor Dimitrov on the Court Again on Wednesday at 10:00 Bulgarian Time
- » Novak Djokovic HITS BACK Over ‘Exaggerated’ Australian Open
- » Dimitrov Easily Qualified for the Australian Open's Second Round
- » Ronaldo to Leave Real Madrid?
I never got a Myspace because even in its heyday it was tawdry and idiotic. I've been a member of Facebook since it was for college people only but I don't friend people I don't know.
There are places I reveal personal thoughts and places I reveal personal information. The two do not coincide and I keep user names and details separate. This one is neither, by the way.
<"anyone would think you have revealed something really personal"
On the Internet? Are you insane?>
So...You don't use any social media, like facebook or myspace? Or is it that you trust random strangers who can view your profile more than you trust us back-biting vipers on this forum? Just asking...
I'll start with this:
"Only someone like Bill would admire anyone for the numbers of books one has read."
Not even I would admire someone for that criterion. More important is what, if anything they got from the reading. I've met some very educated people who are lost outside their profession.
Now as to the numbers and WW, neither DrFaust nor I am "fascinated" by all this. We're just sick and tired of always hearing how great she is in comparison with us mere mortals.
The truly educated don't need to trumpet it. At least none of the ones I've met. In fact, once when I had a visitor come to the house while I had a renowned professor as a guest, I asked the professor, "Should I introduce you as Professor Doctor?". He said, "No. Just Theodor". The man is brilliant, and so is his wife. However neither of them goes to any lengths to advertise that.
WW needs to learn that she's overpriced the goods, and we're not buying.
"You know, it is really amusing. To see all these irrelevant zeros, how they sit in front of their screen green with anger and throw their hatred and abuse ... blah...blah...blah...."
Clearly you must be talking to the man in your mirror. The rest of the "irrelevant zeros" agree with me. hehehe
"I am not saying it's admirable or anything positive or negative. It's just a fact."
Poor dear, I almost feel sorry for you, chained to a book and reading 24/7 instead of doing fun things that young people your age do. Bill and Fister are certainly infatuated by this bit of information. Gee, the way they carry on about it, anyone would think you have revealed something really personal and interesting, not how many books you have read. They just can't let it go, they keep beating it like the proverbial dead horse. lol
What is so good about reading so much puke written by self-absorbed boring idiots? Only someone like Bill would admire anyone for the numbers of books one has read. Do you really care so much for Bill's admiration and respect? Reading so much means you have missed out on all sorts of other life experiences and adventures. When do you have time to live if all you do is read all the time?
And yes, Bill, it is possible even if you can't imagine it. One tends to read faster and faster the more one reads. I started reading earlier than you assume and by age 12, I averaged over a hundred pages an hour in Bulgarian. To be honest, my second-grade teacher didn't believe me as well, when I started and finished a small book within the class time and tested me.
"DrFaust obviously confused your stated age as the number of books read."
Wow, I am a very well-preserved 28000-year old.
In all seriousness, if things like numbers and words confuse him, shouldn't he just get some learning disorder help school instead of thrashing about in his insecurities?
Don't give anything to the Fisted. He is one of those insolent and arrogant morons who will bite off your whole arm if you give him a finger. Just flip him the bird and call it a day. Let him go into his "pictionnary" to find out what flipping the bird means in German. lols
Nice try, but no cigar.
DrFaust obviously confused your stated age as the number of books read.
However, it still remains v-e-r-y doubtful that you actually have done what you claim.
I deducted 6 years from the age, and based my calculation on 22 years. You still can't have read that many books as a child, and I daresay that not even an adult can. Especially when you consider that the figure I stated is an average, and any non-quota month will have to be made up in succeeding months.
Now, assuming you have a job, sleep sometimes, and may even do a little housework, there's no way you're going to read over 50 books a month.
So now go back to your sandbox and play with the other kids.