[Football] “We’d of won if Pedro scored” aka “ We'd have won if Pedro scored”

[HeaviestTed]

Come on HeavyTedBoy, sort it aat,

"We'd have won."

Apologies

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

'of'

I hope you're not making OP an escape goat. Although it's a simple shoe-in to request a greater level of literacy, I strongly suspect that request would fall on death ears

 

[Easy 10]

Awful miss. Cost us the game.

Get rid.

 

[HeaviestTed]

I both agree and disagree...

The result of the game is the sum of the play over the 90 minutes. There are many twists and turns and it's not possible to say what may have happened had any particular incident had a different outcome. The most obvious one from yesterday was Gravenberch's miss. Had he scored, and put Liverpool 3-2 up, they'd have been strong favourites to win the game.

However, it's also the case that scoring a goal to take the lead late on is likely to see a side emerge victorious. So, given the game was all square, and given there was very little time to go, had Pedro kept his shot down, we would have been 90%+ likely to win.

I suppose I just don’t think it is fair to say he stopped us winning

 

[Bozza]

I suppose I just don’t think it is fair to say he stopped us winning

No, and I absolutely agree with you on that.

If we'd not got caught out Fannying Around At The Back (TM), then we'd have been already ahead and it wouldn't have mattered.

But given everything that had already happened, if he had scored we probably would have won. But that's not same as blaming him.

 

[Wozza]

Didn't the call bobble badly just before he struck it?

 

[RandyWanger]

Fine margins in these games against top teams. They had a chance to put it to bed also but hit the bar. A point was fair.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

No, and I absolutely agree with you on that.

If we'd not got caught out Fannying Around At The Back (TM), then we'd have been already ahead and it wouldn't have mattered.

But given everything that had already happened, if he had scored we probably would have won. But that's not same as blaming him.

Is that the thing that's only supposed to happen a couple of times a season according to the Big Brains That Understand Football but in reality now happens with horrible frequency and consequences?

Who would 'of' thought, eh?

 

[BNthree]

Didn't the call bobble badly just before he struck it?

Hate it when calls bobble badly.

 

[fly high]

Baleba's was hardly a big chance, Adringra's 1on1 was a big chance

Especially as there looked like a player free in the middle he could have past to

 

[Bozza]

Especially as there looked like a player free in the middle he could have past to

It was Pedo though, wasn't it? He'd of mist.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It was Pedo though, wasn't it? He'd of mist.

Any fule kno that

 

[Horses Arse]

I both agree and disagree...

The result of the game is the sum of the play over the 90 minutes. There are many twists and turns and it's not possible to say what may have happened had any particular incident had a different outcome. The most obvious one from yesterday was Gravenberch's miss. Had he scored, and put Liverpool 3-2 up, they'd have been strong favourites to win the game.

However, it's also the case that scoring a goal to take the lead late on is likely to see a side emerge victorious. So, given the game was all square, and given there was very little time to go, had Pedro kept his shot down, we would have been 90%+ likely to win.

3-1 it would of been I thought, which would of been crushing. It might of made us even more open, and we might of shipped more.

I of really done it now. Smashed computer screens galore

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And it was a pretty good save too.

Their were a number of good saves.

 

[fly high]

I hope you're not making OP an escape goat. Although it's a simple shoe-in to request a greater level of literacy, I strongly suspect that request would fall on death ears

Generally I'm not a fan of grammar police but the number of times you see 'of' posted instead of 'have'. Happens more & more. Seems there are people who just do not understand it may sound like 'of' when spoken but it's really the abbreviation of have :- 've. So keep at it & maybe people will learn eventually.

 

[fly high]

It was Pedo though, wasn't it? He'd of mist.

Brain mist. I knew it was wrong but just couldn't think!!!!! I never use 'of' when it should be 'have'.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Generally I'm not a fan of grammar police but the number of times you see 'of' posted instead of 'have'. Happens more & more. Seems there are people who just do not understand it may sound like 'of' when spoken but it's really the abbreviation of have :- 've. So keep at it & maybe people will learn eventually.

Although could be that 'of' is now so prevalent that should've would've could've etc has sort of slipped into a former form of ye olde English that has now evolved. Because that's how languages evolve

 

[Horses Arse]

Generally I'm not a fan of grammar police but the number of times you see 'of' posted instead of 'have'. Happens more & more. Seems there are people who just do not understand it may sound like 'of' when spoken but it's really the abbreviation of have :- 've. So keep at it & maybe people will learn eventually.

Not as bad as 'are vs our' though surely? That completely baffles me

 

[London Irish]

I both agree and disagree...

The result of the game is the sum of the play over the 90 minutes. There are many twists and turns and it's not possible to say what may have happened had any particular incident had a different outcome. The most obvious one from yesterday was Gravenberch's miss. Had he scored, and put Liverpool 3-2 up, they'd have been strong favourites to win the game.

However, it's also the case that scoring a goal to take the lead late on is likely to see a side emerge victorious. So, given the game was all square, and given there was very little time to go, had Pedro kept his shot down, we would have been 90%+ likely to win.

Would have been 3-1? game over really

 

[essbee1]

Apologies

Apology excepted.