This mini debate has come up with my friends on several different occasions.
Often after a football match the pundits will be doing their analysis and will say something along the lines of “… football team **should ** have won.” I disagree with this use. If the football team in question did not score more goals than the oposition then there is no reason for why the should have won.
When the only factors which contribute a result are the goals scored by each team, it just dosnt seem right in my opinion to say: because football team had 70% of the possesion, 10 more corners, 15 more shots off target or 10 more shots on target that they are the team the should have won. Surely this just shows how strong the defence of the opposition was, and no one has ever won a game of football by consitently shooting off target.
I think it is fine to say that “…football teamCOULD have won” because if they had taken all their chances and/or the opposition goal keeper and defenders were having a bad game then more of their shots could have gone in.
Let’s say we roll a die, and if a 1 or 2 comes up, you win. 3,4,5,6 comes up, I win.
We roll and it’s a 1. You won, but I SHOULD have won. Do you agree with that part?
Now, people don’t always extend this thinking to sports. They think a game is deterministic, not a series of probabilistic events.
If a team has 70% possession, 10 more corners, 15 more shots on goal. . .they’re going to win 8 out of 10 games, say. So, yes, when that team loses, I think it’s fair to say “they should have won.”
Im affraid I don’t, maybe because I have lost money gambling with that attitude. You had a better chance to win, but I still had a chance. The way I see it, the only way were you SHOULD win is if you win with numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6.
I agree that having more possesion and more shots on goal will give you a better probability of scoring goals and winning the game and in many games these stats will belong to the winning team. However I still see it as they could have won and not should.
This implies that the winners on the day SHOULD have lost, I’m sure they would disagree, after all they scored more goals. They would probably say they got lucky, they defended well, took their chances and were overall more clinical infront of goal.
No, in that case, you WILL win. SHOULD still implies an element of maybe, as per Trunk’s 1,2 example.
For example, if I said, "I SHOULD be done with this report by 10, I might not be done till 11. If I tell my boss I WILL be done by 10, I better have it on his desk at 9:59.
No, WILL is interchangeable with with the present tense SHALL. If you tell your boss you shall have the report done by 10. Your boss will say that you SHOULD have done it by 10.
In the context you’re using “should”, I would refer to this definition from dictionary.com.
“Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.”
In the dice example, the EXPECTATION is that I win. I “should” win. It is in this vein, that the word should is being used in your football game.
If you disagree with my usage of it for the dice example, then we’re just arguing definitions, and you’re not going to convince me of anything. Let the lexicographers fight it out.
If you want to argue that a sporting contest is not a collection of different events whose outcomes can be describe probabilistically, that’s a more interesting question. But, if you disagree with my dice example, that I “should” win if I have 3,4,5,6, then you’re ignoring the usage of ‘should’ to describe likelihood.
I would use “should have won” when talking about a team that overall has a better record and stronger players than their opponent. It seems like they should have won, but that day they lost to a seemingly weaker opponent. It’s based on a judgment about the teams before the game, not based on what happened during the game.
Not necessarily past performance or strengths though. A concrete example: in the Ireland-France Six Nations rugby a few weeks ago, Ireland and France were pretty well matched, but Ireland (arguably) played better throughout the game. In the last two minutes, though, the team rested on its laurels and France got a try and conversion, and won the match. My reaction: “[Given the way Ireland played during the rest of the match, and if they hadn’t let their guard down at the end] Ireland should have won.”
There’s an implied “given” in the statement that is usually omitted when such a statement is said.
Ok, I thinks its safe to say I am using a different definition of “should”. When I hear it after a match I dont hear the expected version. If thats what the pundits mean I would preffer them to say, “Gretna would have expected to win after putting in a performance like that”. To me the “Gretna should have won after putting in a performance like that” sounds too deterministic, I dont see football as sport where you can say, shoot lots and you’ll win.
I think it was Monaco that often played a counter attacking game, they would often wait very late in the game before counter attacking and scoring the winner. Up to that point the opposition would be camped in the Monaco goal mouth, the defence was so good at containing those attacks that the opposition would have a dozen shots but always have it blocked or saved. In that situation its clearer that shots on goal dont necessarily = win.
I should probably say now that I am a goal keeper and it annonys me when I have a storming good game and save everything that comes my way, only to hear the opposition or spectators saying the opposition should have won. Why should they ? I was playing too, and doing my job better than their strikers !