Hi Damian, I often see your explanation use "would", why do you usually use "would"? How does it actually work? Second, can the word "is" be used?
To register a shot on target means to have a shot on target. In this example, United have not troubled the keeper - they have not had any shots on target. Another way of saying 'on target' would be 'on goal' - the team did not register a shot on goal
Scorch means to burn and in football a scorcher refers to a really hard shot. A scorcher is a really well-struck shot that travels very fast and powerfully into the net. Another word for this would be thunderbolt.
England did not really have too much to worry about before their game against the weakest team in the European qualifying section, the minnows San Marino but the headline from The Guardian newspaper uses the word ‘demolition‘ (the verb form is to demolish) which describes a huge victory for one side over another one. So, to demolish a building, for example, would be to knock down the building – completely destroy it. So this idea of a demolition in football means that the opponent has been destroyed – completely thrashed. Like the Spanish headline, the verb ‘confirm’ is used here. So England needed a point beforehand; they got the win so they are definitely going to the World Cup, they confirmed their spot at the 2022 World Cup.
great question! Let me answer for Damian.
Basically you can us ‘is’ instead of ‘would’ in these examples.
The reason that ‘would’ is used is because there is usually no one correct option; there are options. So, ‘Another word for this would be thunderbolt.’ but it could be screamer.
another reason is that when we give hypothetical examples (demolish a building), it is often best to use ‘would/could’ forms.
Hope that helps!
Hi Damon thank you for the answer. So if there is only one option, then we use "is", right? But you said "you can use 'is' in these examples", it means 'is' can also be used for different options. I'm a bit confused. Could you explain more clearly?
Languages (not just English) give the speaker options for nuance - would is ‘softer’ than ‘is’ - it is rare for there to be just one correct answer or choice - especially in football.
My personal feeling is that using 'would be' turns it into more of a suggestion. It's like saying 'here is a possible alternative that the speaker has just thought of, there could be others and there could be better ones'. The form with 'is' is a little bit more direct. It's a little bit more assertive. But it's a very slight and subtle difference. But I think it's similar to the difference between 'I would recommend learning English through football' and 'I recommend learning English through football'. The first one is just a tiny bit more of a polite suggestion and the second one is just a tiny bit more of an instruction.