midfield and attack was/were

dumbfounded

Senior Member
persian
Problem with use of was and were in this sentence.
No doubt Spanish defence was bad and the goal keeping was poor as well but you deny the fact that Spain scored only one goal till now and that was a penalty, with 60 + possession without a field goal shows that the midfield and attack was/were pathetic as well.
My assumptions, I don't know if I'm right or not.
=>Midfield and attack of Spain was pathetic.
=>Midfield and attack were pathetic.
 
  • Egmont

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    The midfield was pathetic. The attack was pathetic. Both of them together were pathetic. (They both played much better than I could, but for purposes of this thread I will accept your statement.)

    The cat is brown. The dog is brown. The cat and the dog are brown. Same concept.
     

    kalamazoo

    Senior Member
    US, English
    This sentence is poorly constructed and has too many verbs to hang together. The possession without a field goal "shows" something, but this is not a clause that you can use after 'with' the way you have it.
     

    dumbfounded

    Senior Member
    persian
    Another one I think Its better constructed.The Spain's players performance were not good.As so many players so Were.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top