Sentences with phrase «won because»

It was very difficult to pick a favourite but the Red Kite tote won because it's such a magnificent and beautiful bird.

Pep Guardiola: «The penalty was a penalty, the offside was offside but we won because we were better.»

The last Premier League game at Sunderland was won because AA put in an exquisite cross for Thierry to score and we took all three points putting us into 4th place.

«The other night [against Cardiff], we did OK, but I won because I had Robin van Persie in the team.

«The league wouldn't have been sewn up even if we'd won because there are 11 games left.

It seems unlikely Swagger is going to defeat him in a rematch where Swagger only won because the ref doesn't understand intent: Corbin should get a decisive or impressive victory here that sets him up for something bigger.

City wasn't playing well, we got lucky with the penalty, and now we only won because Henry was analyzing.

But we won because they were on the pitch.

Whenever we win ugly most fans are quick to say the other team let us win instead of asking themselves whether we won because of the quality our midfield provides.

I won because I played the best,» she says.

we don't need all the punters presenters and neighbors to say we won because of a easy ride and lets face it up until now it was an reasonable easy run almost as easy as Man - U last year NO sorry it will never be that easy for anyone

Wenger for one could no longer claim that Chelsea or City won because he can not compete with their budget.

We won it because our players wanted to win and worked for it.

Utd won because Van Persie made the team stronger.

So I'm struggling to see the logic in Dabo giving up a national championship (a second straight one at that), a title without Deshaun Watson (which would help mitigate the «oh, Clemson and Dabo only won because they had Watson» crap), 3 years of a 5 - star NC - winning - caliber QB in order to....

«He won because he had more desire,» Pugh told his players.

Of course I wish we would have won because we could have.

So clearly the argument after the fight wasn't who won, but what rounds Canelo won because he was schooled 12 - 0.

2 seasons ago Mou said Chelsea won't win but the year after would be ready and he was right Last season Chelsea carried the expectation of winning for 9 months and won because it was their year.

We've drawn games that we should have won because we conceded goals that are a result of some silly mistakes that happen at the back and not because we were tactically outplayed, its really unfair to put the blame on the manager for that.

A striker's job besides scoring goals is to force the opponent into offering penalties, United were infamous for having decisions go in their favour and look how many titles they won because of that.

Chelsh * t won because we were down at the back.

They won because Carroll teamed with a new general manager, John Schneider, and promptly drafted a slew of cheap young talent that won a championship on their rookie contracts.

Arsene Wenger claims Arsenal won because of the spirit of the team.

Chelsea had the least injuries out of any team in the entire PL this season, people keep claiming how they have great «squad depth» and that was the difference but that is utter bullsh*t, they won because their entire defence, DMF, and goalie missed about 5 games between them.

However, they may have won because Hurts probably would have moved the ball well enough to prevent Saban from upgrading with the Tag insertion.

They won because they had the gall to fire coach Jim Mora after a single season in order to hire Pete Carroll, who was never supposed to work in the NFL again after failed stints with the Jets and Patriots in the»90s.

They won because Carroll is the kind of coach that no Seattle team has ever had.

In both games at Wembley we won because we wanted it more.

The Red Sox won because they had the best pitching in the division.

Funny everyone is saying that we won because teams were at the beach.

Do not come with the excuse Leicester did not spend and WON it because then this is FARCICAL.

He won because a trainer who had a broken right leg and a 1 - for - 32record in starts at his home track in New Mexico this season loaded him into ahorse van and drove him 1,466 miles leftfooted to race the blue bloods in theirbackyard.

the game was won because ozil sanchez cazorla and coquelin were on top and sublime form which allowed us to completely control the game... it was a joy to watch... and this guy scores walcott and ramsey as same level or higher.

We should have won because if you were to choose between the two squad and pick one team maybe the spuds get two players with the rest made up of Arsenal players, our inability to change in games is hurting us.

Again, like last season, Arsenal won because of a controversial decision.

We've won because of mistakes by the other teams.

That is why............... oh shit City won because they spent the most.

I'm surprised we won because that was quite a bad team we had out there.

the reality is they won because they had a game plan (counter away and sit back at home and they executed it correctly classic European tactic never fails) for away from home and we didn't take them seriously enough at home, and they defended for there lives at home and we couldn't find the decisive goal to finish them off this is very typical c / l trend nowadays how many of the modern teams like athletico madird and the like get through with a game plan and hard graft at the back.

I enjoyed reading these comments and happy for the positivity, it even felt like a proper final, unlike playing against Hull city and you have some pundits, rival fans and our own fans saying we won because it was Hull city..

This led people to make the mistake of thinking that Dallas won BECAUSE Romo didn't pass much.

The»63 club won because of its defense, Allen's defense.

I still don't see how he is a super sub.He's labelled as a super sub just because of this season.Those matches when he scored he was supposed to be played because we needed an aerial presence.A lot of those matches had he started we could've won because we needed aerial presence.But the thing is that his abilities don't suit him as a super sub.I mean he holds up the ball well and is great in the air and that's just about it.He's actually the one one who needs service and who needs players around him to open up defences for him to receive the pass and not vice versa.Super subs actually provide they are not the one's to be provided for.In Giroud's case he was supposed to start in those in matches as Sanchez was not up to the task in aerial battles.Giroud will not be able to affect a match if the opponents are as good in the air.

«We won because we have Diana and nobody else does,» he said.

So, let's take your argument, «The Steelers won because of running the ball well and Time of Possession.»

The Kings possibly won because the Nets are one of the worst teams in the NBA with a 1 - 8 record.

I would rather Chelsea had won because it's plainly obvious we are not going to win the league and it would have kept Spurs below us in the battle for 4th place.

We've just got 1 point from 2 games we should have won because of poor finishing.

We won because we wanted it more, I think Sanchez will join bayern hope I'm wrong though, we need a Sanchez replacement even if he signs a new contract just because we can and don't need to be relying so heavily on just one player I'd sign Henry onyekuru and toliso and sell ozil the vibe he gives off hasn't changed in the past 2 seasons and how tf did he miss that chance