I think I see where you're going wrong: you seem to think 'could' is the same as 'did'. This is incorrect, wildly so. For future reference, and to prevent you subsequently making a similar error, 'could' relates to possibility/potential, 'did', in this context, only applies to something that actually occurred.

I've heard at the start of the game Catalans could have put 100 past FC...

Could have...

(And this isn't an FC thing just that the 'could have' argument is completely meaningless.)

not sure i agree. no tries are cetain in RL until they are given - for example briscoe could have slipped, pulled a hamstring, any pass inside could have been dropped etc. Horne could still have knocked on, or could have been held short

or warrington could have scored more if they were any good

Thank God someone who sees sense...

No one said it was meaningful however you saying that we couldn't is incorrect.

"Could" refers to possibility/potential. So the possibility of a Catalans putting 100 past FC is there, just as the possibility of FC scoring more is there. It is just that there is much more possibility that FC could have scored more because there were a few incidents that would 99% likely have resulted in a try; whereas your Catalans argument was based on nothing.

In the context of the result, the "could have" argument means nothing. However, in the context of the performance there is meaning. The result is not always a reflection of the performance. The best team does not always win.

school not up to much lately then

lol at least i went to school what did you do go round robbing cars and houses we know what you west hull people are like lol jokeing anyway back to the subject i say we have the 3rd best pack in super league with mick v and fozzy on the pitch makka coming of the bench its all good if they stay fit though our only week link is mills iam not keen on him a man of his size should be running through people but he just cant do it whats anyone elses views would intresting to here

Yeah okay then!