Sentence examples for favourable matches from inspiring English sources

Marc Stendera was one of their standout performers in a group stage that saw the team score 16 goals in three admittedly favourable matches.

For favourable, rather than non-favourable, matches only white majority patients valued favourable matches significantly (1 year MRS = insignificant vs. 4.64; 5 years MRS = insignificant vs. 0.93).

Once again, Wald tests (Table  3, column 4) suggest that donors value tissue match (tiss) less than patients (1 year MRS = insignificant vs. 1.41; 5 year MRS = insignificant vs. 0.28) for perfect not favourable matches, and also value favourable not non-favourable matches less (1 year MRS = insignificant vs. 4.23; 5 year MRS = insignificant vs. 0.85).

Professionals value prioritizing those with better tissue matches 'tiss' less than do patients (1 year MRS = 1.27 vs. 1.41; 5 year MRS = 0.25 vs. 0.28) for perfect not favourable matches, and prioritize favourable vs. non-favourable matches less (1 year MRS = 3.82 vs. 4.23 ; 5 year MRS = 0.76 vs. 0.85).

Fremantle were efficient and clean, able to exploit a seemingly endless string of favourable match-ups across the ground.

An absolutely perfect pass down the left sideline for Reggie Bush – who had split out to wide receiver, earning himself a very favourable match-up with linebacker AJ Hawk.

They lost to the Packers and Bears, and though they were competitive in both games this looks like the least favourable match-up yet.

He certainly has a favourable match-up here, against one of the few defenses in the league that is giving up even more yards than Washington's.

Difference in survival rate between a perfect vs. favourable match is 1%, so the MRS figure of 1.41 (Table  3) also appears in Table  4 for 'Prioritizing perfect not non-favourable tissue matches'.

Ethnic minorities do not prioritize recipients with better tissue matches (tiss) but the majority population do (1 year MRS = insignificant vs. 1.54; 5 years MRS = insignificant vs. 0.31 for perfect rather than non-favourable matches).

The results presented in Table  4 suggest MRS for prioritizing perfect over favourable tissue matches is lower amongst carers than patients (1 year MRS = insignificant vs. 1.41; 5 year MRS = insignificant vs. 0.28); and lower for prioritizing favourable over non-favourable matches (1 year MRS = insignificant vs 4.23; 5 year MRS = insignificant vs. 0.85).