Which are correct:

1-He is a good player to watch. You can learn a lot from him.
2-He is a player good to watch. You can learn a lot from him.

3-He is a good player to play in offensive matches.
4-He is a player good to play in offensive matches.
(Is 'he' the subject of 'to play'?)

5-He is a good player for playing in offensive matches.
6-He is a player good for playing in offensive matches.
(Is 'he' the subject of 'to play'?)

I think that the structure in 3 can sometimes be ambiguous. Compare 5 with 'He is a good man to help you like that.'
Original Post
No. 1 is fine.
No. 2 isn't. The structure is just very unnatural. If you add who's after player, it'll work fine.

You're right about no. 3 being ambiguous, with no. 5 being very clear.

No. 4 is as unnatural and hard to understand. Here are ways I'd tweak it:

He is a player who is good to play with/against in offensive matches.

No. 6 will also work if we add who is after player.

One tip, Navi: We really don't like to repeat the same word, even if different forms, in a sentence (e.g., player & play). It would sound much better to use other things like team member instead of player.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×