Meanwhile, I don't know if anyone noticed amidst all the excitement, but the Covid hospital patient figures have now been updated as far as Sunday and they still look pretty decent. Up by only about 10% week-on-week, running well below the trend of cases from about a fortnight ago. Encouraging.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Meanwhile, I don't know if anyone noticed amidst all the excitement, but the Covid hospital patient figures have now been updated as far as Sunday and they still look pretty decent. Up by only about 10% week-on-week, running well below the trend of cases from about a fortnight ago. Encouraging.
Hospitalisation to Case ratio will only ever keep going down as long as we keep doing vaccinations. 👍
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Which is where many England managers have failed. Thinking they 'have to' play certain players.
You need a team that can work together and get the job done. There are no must-have players.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
England were the better team in the first half too.
2-0 is a great result, and it was a great performance, take that any day.
It was a great result of course and England was the better side on the night but both teams weren't stepping up and it came down to four or five chances, Muller and Pickford.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
I'm not normally a football person, but, what's next, do we know who the England Team are playing next? and when?
Winner of Sweden v Ukraine, who are about to kick off. Saturday night.
And Sweden and Ukraine are the rank outsiders in the betting, 50 and 85 respectively, so we will be expecting to win in Rome on Saturday to get through to the semi-finals.
Mrs Sandpit is cheering on for Ukraine now, and has agreed to go to the pub with me on Saturday in Ukranian National Dress, if that’s the fixture!
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Which is where many England managers have failed. Thinking they 'have to' play certain players.
You need a team that can work together and get the job done. There are no must-have players.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
Well I have to say that was some poor and curmudgeonly commentary by PB.com.
Superb performance by England.
Contained Germany well in first ten minutes then dominated throughout. If it wasn't for that poor pass by Stirling I'd say flawless by England.
Absolutely. People on here don't know jack shit about the game. They're all jumpers for goalposts.
If I might interject a note of caution - football is a ball-achingly low scoring game. It's all right grinding out low scores defensively in rugby or cricket because you can keep the scoreboard ticking over. But 70 minutes of defensive play in football can easily become 90. The moment of inspiration doesn't ways come - like the Scotland match. The defence doesn't always hold - like the Iceland match. If you're George Graham's Arsenal and you've got 42 matches to eke out, you can play the averages. But over a seven game tournament it doesn't strike me as an obviously sound tactic.
I'm not normally a football person, but, what's next, do we know who the England Team are playing next? and when?
Winner of Sweden v Ukraine, who are about to kick off. Saturday night.
And Sweden and Ukraine are the rank outsiders in the betting, 50 and 85 respectively, so we will be expecting to win in Rome on Saturday to get through to the semi-finals.
Mrs Sandpit is cheering on for Ukraine now, and has agreed to go to the pub with me on Saturday in Ukranian National Dress, if that’s the fixture!
I'm no marriage guidance counsellor but that guarantees one of you will be severely not up for it after the game.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
That's presumably skewed by overexcited England fans though? Though - though I hate to say it, and I will never believe England will win on ITV - England look favourites to get to the final now.
Belgium looks good value to me, though maybe the lack of De Bruyne will hurt them.
Even with the skew our side of the draw only has a 46.2% chance of winning. Shows how unbalanced the draw has become.
From a Scottish pro-independence POV the ideal time for an indyref rerun would be shortly after England has won an international sporting competition, such as the World Cup or the Euros. The sight of the British prime minister and other British leaders, and some English ones too, celebrating the victory, congratulating the team, etc., would be enough to drive a proportion of "soft Noers" completely over the edge. Never mind that England played knockabout recently to try to help Scotland with a nil-all draw.
The effect could accumulate from as early as now, if England goes from success to success in the sporting world. So separatists, take down those German flags! Be as cunning at politics as you think you are! Oh wait - is something getting in the way?
Andrew Wilson, former SNP MSP, has been saying this for years.
Well, SKS gave us the afternoon off to support England & wave our St George's Flags, and that was just for the last 16.
Presumably if England get to the finals and actually win it, Boris and SKS will be vying with each other for the biggest bribes.
Boris will give every natural born Englishman the rest of the year off work & twenty grand in their pockets.
It's the next 55 years that would be uppermost in people's minds north of the border.
Well I have to say that was some poor and curmudgeonly commentary by PB.com.
Superb performance by England.
Contained Germany well in first ten minutes then dominated throughout. If it wasn't for that poor pass by Stirling I'd say flawless by England.
Absolutely. People on here don't know jack shit about the game. They're all jumpers for goalposts.
If I might interject a note of caution - football is a ball-achingly low scoring game. It's all right grinding out low scores defensively in rugby or cricket because you can keep the scoreboard ticking over. But 70 minutes of defensive play in football can easily become 90. The moment of inspiration doesn't ways come - like the Scotland match. The defence doesn't always hold - like the Iceland match. If you're George Graham's Arsenal and you've got 42 matches to eke out, you can play the averages. But over a seven game tournament it doesn't strike me as an obviously sound tactic.
It's how we win it. But of course you need the breaks too. And that Muller miss - well.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
Boris seems to be trying to prove his football lad credentials by 2 photos of him watching different TVs in different places. Anyone would think he'd been getting on with life during the match and wedged in a couple of photo ops rather than actually sat down and watched.
A rare occurance of good governance and bad politics from him.
You guys must be watching a different match to me. Apart from first ten minutes England has been the better side. Playing really well I think - better than the first three matches added together. Saka and Walker particularly good.
I've just backed England 2-0.
you would have been as well throwing it down a drain
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
“ any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.”.
Dr John Reid, now Lord Reid of Cardowan, served as a minister in several government departments under Tony Blair, before, in 2003, being appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. In fact, his doctorate was not a medical one, but a PhD from the University of Sterling on the slave trade in Dahomey in the 19th century. It was reported in Private Eye magazine that Dr Reid had greeted the news of his new job with the words, ‘Oh f*ck, not health’. He subsequently served as Minister of Defence and then Home Secretary, but his reaction was understandable. The Minister of Health is ultimately the person where the buck stops when problems arise in the NHS. They get blamed when things go wrong, and are rarely thanked when things go right, as they do much of the time.
Being the Minister of Health is a challenging position, but it is one that is not made easier by the short time that most of the incumbents have stayed in post. Since the founding of the NHS, there have been 31 ministers. Several were in post for less than a year, and most have lasted less than two. It is all too easy when things have gone seriously wrong, for a minister to announce, often to a fanfare of approval, that there will be a public inquiry. Almost inevitably, however, by the time the inquiry reports, there will be a new minister in post and the issues which were fresh in the mind when the inquiry was established will have faded from public awareness, and their recommendations for future action can be quietly ignored.
Every new minister, when asked for his plans, says, ‘The last thing that the NHS needs is more organisational change’. This is followed shortly afterwards by yet another re-organisation, or the creation of yet another supervisory body. The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) was turned into the Healthcare Commission which, in turn, became the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Monitor became NHS Improvement, and then disappeared completely. The NHS Litigation Authority was re-branded as NHS Resolution. GP Fundholding and primary care trusts (PCTs) came and went. The NHS Trust Development Authority (NHSTDA) was established in 2012 and then suddenly vanished.
Even the title of the government minister has undergone repeated change. It was Minister of Health until 1968, Secretary of State for Health and Social Services until 1988, Secretary of State for Health until 2018 and then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Each of these organisational changes was no doubt expensive and disruptive for those involved, but did not, as far as I can establish, help a single patient to receive improved care. What it did do, however, was allow ministers to show that they were ‘doing something’, although they were rarely around long enough to see the fruits of their labours.
(Amended with the author's permission from LIFELINE by Dr Barry Monk (2021); available from the usual booksellers
Well I have to say that was some poor and curmudgeonly commentary by PB.com.
Superb performance by England.
Contained Germany well in first ten minutes then dominated throughout. If it wasn't for that poor pass by Stirling I'd say flawless by England.
Absolutely. People on here don't know jack shit about the game. They're all jumpers for goalposts.
If I might interject a note of caution - football is a ball-achingly low scoring game. It's all right grinding out low scores defensively in rugby or cricket because you can keep the scoreboard ticking over. But 70 minutes of defensive play in football can easily become 90. The moment of inspiration doesn't ways come - like the Scotland match. The defence doesn't always hold - like the Iceland match. If you're George Graham's Arsenal and you've got 42 matches to eke out, you can play the averages. But over a seven game tournament it doesn't strike me as an obviously sound tactic.
But works impressively well in baseball. And, to be honest, I find the pitchers' duels far more compelling than the high-scoring games. Going into the 9th at 0-0 means it's been a spectacular game.
And it is even more the case in the play-offs vs the regular season.
England actually beat Germany 1-0 in Euro 2000, but everyone’s forgotten that, presumably because neither team got out of the group.
Never forget the last game. Level. Just need to see it out to progress. Over the airwaves comes the great insight from Keegan “Keep believing Scholesy”. Not a bit of tactical advice, just some bullshit. Knew we were doomed...
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
“ any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.”.
Watch Arsenal. Pick any game.
Oh I have watched Arsenal. If it had been Arsenal 2-0 up with ten minutes to go I would have been really worried.
On the Government's dashboard, Newham's "performance" on vaccine rollout is clear to see.
In terms of first doses, 53% of the adult population has been vaccinated - only Westminster (52.9%) is worse.
For both doses, Newham, at 31% is third worst behind Hackney & City of London and Tower Hamlets which has just 27% of adults doubly vaccinated.
London (62% first doses, 40.5% both doses) trails the rest of the UK by some way.
Are we to assume all the vaccine "refusers" are in London? That seems a broad assumption and perhaps suggests some other factors at work.
I think the working assumption is that the NIMS data for London is flawed. As well as refusers etc
It's at least partly refusers. I distinctly remember the links to the breakdown by primary care partnership being posted on here a couple of months back, and working out that nearly all the lowest ranking areas for vaccine coverage were in London, with a couple of them in Birmingham. The other major urban areas, notably up North, had done relatively better.
This correlates well with the known issues with vaccine take-up in ethnic minority groups - significantly worse amongst black people than those of Asian descent. London and the West Midlands are the two regions of England where the percentage of black people amongst the population is above the national average.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
You compare to how teams like Italy or Spain have moved the ball around in possession and today's England performance was very poor. But we won, and we get to try again in the next match.
Ventilators continue to tick upwards in the North West which seems a bit disconnected with the other data.
Younger hospital patients more likely to benefit so usage goes up relative to total hospital patients number as the intake skews younger. As long as overall hospital data stays good it's actually a negative manifestation of a positive trend.
Ventilators continue to tick upwards in the North West which seems a bit disconnected with the other data.
This has been previously discussed. One theory advanced is that, amongst the much-reduced flow of Covid patients into hospital beds, more of them are young and those unlucky enough to become seriously ill are more likely to end up on ventilators because the medical profession deems that such radical intervention is more likely to do them some good than it is with the very old. But I don't know how much - if any - truth there is to that suggestion.
I think the working assumption is that the NIMS data for London is flawed. As well as refusers etc
I've heard @MaxPB argue this but just because he says it, doesn't make it so.
In any case, if NIMS is overstating London population by 10%, that still doesn't make Newham look too clever. I'd also add there seems no provision for the "undocumented" population in my part of the world. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who simply live off the grid, avoiding any interaction with the authorities, living and working (perhaps existing is the best word) within their own communities on a cash-only basis.
I may be wrong and such people don't exist but I suspect I'm not.
Ventilators continue to tick upwards in the North West which seems a bit disconnected with the other data.
This has been previously discussed. One theory advanced is that, amongst the much-reduced flow of Covid patients into hospital beds, more of them are young and those unlucky enough to become seriously ill are more likely to end up on ventilators because the medical profession deems that such radical intervention is more likely to do them some good than it is with the very old. But I don't know how much - if any - truth there is to that suggestion.
That seems plausible for a general trend but that isn't happening in Scotland or the North West where ventilator numbers are fairly static after an initial rise.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
You compare to how teams like Italy or Spain have moved the ball around in possession and today's England performance was very poor. But we won, and we get to try again in the next match.
I'm not normally a football person, but, what's next, do we know who the England Team are playing next? and when?
Winner of Sweden v Ukraine, who are about to kick off. Saturday night.
And Sweden and Ukraine are the rank outsiders in the betting, 50 and 85 respectively, so we will be expecting to win in Rome on Saturday to get through to the semi-finals.
Mrs Sandpit is cheering on for Ukraine now, and has agreed to go to the pub with me on Saturday in Ukranian National Dress, if that’s the fixture!
I'm no marriage guidance counsellor but that guarantees one of you will be severely not up for it after the game.
Back at Wimbledon, Serena Williams has done herself a mischief. She is trying to play on but very emotional. Not sure how long she'll be able to keep on going for. It's very sad.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
You compare to how teams like Italy or Spain have moved the ball around in possession and today's England performance was very poor. But we won, and we get to try again in the next match.
And yet we won the game in regular time by two clear goals, conceding none, while they conceded four goals between them and neither of them won in regular time.
Seeing the scenes at fan parks, it looks like we will be testing this idea that covid is being spread (in part) by footy fans and that outdoor mixing isn't as safe as it used to be with previous variants.
Dr John Reid, now Lord Reid of Cardowan, served as a minister in several government departments under Tony Blair, before, in 2003, being appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. In fact, his doctorate was not a medical one, but a PhD from the University of Sterling on the slave trade in Dahomey in the 19th century. It was reported in Private Eye magazine that Dr Reid had greeted the news of his new job with the words, ‘Oh f*ck, not health’. He subsequently served as Minister of Defence and then Home Secretary, but his reaction was understandable. The Minister of Health is ultimately the person where the buck stops when problems arise in the NHS. They get blamed when things go wrong, and are rarely thanked when things go right, as they do much of the time.
Being the Minister of Health is a challenging position, but it is one that is not made easier by the short time that most of the incumbents have stayed in post. Since the founding of the NHS, there have been 31 ministers. Several were in post for less than a year, and most have lasted less than two. It is all too easy when things have gone seriously wrong, for a minister to announce, often to a fanfare of approval, that there will be a public inquiry. Almost inevitably, however, by the time the inquiry reports, there will be a new minister in post and the issues which were fresh in the mind when the inquiry was established will have faded from public awareness, and their recommendations for future action can be quietly ignored.
Every new minister, when asked for his plans, says, ‘The last thing that the NHS needs is more organisational change’. This is followed shortly afterwards by yet another re-organisation, or the creation of yet another supervisory body. The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) was turned into the Healthcare Commission which, in turn, became the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Monitor became NHS Improvement, and then disappeared completely. The NHS Litigation Authority was re-branded as NHS Resolution. GP Fundholding and primary care trusts (PCTs) came and went. The NHS Trust Development Authority (NHSTDA) was established in 2012 and then suddenly vanished.
Even the title of the government minister has undergone repeated change. It was Minister of Health until 1968, Secretary of State for Health and Social Services until 1988, Secretary of State for Health until 2018 and then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Each of these organisational changes was no doubt expensive and disruptive for those involved, but did not, as far as I can establish, help a single patient to receive improved care. What it did do, however, was allow ministers to show that they were ‘doing something’, although they were rarely around long enough to see the fruits of their labours.
(Amended with the author's permission from LIFELINE by Dr Barry Monk (2021); available from the usual booksellers
In 1969, when my mother started teaching, the relevant department was Education and Science - DES.
In 2008, when she retired, it was the Department for Education and Skills - DfES.
IN her later years, it was a favourite joke of hers that in that 39 years all the government had done was eff things up.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
You compare to how teams like Italy or Spain have moved the ball around in possession and today's England performance was very poor. But we won, and we get to try again in the next match.
And yet we won the game in regular time by two clear goals, conceding none, while they conceded four goals between them and neither of them won in regular time.
You sound like a Boris fan so what if he is a lying cheating shit be is popular.
The problem is not that they are not playing the beautiful game it is that this style of play is super vulnerable to an attacking fluid team. Which Germany wasn't this evening.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
You compare to how teams like Italy or Spain have moved the ball around in possession and today's England performance was very poor. But we won, and we get to try again in the next match.
Back at Wimbledon, Serena Williams has done herself a mischief. She is trying to play on but very emotional. Not sure how long she'll be able to keep on going for. It's very sad.
Yep, that's it, alas.
And Rog a bit fortunate with similar happening to his opponent.
At least one in 20 children were absent from state schools in England because of Covid within the last week, as official figures reveal a 66% increase in the number of pupils with confirmed coronavirus infections.
Twenty minutes in the first half and 5-10 in the second. The rest was pretty dire if we're honest.
Nope - it was good. Nobody's expecting Brazil 70 or France 84 or Holland 88.
Well England could play like that, they have the players.....
I actually thought they would step up today. They didn't but did enough with the chances they made.
No, it was absolutely clear from the selection what the tactics were. Obviously if England win, Southgate will go down a brilliant manager, but to have no Mount, no Foden, no Grealish, no Sancho on the pitch....most international teams would be trying to find a way to get all of them in the team.
Yes my heart did sink when I saw the team sheet and often there were 11 England players in our own half. But the tempo was disappointing even for a defensive formation.
Lets give him the benefit of the doubt and say the end justified the means - If we play the same formation and players when we are big favs in the next round, it will be quite disappointing
Agree. The first thing most of the starting 11 did when they got the ball, wherever they were, was turn round to face Pickford.
Almost as if controlling the game and playing out from the back can work.
They weren't building. And any side can control the game on their own 18 yard box.
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
You compare to how teams like Italy or Spain have moved the ball around in possession and today's England performance was very poor. But we won, and we get to try again in the next match.
Yep absolutely.
lol - the pretence continues. Totally shameless. ☺
Can we just take a minute and remember Big_G predicting Wales to go through and England to go out.
To think the Welsh and Scots say we're arrogant.
Well, you are.
The English are the only race I know so smug that they don’t even feel the need to boast about their brilliance.
I had £2 on Germany to win 3-0 and for the sake of my Anglo-Saxon mates (who are good blokes, really, though a little rough-hewn) it was a bet I am happy to lose. But if the blackshirts had converted their two good chances before England scored it would have been a very different story. A more even game than the scoreline suggests.
I think the working assumption is that the NIMS data for London is flawed. As well as refusers etc
I've heard @MaxPB argue this but just because he says it, doesn't make it so.
In any case, if NIMS is overstating London population by 10%, that still doesn't make Newham look too clever. I'd also add there seems no provision for the "undocumented" population in my part of the world. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who simply live off the grid, avoiding any interaction with the authorities, living and working (perhaps existing is the best word) within their own communities on a cash-only basis.
I may be wrong and such people don't exist but I suspect I'm not.
I suspect few of these will be vaccinated.
It might be worth noting that Covid cases for Newham at the moment have it down as one of the better performing boroughs - which could indicate serious overestimates in population.
Can we just take a minute and remember Big_G predicting Wales to go through and England to go out.
To think the Welsh and Scots say we're arrogant.
Well, you are.
The English are the only race I know so smug that they don’t even feel the need to boast about their brilliance.
I had £2 on Germany to win 3-0 and for the sake of my Anglo-Saxon mates (who are good blokes, really, though a little rough-hewn) it was a bet I am happy to lose. But if the blackshirts had converted their two good chances before England scored it would have been a very different story. A more even game than the scoreline suggests.
If my granny had a beak for a mouth and a poisoned anal barb she’d be a duck-billed platypus
Comments
2-0 is a great result, and it was a great performance, take that any day.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1409933737542963207
(this is a lie to make you feel better)
You need a team that can work together and get the job done. There are no must-have players.
https://twitter.com/JosieLong/status/1409937586488025096?s=19
England's knockout record against major sides since then is so bad. Like pineapple on pizza bad.
Manchester (now no longer condemned): 435.4 cases per 100k
Blackburn with Darwen (still condemned): 491.7 cases per 100k
Edinburgh: 503.7 cases per 100k (and Dundee, Midlothian and East Lothian are all even worse)
This is Euro 2020 not a fantasy video game.
Bugger!
It works if the opposition don't take their chances. If they do you're fucked.
On the Government's dashboard, Newham's "performance" on vaccine rollout is clear to see.
In terms of first doses, 53% of the adult population has been vaccinated - only Westminster (52.9%) is worse.
For both doses, Newham, at 31% is third worst behind Hackney & City of London and Tower Hamlets which has just 27% of adults doubly vaccinated.
London (62% first doses, 40.5% both doses) trails the rest of the UK by some way.
Are we to assume all the vaccine "refusers" are in London? That seems a broad assumption and perhaps suggests some other factors at work.
Boris seems to be trying to prove his football lad credentials by 2 photos of him watching different TVs in different places. Anyone would think he'd been getting on with life during the match and wedged in a couple of photo ops rather than actually sat down and watched.
A rare occurance of good governance and bad politics from him.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPl5xwX_-w
Watch Arsenal. Pick any game.
Dr John Reid, now Lord Reid of Cardowan, served as a minister in several government departments under Tony Blair, before, in 2003, being appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. In fact, his doctorate was not a medical one, but a PhD from the University of Sterling on the slave trade in Dahomey in the 19th century. It was reported in Private Eye magazine that Dr Reid had greeted the news of his new job with the words, ‘Oh f*ck, not health’. He subsequently served as Minister of Defence and then Home Secretary, but his reaction was understandable. The Minister of Health is ultimately the person where the buck stops when problems arise in the NHS. They get blamed when things go wrong, and are rarely thanked when things go right, as they do much of the time.
Being the Minister of Health is a challenging position, but it is one that is not made easier by the short time that most of the incumbents have stayed in post. Since the founding of the NHS, there have been 31 ministers. Several were in post for less than a year, and most have lasted less than two. It is all too easy when things have gone seriously wrong, for a minister to announce, often to a fanfare of approval, that there will be a public inquiry. Almost inevitably, however, by the time the inquiry reports, there will be a new minister in post and the issues which were fresh in the mind when the inquiry was established will have faded from public awareness, and their recommendations for future action can be quietly ignored.
Every new minister, when asked for his plans, says, ‘The last thing that the NHS needs is more organisational change’. This is followed shortly afterwards by yet another re-organisation, or the creation of yet another supervisory body. The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) was turned into the Healthcare Commission which, in turn, became the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Monitor became NHS Improvement, and then disappeared completely. The NHS Litigation Authority was re-branded as NHS Resolution. GP Fundholding and primary care trusts (PCTs) came and went. The NHS Trust Development Authority (NHSTDA) was established in 2012 and then suddenly vanished.
Even the title of the government minister has undergone repeated change. It was Minister of Health until 1968, Secretary of State for Health and Social Services until 1988, Secretary of State for Health until 2018 and then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Each of these organisational changes was no doubt expensive and disruptive for those involved, but did not, as far as I can establish, help a single patient to receive improved care. What it did do, however, was allow ministers to show that they were ‘doing something’, although they were rarely around long enough to see the fruits of their labours.
(Amended with the author's permission from LIFELINE by Dr Barry Monk (2021); available from the usual booksellers
And it is even more the case in the play-offs vs the regular season.
You don't deserve him.
This correlates well with the known issues with vaccine take-up in ethnic minority groups - significantly worse amongst black people than those of Asian descent. London and the West Midlands are the two regions of England where the percentage of black people amongst the population is above the national average.
That seems a clear lay to me. They are bound to lengthen.
In any case, if NIMS is overstating London population by 10%, that still doesn't make Newham look too clever. I'd also add there seems no provision for the "undocumented" population in my part of the world. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who simply live off the grid, avoiding any interaction with the authorities, living and working (perhaps existing is the best word) within their own communities on a cash-only basis.
I may be wrong and such people don't exist but I suspect I'm not.
I suspect few of these will be vaccinated.
So the NW seems a bit anomalous.
BILD's player ratings:
Neuer 2
Ginter 4
Hummels 3
Rüdiger 5
Kimmich 4
Goretzka 3
Kroos 3
Gosens 4
Müller 5
Havertz 2
Werner 5
Gnabry 5
Can -
Sané -
Musiala -
Löw 4
----
Until I was told it is was out of 6 and 1 being the best.
Yep, that's it, alas.
To say that is controversial would be putting it mildly.
Meantime Spurs don't have any bugger at all.
In 2008, when she retired, it was the Department for Education and Skills - DfES.
IN her later years, it was a favourite joke of hers that in that 39 years all the government had done was eff things up.
The English are the only race I know so smug that they don’t even feel the need to boast about their brilliance.
The problem is not that they are not playing the beautiful game it is that this style of play is super vulnerable to an attacking fluid team. Which Germany wasn't this evening.
The commentator said he was "Joachim Loew's old assistant" during the game, and I thought he'd said it was his older sister!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/29/one-in-20-children-missed-school-in-england-due-to-covid-as-cases-rise-66
One can’t help noticing that this has not happened since we joined the European Union. As soon as we Brexit - bingo
The nation advances