pink_triangle

Barry I have a friend who are both GPs and community pharmacists. I also work in community health and speak to patients about how they access the GP. There are loads of people who use GP for skin issues, constipation and eye infections that can be dealt first line with pharmacy. I guess one issue is that over 60s have to pay if they go via pharmacy for stuff they can get for free via GP.

Why should people see a GP if a pharmacist can deal with the problem?

It's small margins, Spain looked toothless going forward, but pretty solid in defence. Things go slightly different and they could be playing France.

I work in the NHS and wouldn't want to be a GP. You can earn well as a doctor in other fields for a fraction of the stress that comes with being a GP. My view is that we need to increase supply of GPs but also reduce the demand. For all the talk about packed surgeries. Many people in the last were clogging up surgeries with issues that could be dealt with by the pharmacy. We have had a culture that anyone should be able to see a GP when they want and I think that is wrong. As for online, phone or face to face I think all have their benefits.I would happily use all 3 in different situations. I would also happily move to a system where phone or remote stuff could be done by a GP anywhere in the country. Freeing up other GPs for the people who need the continuity.

My dad retired in 2005 with the gold plated NHS pension. There is no doubt that our generation wont do as well as his.

I would argue that they are an easier group of players to manage. A good chunk of the England players are not competing for league titles/champions leagues and therefore maybe don't have the same ego. Even those who do at City and Liverpool like Walker, Henderson and Stones are quite low maintenance. The City v Liverpool rivalry is sporting but not really a nasty rivalry.

No conclusions should be drawn on the nations league, it is a tournament fans and players don't give a crap about. I guess it's up to Southgate, if he wants it he will get the chance.

Unless he wants the easy life of a background role then I can't see him leaving. I don't see him getting a good premiership job, so he would be looking at the middle/bottom end premiership jobs where job security is very low. The only thing is if he is thinking legacy then maybe it is the time to go. He now has a reputation as Englands second best manager without really having beaten anyone. He can keep that legacy or go on when he is probably as likely to diminish it as improve.

I don't think you can underestimate the importance of that political aspect. He is very good at the media stuff.

It's swings and roundabouts, hard quarter, but easier semi. I just think England had France on the ropes around the 70 minute mark. France were wobbling and England had a stronger bench, you need to take your opportunities from that position. Donenech nearly won a world cup for France so you don't need to be a great manager to win at international level. I just feel Southgate can get too conservative and reactive. I think that could cost England in the Euros. For all the talk about Saka (who was very good) to me the MOM was Griezmann. Not only for the performance, but for having brain/experience to work out exactly what he could get away with on a yellow card. I think with both Southgate and Kane it's easy to say move on, the trouble is a lack of replacement.

I think Kyle Walker is a good player. Not flashy, but very consistent.

Very few would say Giroud is a better player than Kane, but he gives a different option. Trouble is I can't see who is the England Giroud coming through.

I think Southgate benefits from some extent from the low expectations that came from the Hodgson era.

I would be more concerned that in 3 big games against Croatia, Italy and France he hasnt scored in open play. That's when you need your Forward to be the match winner.

Many better players than Kane have done the same.

I love Saka. I wondered what the fuss was about until this season, but what a player. For all the hype about Bellingham I think Saka will be even better. I rate Foden but thought today he didn't play great. I almost forgot he had played until I saw the BBC ratings.

I feel Kane has come out on the losing side in a lot of the biggest games in his career. You can forget the penalty as everyone misses them. I just feel he has often failed to get the big goals when really needed in the big games. You look at the fact the likes of Wilson and Calvert Lewin being in recent squads to support the fact the forward options aren't great. I would however argue a lot of the better countries have the same issue.

Yes I think particularly the Euro final was down to negative tactics. 2 of the 3 50/50 games England were in the lead. It's not down purely to the manager, but they can make those tactical changes that win the big games. What surprised me today when I looked at the England team was man for man they were possibly better than France (in reality probably not much in it). The England bench was much stronger, which is why France only made 1 substitute. That is largely down to France being hard hit by injuries. However an injury hit France is an opportunity and you need to take the opportunities. I just find Southgate too conservative. Pulling off the best player in Saka, bringing on Mount and Sterling. I feel France would more fear Saka and Rashford.

I'm not attacking him. I think he has got par results similar to Sven. I would keep him on because there isn't an obvious replacement. For all your talk about achievement. You can't name a great victory during his reign, there hasn't been one. I don't think he is particularly tactically strong. I think he is a nice guy, doesn't fall out with player and good with the media. All important attributes, but in terms of attainment they are beating teams you would expect and then going out. I see it as a performance and you ask yourself is par good enough, maybe it is. In 3 tournaments they have beaten the teams you would expect and lost 3 50/50 games when they have come across someone decent, although none of the 3 were world beaters. I'm not sure you can say losing 3 50/50 games is just luck. I think WC22 and Euro 20 were both there to be won. WC 18 they would likely have been slaughtered in the final.

I dont think he has made England a force to be dealt with. I think investment in grass root football and better players have done that. He has beaten teams you would expect them to beat and not beaten the harder teams. Germany at home was his best win, they got knocked out of the group stages in the world cup either side.

Due to his contract he has been playing 20 minutes per game, he is probably the freshest player there.

I think England had uck. They have been lucky with injuries pre and during the tournament. In contrast to their opponents who have lost loads of players. The reason France only brought one one sub is they didn't really have anyone on the bench. With Morocco waiting and not a great opponent on the other half I think they blew it and don't get this glorious failure narrative. While Southgate is undoubtedly a nice bloke. I think his results have been largely down to England getting better players at the same time as others have got worse (which is nothing to do with him) and a home tournament. Just like Sven he hasnt beaten anyone in a knockout that you wouldn't expect. I don't see from a tactical perspective what he brings, it was a world cup there to be won. He is lucky there is no obvious replacement.

I thought it was a 50/50 game. The team who took their chances won. France have been ravaged by injuries in this world cup and you have to give them credit for getting through. I don't think Southgate got his subs right. I thought Saka was terrifying France.

I have predicted wins for Brazil, Netherlands and Portugal so far. As a Welshman can I say I'm certain England will win today!!

What's disrespectful about Netherlands?