Enda

Sad but true

Also flew in a brilliant cross at one stage, too.

He did a lot better than many of us expected. Far from a nightmare of a debut. Well done to him, and shame on us for giving him more backing. I still think it's the weakest part of the starting XI, but on the basis of largely keeping Valenica quiet he's challenging Bennett for that starting place.

Looking only at the effect on the league table right now is your problem. There's 1-0 loss where you show absolutely no desire and where on another day you'd have been thumped 4-0. And there's a 3-2 loss (still 1 goal difference) where you create chances and on another day you'd have taken all three points. Just because the result is the same doesn't mean everything. The evaluation of the performance is how you determine what's going to happen over the rest of the season.

Heartbroken. Same old, same old. At least I like Hernandez more than Macheda. Nonsense. Generally goal difference gets worse when you lose. No offence but you come across as not having the first clue about football.

He'd be delighted to come to sunny Brum. The weather is friesin in Poland.

I see the Irish U19s beat PSV U19s 2-0 today.

Herd said on Twitter there's nothing to it at all.

First of all, he played fantastically well yesterday. But how many long balls/long passes did he aim at Benteke's head yesterday? Was I the only one thinking that it was all a bit Stoke?

Dodgy video of it here - http://www.101greatg...-v-aston-villa/

Lambert should pick the team most likely to get a result. That's not the same thing as setting up the defend or trying to look brave but getting hammered. I'd put Ireland/Holman on the wing and put KEA in the middle with Bannan and Westwood. I know I rate KEA much more than most people at the moment but we'll need that extra bite in midfield to have a chance IMO. He should have done better. Keeper got under pressure (well done Gabby) and had to overhead-kick it out. Came to Ireland about 25 yards out who volleyed it first time. Didn't connect with it right and it was going five yards wide. Should have done better, but it was it dipping and moving reasonably fast so not exactly a sitter either. If it had been a normal cross and Ireland just didn't strike it properly, nobody would have said anything. The open goal made it much worse.

Nothing wrong with that, but time and place and all that. This is a "Waheyyy we finally have a young player who's playing well" thread. Give it a rest?

And Delph and Albrighton today.

Seemed harmless enough by Cuellar at the time. Ball came in and he threw a leg at it.

Best bit of the match for me was when MON brought on Frazier Campbell and put Seb Larsson at right back. MON loves throwing on shite footballers and putting random midfielders to right back when his team are losing. Some things never change. I hear he's making an £8m swoop for Zat Knight and Nicky Shorey in January.

Agree completely. I was puzzled why were going 4-3-3 against a MON team. Putting two forwards on the wings in a 4-2-3-1 was a great move. Still very unconvinced by Bennett, but it looks like Lowton, Vlaar, Benteke, Westwood and KEA look like excellent value for money. Excited by January. Some world-beating exotic-sounding winger from Luxembourg's second division for 20p, and a left-back please Paul.

Didn't look happy to be taken off today.

Alas I've got a few years on Enda Jnr. He got absolutely skinned by Saha within two minutes of coming on today. Lesson learned, hopefully. Think he made a good challenge from a cross, though I wasn't sure it was him. Was anyone watching him closely?

i think - based on nothing at all - that we offered him a contract before he left. He took a while off (missing a month's wages means nothing to him) to consider his options.

He was superb today. Bannan was excellent as well. It's funny in some ways. CM is our weakest position (maybe LB tips it) when people are not performing. But between KEA (who I rate more than most), Ireland, Westwood, Bannan, Herd and Delph, we have some serious competition too. One thing I will say for Lambert's tendency to make 24 changes every week is that players will know that poor performances will get them dropped.

I can only see a Sunderland win here, unfortunately. Lambert out.

How's he been doing for the reserves? He's six months older than Benteke.

Welcome aboard, TJ.

(For the record I neither teach nor particularly like DSGE models. I'm a micro man, myself.) (Except between my legs.) But no, I see no contradiction in them at all. I can't think of a way of summarising why without a boring example of DSGE. A DSGE model has many moving parts. Say you want to model consumption, investment, and output. Then you have one equation for how consumption depends on investment and output. You have one equation for how investment depends on consumption and output. You have one equation for how output depends on consumption and investment. That's three equations and three unknowns, which is fine. The stochastic part is that there is some "shock" that comes along and, say, blows up half your investment every now and again. That's also fine. Pick whatever "shock" you want and see how consumption, investment, and output react to it. The key element of networks is that everyone affects everyone else. You buy a phone/join Facebook and all your mates are now more likely to buy phones/join Facebook than they were, since they like talking to you. And when they buy a phone/join Facebook, you spend more time on the phone/Facebook than you otherwise would since you like talking to them. In jargon terms, you get positive (or negative) feedback loops. There's nothing stopping you incorporating this type of behaviour into your consumption equation in the DSGE. And there's nothing stopping you incorporating an "Oh shit, that other bank just stopped lending. Maybe we should too." type behaviour into your investment equation either. Edited to add: fair enough on the Keen thing. I'd suggest there are more interesting people to listen to/read about research though.

I think you've the wrong notion of equilibrium. There are equilibria in agent based models too (which are almost always DSGE models). Some have equilibria, some don't. If some model has no equilibrium, then its dynamics are going to be determined exclusively by the assumptions you make about the agents. There's no "solution" to the model, so it's all in the dynamics. That's fine, but it's hard to learn anything from the chaos that ensues, since it's always determined by your assumptions. Or, at least, nobody has yet showed there's a lot to be learned from this. If some model has an equilibrium, and it's not reached, then you need to explain why it's not reached. (Note you need some notion of equilibrium before you ask this question.) That's a very interesting question. We could learn a lot from that. Nobody has answered it in general. I research network effects. There is a large literature on the subject. There is brilliant research being done on networks. It's not being done by Steve Keen. (Not really by me, either.) What do you mean "disputes"? Nobody thinks that the assumptions required to reach an equilibrium can be, and regularly/almost always are, violated. Ah here. Of course it does. It holds under the assumptions it requires. Nobody does! The dynamics of "any given point" to/from equilibrium is an enormous area of research. There are plenty of interesting results. Few of them are simple to explain, and none of them have permeated to undergrad texts yet. (As I said before in this thread, undergrads find equilibrium difficult enough. Trying to explain saddle paths/sink points/whatever would be a wasted venture.) Nobody is claiming that markets necessarily move toward equilibrium.