Dennis Praet

[Stadt]

Mendy and Tielemans aren't naturally athletic players so he brings industry (and strong technical ability) to the side. I'm starting to feel like we shouldn't bother with Tielemans in games where we're going to have <40% of the ball because he can't cover the ground well enough. He's played so much football as well so I don't think he should have started.

[daddylonglegs]

He is starting to become (as well as look!) like Albrighton of 18 months-2 years ago, where we look like a more rounded unit with him in the team. 

[Mark]

5 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I realise you're not a fan of his, but what do you consider his best position?

Well I'd say he's more defensive than attacking so ideally he could partner Tielemans against teams we expect to beat and then we could go without a specialised DM like Mendy, it may or may not help to break teams down but he's simply not suited to an advanced role.

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Mark said:

Well I'd say he's more defensive than attacking so ideally he could partner Tielemans against teams we expect to beat and then we could go without a specialised player like Mendy, it may or may not help to break teams down but he's simply not suited to an advanced role.

Well, I think he's versatile enough to do it, but appreciate the answer. Not mental whatsoever  

[Hales]

He does the dirtyy work. He isn't afraid to track back and defend but will also get forward and is capable of a killer pass. He doesnt do the pretty stuff like Madders but is more consistent in the games he plays. Tielemans is better with him in the side and he also connects well with Timmy too. They have all played together for a while and it shows! He has the physicality Madders lacks and isn't shoved off of the ball. He also isn't afraid to get stuck into a tackle. You don't see him rolling around waving his hands looking at the referee if he gets tackled, he just gets up and carries on. He connects well with Mendy too.  We looked better as soon as Dennis and Under came on yesterday. If we are playing a team where you need a bit of grit then we need him. 

[sacreblueits442]

20 minutes ago, Mark said:

Where we play him isn’t much diffferent to what we’re doing with Albrighton though, shoehorning him into a position because we’ve got better players where he normally plays. I don’t see anything in his game that suggests he’s an attacking midfielder.

..are we talking about Praet or Maddison here!!!

 We have previously shoehorned Maddison into the team and pushed wide left in big games effectively disrupting the balance of the team  and setting us back even more. 

  As for Praet he gives us a great deal of work rate and tends to go ahead of the striker pulling the attention of the oppositions defence. I would have liked to have seen him start ahead of Maddison yesterday as this was not a suitable formation  for Maddison to excel.

Edited 23 November 2020 by sacreblueits442

[Heymister2015]

This would all suggest the next player to leave for a huge fee should be james Maddison 

[Suzie the Fox]

50 minutes ago, Heymister2015 said:

This would all suggest the next player to leave for a huge fee should be james Maddison 

I really hope not.

[sacreblueits442]

30 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

I really hope not.

..don't really want to have to keep selling a player every season....!!!

But I have always thought he was earmarked for a short stay with us. We have looked good without him and a back three stops him from being at his best.

[danhaw]

We left him out against West Ham earlier in the season and that was on par with yesterday. He's massively underrated.

Edited 24 November 2020 by danhaw

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

23 minutes ago, danhaw said:

We left him against West Ham earlier in the season and that was on par with yesterday. He's massively underrated.

Agreed. Praet gives us a nice balance and we’re better when he plays 

[Foxaholic ME]

3 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

..are we talking about Praet or Maddison here!!!

 We have previously shoehorned Maddison into the team and pushed wide left in big games effectively disrupting the balance of the team  and setting us back even more. 

  As for Praet he gives us a great deal of work rate and tends to go ahead of the striker pulling the attention of the oppositions defence. I would have liked to have seen him start ahead of Maddison yesterday as this was not a suitable formation  for Maddison to excel.

Praet  often plays for the top rated side in the world  whereas Maddison cant get in the english side   I  think this says it all

[CrispinLA in Texas]

He's really understated does not show off like some show pony's, really is class.

[Jonaldinho]

I'm shocked he didn't start yesterday given what he brings to the team. We were always going to need his industry and technical ability on the ball and you can rely on him to get stuck in. Maddison lacks pace and physicality and was quite frankly a passenger yesterday. I don't really blame Brendan for what happened yesterday as we were missing key players but I do think he got that decision wrong. Maybe he thought Maddison would be fresher having had two weeks off. 

[Deeg67]

It doesn't need to be Praet or Maddison (though he should start ahead of Maddison if it is).  If we ditch the back three (praise Jeebus) that gives us multiple formations that would get both on the field.

[CosbehFox]

4 hours ago, Mark said:

Where we play him isn’t much diffferent to what we’re doing with Albrighton though, shoehorning him into a position because we’ve got better players where he normally plays. I don’t see anything in his game that suggests he’s an attacking midfielder.

Praet was brought up as AMC at Anderlecht and originally played that position at Sampdoria. 

Edited 23 November 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[southfox66]

I thought before yesterdays game that we should have started with him instead of Barnes, I think on both counts I was right :(

[Mark]

32 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Praet was brought up as AMC at Anderlecht and originally played that position at Sampdoria. 

If that's his position then his numbers suggest he's not very good at it.

22 minutes ago, southfox66 said:

I thought before yesterdays game that we should have started with him instead of Barnes, I think on both counts I was right

Who will be carrying the ball forwards and offering a counter attack threat which was needed last night? Neither Praet or Maddison have any pace and are not suited those positions behind Vardy especially if they are both starting. I could only see it working if we had Ricardo and Castagne back as they are direct like Barnes. You can't just pass and hope for a breakthrough as we've done the last two games. We seem to be drifting away from what we're good at with this back 5, too many square pegs in round holes isn't helping.

[honeybradger]

2 hours ago, Foxaholic ME said:

Praet  often plays for the top rated side in the world  whereas Maddison cant get in the english side   I  think this says it all

Say what you want about the starting quality of England VS Belgium but england have way more quality depth than Belgium does, maddison would definitely get plenty of minutes for belgium in the less important games like praet does.

[HighPeakFox]

I hope this isn't considered a spanner in the works, but I'm confident that Liverpool would beat Belgium. In fact they're probably a match or better than any team in the world bar Bayern, much as it pains me to admit.

[TJB-fox]

That Belgium argument  shall we sign Chadli and Mignolet as well whilst we’re at it. 

 

I do agree he shouldve started y’day though. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hopefully when Ricardo, Castagne, Wilf and soyuncu are fit we can move to a 4 at the back and tinker with some more effective midfield formations. 

[turtmcfly]

3 hours ago, Jonaldinho said:

I'm shocked he didn't start yesterday given what he brings to the team. We were always going to need his industry and technical ability on the ball and you can rely on him to get stuck in. Maddison lacks pace and physicality and was quite frankly a passenger yesterday. I don't really blame Brendan for what happened yesterday as we were missing key players but I do think he got that decision wrong. Maybe he thought Maddison would be fresher having had two weeks off. 

 

I would have preferred Praet to start, mainly because he's got a bit of a 'nasty-lite/screw you' streak I thought might be a useful counter to our 'ooh, these are a bit good aren't they Kasper' response we seem to get whenever we play Liverpool.

 

Who knows if it would have made a difference, but I have to admit he did absolutely nothing in the 20 minutes he was on the pitch to make a case for it.

 

 

 

Edited 23 November 2020 by turtmcfly

[HighPeakFox]

10 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

Who knows if it would have made a difference, but I have to admit he did absolutely nothing in the 20 minutes he was on the pitch to make a case for it.

That's not true, he was far better in & out of possession than most.  

[turtmcfly]

49 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

That's not true, he was far better in & out of possession than most.  

 

OK, ''absolutely nothing' is an exaggeration, but then your using 'most' is a bit disingenuous, given it brings players into it whose position he wouldn't take anyway.

 

As a specific replacement for Maddison (which is the what the OP was talking about)... during his 20 minutes on the pitch I won't argue he looked better than Maddison but he had been on for 70 minutes at that point. I just don't think he looked far better than Maddison did in his first 20. Certainly we looked alright(ish) for the first 15 minutes.

 

 

I doubt I'd have a problem with any call you make on how you think he'd have coped with being on the pitch when we quickly went 2 down (I certainly won't call it 'not true'). I just don't think starting with Praet (as a simple swap with no other changes) would have made much of a difference either way
 

 

 

Edited 23 November 2020 by turtmcfly

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, turtmcfly said:

 

OK, ''absolutely nothing' is an exaggeration, but then your using 'most' is a bit disingenuous, given it brings players into it whose position he wouldn't take anyway.

 

As a specific replacement for Maddison (which is the what the OP was talking about)... during his 20 minutes on the pitch I won't argue he looked better than Maddison but he had been on for 70 minutes at that point. I just don't think he looked far better than Maddison did in his first 20. Certainly we looked alright(ish) for the first 15 minutes.

 

I doubt I'd have a problem with any call you make on how you think he'd have coped with being on the pitch when we quickly went 2 down (I certainly won't call it 'not true'). I just don't think starting with Praet (as a simple swap with no other changes) would have made much of a difference either way
 

 

 

OK, as soon as I posted I regretted not saying 'in my opinion'. I agree we looked ok for the first 15, but when the goal came we were already getting cut open. I take your points, but I do think that Praet has more tactical and positional nous than Maddison currently, plus I also think that Maddison isn't 100% match fit either.