Schlupp to Charlton on loan?

[jimmer]

Jeff is a long term target of Chris Powell South London Press

[Fox92]

A loan move at this level wouldn't be a bad idea. Schlupp hasn't featured for weeks now.

[Deucalion]

He might like it too much though.

[Libertine]

Only if we get another LB in.

[shiv]

Can't see Nigel letting him go unless we bring in LB cover.

[Ric Flair]

De Laet can always fill in at left back and Moore/SSL at right back. He might go for this.

[Munshi]

Even though it would be a good move for him ,I dont think we have enough cover at left back and if he does go then the next possible LB replacement would be taft.

[dmayne7]

Hope he does go. Said before that I think he's being wasted here and would be good if he can get some game time playing up top or out wide. Out of all our players he has the most potential apart from perhaps knocky.

[Kyle_Le_Don]

Here here....

Such a good prospect from what ive seen

[shiv]

De Laet can always fill in at left back and Moore/SSL at right back. He might go for this.

Personally I'd like to see Schlupp go out on loan, so he can get some experience at this level. He's not gonna benefit by sitting on the bench week in week out and I agree with Ric that we do have cover. It's just strange that Nigel didn't star De Laet at LB when Konchesky was injured, he obviously prefers someone who is naturally left footed. Maybe Whitbread can play LB now we have Keane?

[deep blue]

Personally I'd like to see Schlupp go out on loan, so he can get some experience at this level. He's not gonna benefit by sitting on the bench week in week out and I agree with Ric that we do have cover. It's just strange that Nigel didn't star De Laet at LB when Konchesky was injured, he obviously prefers someone who is naturally left footed. Maybe Whitbread can play LB now we have Keane?

I think if we let Jeff go our loss at full back could be damaging. De Laet has become a key part of the team, adding a fast attacking dimension down the right. If Konch is injured or loses form then it would disrupt the team too much to move De Laet over there. And as for Whitbread - he hasn't any of the attacking qualities that we need at left back (speed, crossing ability, passing ability etc).

Shame, cos Jeff really does need game time.

[Far Post Gerry]

Sounds pretty fair. I do love Schluppy but Ritchie De Laet can cover at LB. If people are anything less than second pick for any position, they should be available for loan. Hopefully it'll be the making of him.

[deep blue]

I think if we let Jeff go our loss at full back could be damaging. De Laet has become a key part of the team, adding a fast attacking dimension down the right. If Konch is injured or loses form then it would disrupt the team too much to move De Laet over there. And as for Whitbread - he hasn't any of the attacking qualities that we need at left back (speed, crossing ability, passing ability etc).

Shame, cos Jeff really does need game time.

Having seen the team for today - Jeff not even on the bench - I've changed my mind. If NP thinks we can manage today without Schlupp, if Konch gets injured, then he's further down the pecking order than I thought. Send him out on loan!

[Kitchandro]

I'd like him as competition for Dyer and Konchesky. He was performing fine and had one bad game before Knochesky came back. And tbh, he's a better footballer than DYer and just as quick.

I know Dyer's loveable and all but Schlupp's a potential long term replacement for him if you ask me.

[Spudulike]

I'd prefer to see Dyer go out on loan after his 'performance' today.

[Thracian]

Apart from money it's still hard to understand why Schlupp has chosen to sign a longish-term commitment here. As mentioned previously, we've developed no-one through to established first team standard from the Academy in years and Kingy's probably gone backwards, which is a shame.

Moore and Schlupp have had a taste of first team football but what should have been an important season for both has been largely wasted even though there were various times when either one of them might have been further involved.

With the standard we're setting now you have to wonder if they're even good enough. Certainly I wouldn't see Schlupp as a striker or even a wing replacement for Dyer as has been suggested.

What he has got is considerable potential as an attacking left-back, a central midfield player and as a utility option, although i'm not sure he was ever in with a real chance of retaining the left-back position in his brief adventure there because of Konchesky's seniority and experience.

Moore is definitely no better than a substitute's choice in defence and, yes, we need cover but is that really the best way for him to spend such an important time in his career - or Schlupp?

The "Pearson's Perfect" voices will argue differently I'm sure, but it seems both players are at the wrong place at the wrong time to move forward because we're playing so well and opportunities seem so limited.

But Schlupp would likely do well at Charlton with a man who knows him, rates him, and wouldn't be likely to leave him twiddling his thumbs like Gradel. The problem for him is that we don't seem to have natural cover at left-back.

[Guest]

Sorry Thrac but King's gone backwards? How do you figure that? Because there's currently 2 more consistently in form central midfielders right now?

[morris1234]

He's on trial Manchester United apprenty

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/manchester-united-give-jeff-schlupp-trial-but-lose-darren-fletcher-8456579.html

[Thracian]

Sorry Thrac but King's gone backwards? How do you figure that? Because there's currently 2 more consistently in form central midfielders right now?

i don't think Kingy's really progressed for a couple of seasons now. Last season was largely ruined by injury but even before that I thought he was starting to stagnate.

Yes, he remains the most accurate and consistent passer in the club and he regained a little of his goalscoring prowess at the beginning of the season and was perhaps unfortunate not to enjoy the confidence-lifting feeling of scoring a few more.

He also showed more physical determination in the early weeks of the season but as the colder months came in, his form faltered to the point where he didn't look very incisive at all.

Yes he still did the simple things and passed the ball to feet even when others - including Drinkwater - were all but totally ineffective for a while.

But as ever when his form slips he started playing lots more passes backwards or sideways - safely yes, but to no great effect. Perhaps he felt under pressure. Perhaps he was being more tightly marked than in past seasons. Perhaps he found it hard to link in with Knockaert during his "blind alley" period.

But the end result was that Kingy was less effective. His passing became more negative, his shooting more occasional and less accurate and he started being sloppy with some of his defending even before the Bellamy mistake which cost us a game and which he seems to have paid for whatever the justice of it.

And all this at a time when I'd have hoped that King would be more influential, would be more confident of making incisive passes and of chancing his runs into the box and would have been increasing calm and commanding in defensive situations.

The question now is whether his drop in form was really down to lack of confidence, too much responsibility and ground to cover, closer marking or perhaps because he's gone a bit stale at the club and stopped focusing on his need to improve.

I can't guess which it is or whether it's a combination of things but he's never had the easiest relationship with some fans because he's not a tackler and whenever his form has dipped in the past they've soon had a go and that's made the situation worse.

Of course it might be that, after so many games in succession, a rest will be all he needs to renew or recharge his batteries but I'm not sure. i've never liked it when he overdoes the sideways passing. To me King is an attacker. He has the brain and the skill and the eye to make things happen.

When he goes safety first he's nothing like the same player and he's certainly not the man to mark a Bellamy type.

[Grewks]

Apart from money it's still hard to understand why Schlupp has chosen to sign a longish-term commitment here. As mentioned previously, we've developed no-one through to established first team standard from the Academy in years and Kingy's probably gone backwards, which is a shame.

Moore and Schlupp have had a taste of first team football but what should have been an important season for both has been largely wasted even though there were various times when either one of them might have been further involved.

With the standard we're setting now you have to wonder if they're even good enough. Certainly I wouldn't see Schlupp as a striker or even a wing replacement for Dyer as has been suggested.

What he has got is considerable potential as an attacking left-back, a central midfield player and as a utility option, although i'm not sure he was ever in with a real chance of retaining the left-back position in his brief adventure there because of Konchesky's seniority and experience.

Moore is definitely no better than a substitute's choice in defence and, yes, we need cover but is that really the best way for him to spend such an important time in his career - or Schlupp?

The "Pearson's Perfect" voices will argue differently I'm sure, but it seems both players are at the wrong place at the wrong time to move forward because we're playing so well and opportunities seem so limited.

But Schlupp would likely do well at Charlton with a man who knows him, rates him, and wouldn't be likely to leave him twiddling his thumbs like Gradel. The problem for him is that we don't seem to have natural cover at left-back.

I like the subtle way in which you imply that konchesky plays because of his 'expeirence and seniority'.

What a load of rubbish.

Konchesky was injured and dropped, schlupp came in and when kept konch out the team when he was back fit. But Schlupp had a stinker at leeds, one foul and after that his confidence evaporated. Konch then was put back into the first team and has kept his place on merit.

Pearson does not play players just because of seniority. He picks them on performance, otherwise would he not pick wellens and king over drinky and james?

[Thracian]

I like the subtle way in which you imply that konchesky plays because of his 'expeirence and seniority'.

What a load of rubbish.

Konchesky was injured and dropped, Schlupp came in and when kept konch out the team when he was back fit. But Schlupp had a stinker at leeds, one foul and after that his confidence evaporated. Konch then was put back into the first team and has kept his place on merit.

Pearson does not play players just because of seniority. He picks them on performance, otherwise would he not pick wellens and king over drinky and james?

Pearson has referred to the need for experience and Konchesky fits the need perfectly and has done well in the main. For all his strengths and promise Schlupp is still gaining experience as a left back. I didn't imply that Pearson's picked Konch for any other reason than that he deserves his place, experience in such a young side being a perfectly legitimate part of his reasoning as well. What I did say is that Schlupp could and should have been involved more and there were plenty of opportunities for that.