Oliver Skipp is an Addick: Season long loan from Leicester City

AndyG

He was good today which should not be surprising for some who has played the level he has and the transfer fee he commanded. I’m sure this will prove to be a great loan as he will want to rebuild his reputation to get a good move next year 

thenewbie

The Coventry/Skipp partnership shows real promise, hopefully to get even better with more game time and practice.

Exiled_Addick

I worry him and Coventry is a bit too much like Coventry and Doc, albeit Coventy has been more progressive and Skipp looks (as you would expect) like he will be an upgrade on Doc once he settles in. 

Think we’ve missed Chalobah a little bit and still hopeful the once Ouma settles he can add a bit more forward thinking dynamism, maybe he ends up as the 10, but certainly you won’t out work Cov and Skipp as a pairing. 

Leuth

Skipp is absolutely nothing like Docherty wtf. For one thing he can pass 

Leuth

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

queensland_addick

He's definitely settling in and starting to display some class.
However given the option, I'd rather 24 million in the Bank and Doc in midfield.
Crazy money for such a player, he's decent but nowhere near worth that kind of money.

Leuth

queensland_addick said:

He's definitely settling in and starting to display some class.
However given the option, I'd rather 24 million in the Bank and Doc in midfield.
Crazy money for such a player, he's decent but nowhere near worth that kind of money.

Mate I know you're into your alternative facts and such but...you think we spent 24 million on Skipp? 

Crispywood

queensland_addick said:

He's definitely settling in and starting to display some class.
However given the option, I'd rather 24 million in the Bank and Doc in midfield.
Crazy money for such a player, he's decent but nowhere near worth that kind of money.

which is a completely valid point if we did spend 24M on Skipp and not got him on a season long loan. Only been 2 games but you can see he has got quality there, doc is limited Skipp has made it into a championship Team of the Year and played between 50-100 prem games 

 

MickeyBennett

queensland_addick said:

He's definitely settling in and starting to display some class.
However given the option, I'd rather 24 million in the Bank and Doc in midfield.
Crazy money for such a player, he's decent but nowhere near worth that kind of money.

Not how loans work

queensland_addick

MickeyBennett said:

queensland_addick said:

He's definitely settling in and starting to display some class.
However given the option, I'd rather 24 million in the Bank and Doc in midfield.
Crazy money for such a player, he's decent but nowhere near worth that kind of money.

Not how loans work

I know. Just saying that comparing them, one, once valued at 25 million, the other available for nothing. There really doesn't appear to be such a huge differential between them, maybe a couple of million max.

soapboxsam

Leuth said:

Skipp is absolutely nothing like Docherty wtf. For one thing he can pass 

True, his passing is of a higher quality that Doch and he was outstanding in a partnership for England U21 with Foden.
Docherty was a better goal scorer but then he did get in the box more than the defensive minded Skippy who is showing why he was highly rated not so long ago. Skipp was a 20 million man so no real comparison with Greg who we should all respect for his two years of service to CAFC.

Exiled_Addick

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

Oh…. So you do agree with me then.

Callumcafc

He played well yesterday but I’m also understanding why Leicester fans are pissed off that they spent £25m on him. That’s not his fault and I think he’ll have a good season with us with far less pressure on his shoulders.

wmcf123

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

Although it’s 3 games where Skipp has started and we haven’t been that near the goal.  Not blaming him or Coventry for that but we will have to find a way to get goals .  

Brownie12

He is certainly an upgrade on Docherty. 

SouthLincsAddick

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

I completely agree with you that Chalobah just adds a bit more going forward but I wonder how much we’re misled by the fact we played some pretty poor teams in the first three games. All have continued to struggle about from Spam who were still acclimatising to this level.

Covered End

fenaddick said:

Was great today and much more mobile than I thought. Strikes me as a player who is more noticeable in person than on the stream 

Yet I thought he had a decent game V QPR (I was there I'm always there).
I then watched the game again when I got home & thought Skipp had a better game than I thought.

Blucher

Skippy's a very hardworking and conscientious player and it looks like he'll do a very good job for us this season. It also enables us to bring Alan Mwamba on gradually, without putting too much pressure on the lad.

thenewbie

Covered End said:

fenaddick said:

Was great today and much more mobile than I thought. Strikes me as a player who is more noticeable in person than on the stream 

Yet I thought he had a decent game V QPR (I was there I'm always there).
I then watched the game again when I got home & thought Skipp had a better game than I thought.

Skipp (a bit like Coventry) seems like a player who doesn't often do the spectacular eye-catching stuff like scoring a rocket or sending a 50 yard pass that splits the defence like a needle. 
But he does do a lot of the "busywork" and make the kind of play/passes that let the other players do that stuff - our problem at the moment is that aside from TC none of the players who ARE meant to scoring/setting up goals are doing so.

Elthamaddick

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

totally agree with this, an excellent pairing in the middle but for that last 30 mins Saturday I'd have liked to have seen 1 sacrificed in order that we could really go for it.

Totally get it in the really tight games against better sides, but Pompey were there for the taking

blackpool72

Elthamaddick said:

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

totally agree with this, an excellent pairing in the middle but for that last 30 mins Saturday I'd have liked to have seen 1 sacrificed in order that we could really go for it.

Totally get it in the really tight games against better sides, but Pompey were there for the taking

This is where Chalobah will have a roll to play when fit.
Start with Coventry and Skipp, and with 25 or 30 minutes to go bring him on if we are in need of a goal.
This will hopefully mean he gets enough minutes to help us when needed but also manage his minutes to reduce the risk of further injuries. 

FishCostaFortune

blackpool72 said:

Elthamaddick said:

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

totally agree with this, an excellent pairing in the middle but for that last 30 mins Saturday I'd have liked to have seen 1 sacrificed in order that we could really go for it.

Totally get it in the really tight games against better sides, but Pompey were there for the taking

This is where Chalobah will have a roll to play when fit.
Start with Coventry and Skipp, and with 25 or 30 minutes to go bring him on if we are in need of a goal.
This will hopefully mean he gets enough minutes to help us when needed but also manage his minutes to reduce the risk of further injuries. 

For me, having seen the likes of Aneke and Burke breakdown in the pre match warm up, or 5 minutes after they’ve come into the pitch - when he’s fit I just start Chalobah.

blackpool72

FishCostaFortune said:

blackpool72 said:

Elthamaddick said:

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

totally agree with this, an excellent pairing in the middle but for that last 30 mins Saturday I'd have liked to have seen 1 sacrificed in order that we could really go for it.

Totally get it in the really tight games against better sides, but Pompey were there for the taking

This is where Chalobah will have a roll to play when fit.
Start with Coventry and Skipp, and with 25 or 30 minutes to go bring him on if we are in need of a goal.
This will hopefully mean he gets enough minutes to help us when needed but also manage his minutes to reduce the risk of further injuries. 

For me, having seen the likes of Aneke and Burke breakdown in the pre match warm up, or 5 minutes after they’ve come into the pitch - when he’s fit I just start Chalobah.

Instead of who

FishCostaFortune

blackpool72 said:

FishCostaFortune said:

blackpool72 said:

Elthamaddick said:

Leuth said:

If there is a problem with Skipp and Coventry, it's that they're both very similar to each other, which is good in one way, because they're both incredibly sound and diligent DMs who can keep the ball and distribute it to the forwards. What both lack, and it's not a major thing but a marginal gain, is the ability to thrust into the final third with the ball, which Chalobah does have in his locker. So we don't get that extra man joining or creating attacks. What we do get is as good and classy a defensive shield/possession base as we could possibly have. When Chalobah is fit, he should get gametime yes, because it might slightly increase our attacking potential, but that yesterday was as reassuring a midfield duo as I've seen for Charlton in a very long time. Neither of them looked even in mild danger of losing the ball carelessly, or getting caught out of position

totally agree with this, an excellent pairing in the middle but for that last 30 mins Saturday I'd have liked to have seen 1 sacrificed in order that we could really go for it.

Totally get it in the really tight games against better sides, but Pompey were there for the taking

This is where Chalobah will have a roll to play when fit.
Start with Coventry and Skipp, and with 25 or 30 minutes to go bring him on if we are in need of a goal.
This will hopefully mean he gets enough minutes to help us when needed but also manage his minutes to reduce the risk of further injuries. 

For me, having seen the likes of Aneke and Burke breakdown in the pre match warm up, or 5 minutes after they’ve come into the pitch - when he’s fit I just start Chalobah.

Instead of who

Him and either one of Coventry or Skipp for me.

I can totally get that we would want to manage his minutes, but I’m I feel like we’ve been stung with that sort of situation before. 

I’d just play him from the start and hope we can get ahead of the game and if anything take him off if we are. 

Chawlton

I’d start Chalobah, Cov at home and Skipp, Coventry  away 

Braziliance

Really like him, like Cov, seems like a reliable midfielder who can play the full 90 and has a sensible head on his shoulders. 

If there was any chance of making him permanent I would. 

Him and Cov in the double pivot with the missing jigsaw piece creative 10 could be something very good at this level.

Bostonaddick

My main concern with starting both skipp/cov is that both sit very deep in the midfield.  With grant as an attacking mid who pushes so far forward that he is almost a second striker, there was a lot of space in the midfield for the opposition to control.  Neither skipp or Coventry look comfortable pushing forward and we run the risk ceding too much ball possession against teams with strong midfields

FishCostaFortune

Bostonaddick said:

My main concern with starting both skipp/cov is that both sit very deep in the midfield.  With grant as an attacking mid who pushes so far forward that he is almost a second striker, there was a lot of space in the midfield for the opposition to control.  Neither skipp or Coventry look comfortable pushing forward and we run the risk ceding too much ball possession against teams with strong midfields

They’re kinda meant to I think. Coventry spoke before the West Ham game about how he is enjoying this year as we are playing two ‘6’s’.

fenaddick

Bostonaddick said:

My main concern with starting both skipp/cov is that both sit very deep in the midfield.  With grant as an attacking mid who pushes so far forward that he is almost a second striker, there was a lot of space in the midfield for the opposition to control.  Neither skipp or Coventry look comfortable pushing forward and we run the risk ceding too much ball possession against teams with strong midfields

You're not wrong, look at the average positions. Grant actually ended up higher up the pitch than Leaburn

Crispywood

Bostonaddick said:

My main concern with starting both skipp/cov is that both sit very deep in the midfield.  With grant as an attacking mid who pushes so far forward that he is almost a second striker, there was a lot of space in the midfield for the opposition to control.  Neither skipp or Coventry look comfortable pushing forward and we run the risk ceding too much ball possession against teams with strong midfields

I don’t think that’s on Coventry or Skipp though think it’s more of a tactical shape. Personally think out of possession we’re setting up more in a 442 and when we get the ball the CAM drops deeper to create an out ball