Marco van Ginkel

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

It is a shame that seems there is no place for him in here anymore. Unless Conte think otherwise. Hopefully we get decent money if we end up selling him.

[Captain Ahmed 528]

-MVG 2015-16 season review:Keep, Sell, Loan

Quote

Appearances:English Premier League: 8 starts + 9 substitute appearances (753 minutes),Eredivisie: 13 (1170 minutes),UEFA Champions League: 2 (211 minutes),Domestic Cups: 4 (337 minutes)

Goals: 8 and Assists: 1

We're a few months short of the day Marco van Ginkel injured his Anterior Cruciate Ligament in a League Cup game against Swindon Town three years ago, which effectively ended his debut season at Chelsea. The road back to full fitness has been long and arduous; he's been on loan at three different clubs since: AC Milan, Stoke City and PSV Eindhoven, in that order.After lukewarm spells at the former two, Van Ginkel flourished upon his return to the Eredivisie, scoring eight goals in thirteen games and helping his side to yet another title win, whilst gaining valuable Champions League experience in the process.  He started both legs of PSV's Champions League Round of 16 encounter with eventual finalists Atletico Madrid, culminating in a heartbreaking defeat on penalties (MvG converted his take).

Analysis:Van Ginkel is known to thrive in a 4-3-3 formation, deployed either side of the anchorman, always joining in attack and providing an extra option in a box. Despite playing in this position for Vitesse, Milan and later on, PSV, Mark Hughes opted to play Van Ginkel in a double pivot, in a more defensive role, with the license to occasionally push forward. The decision seemed understandable, given the wealth of attacking talent Stoke possessed further up the pitch, such as Marko Arnautovic, Bojan Krkic, Xherdan Shaqiri and Ibrahim Affelay, but it ultimately did not work out for Chelsea loanee.

Verdict: Van Ginkel seems to have gotten his long-lost confidence back, perhaps finally signalling the end of his rehabilitation period from the devastating knee injury. Clearly, in a somewhat similar manner to a certain Frank Lampard, Van Ginkel has a knack for being in the right place at the right time and possesses a keen eye for goal, although for him to play as an effective box-to-box midfielder in the Premier League, his off-the-ball play will have to improve. Nevertheless, unknowing as we all are with regards to what formation or what type of players Antonio Conte will prefer, now is probably a great time for Van Ginkel to try and prove himself at Chelsea. With two years left on his contract, I would keep Marco van Ginkel next season.

weaintgotnohistory

 

[the wes 7,212]

PSV wants to keep MVG full time  

http://www.football-oranje.com/psv-plan-talks-chelsea-van-ginkel/

[the wes 7,212]

If we are thinking about selling MVG we should at least put a buyback clause on him please Chelsea board don't do the same mistakes that we did on lukaku and KDB 

[kiwi1691 255]

1 hour ago, the wes said:

If we are thinking about selling MVG we should at least put a buyback clause on him please Chelsea board don't do the same mistakes that we did on lukaku and KDB 

Stop attacking the board to defend your mate Jose. 

[Blue Armour 4,168]

2 hours ago, kiwi1691 said:

Stop attacking the board to defend your mate Jose. 

Jose or not, it would have been great if we had buyback clauses for those two.

[kiwi1691 255]

37 minutes ago, Blue Armour said:

Jose or not, it would have been great if we had buyback clauses for those two.

Jose clearly did not rate them, did not see them coming back. A buyback clause would lower the sale price of the players, if the manager doesn't want them it could be stupid to sell them cheaper with a buyback clause. 

[the wes 7,212]

7 hours ago, kiwi1691 said:

Stop attacking the board to defend your mate Jose. 

its board job to put buyback clause on players not the manager by the way im a chelsea fan has for mourinho i have lost a lot of respect for jose and i hope he fails at utd 

[Captain Ahmed 528]

“Thumbs up ? Game tomorrow vs Ireland! @patrickvanaanholt #NED #friends”:Instagram of MVG

 

[Reddish-Blue 2,230]

On 5/29/2016 at 0:34 PM, Blue Armour said:

Jose or not, it would have been great if we had buyback clauses for those two.

Buy back clauses only work if the original transfer fee is low (below 15 million). 

I would much rather see Chelsea start using sell-on clauses with some of these youngsters, that way, we are guaranteed some money if the player lives up to their potential and earns a move to a big club. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,776]

18 hours ago, Reddish-Blue said:

Buy back clauses only work if the original transfer fee is low (below 15 million). 

I would much rather see Chelsea start using sell-on clauses with some of these youngsters, that way, we are guaranteed some money if the player lives up to their potential and earns a move to a big club. 

Sell on clauses, as with KDB for example, are exactly what we do because it amounts to pretty much the same thing as a buy back. In the whole history of football how many players can we name between us who have returned to their former club as a result of a buy-back clause being exercised? I say between us but I don't think I'm going to be much help to be honest.

Instead of being exercised, the buy back clause ends up being bought out by the purchasing club in any new move. This is what will happen with Morata if he goes to a third club this summer. Twitter and the media are full of stories of Madrid buying him back then selling him on. That won't happen. Whoever signs the young Spaniard will just pay his former club a fee in return for them waiving their rights.

[Captain Ahmed 528]

Play me or sell me:MVG to Chelsea FC

Quote

Following a disappointing first half of the season at Stoke City, Chelsea midfielder Marco van Ginkel rebounded at full force in the second half after switching his loan to eventual Eredivisie champions PSV Eindhoven. The 23-year-old contributed with eight goals in thirteen matches to the team's 23rd league title.Van Ginkel's contract with Chelsea ends in two years, and he believes it's decision-time at Cobham.

"It is still unclear what I am going to do. I need to report to Chelsea at some point in July and there is [a] new coach there; I need to know what he intends to do.""I am not feeling any pressure, I had a good half season here [in the Netherlands] and I feel fine. If I don't have a future in London, Chelsea would have to sell [me] as I would only have one year left on my contract after next season.""I had a good time at PSV, so a transfer is possible."-Marco van Ginkel; source: De Telegraaf via Inside Futbol

The talented midfielder, who recently made his full debut for the Dutch national team, arrived at Stamford Bridge in the summer of 2013, and looked ready to play a part in the Chelsea first-team. But his year was cut short in September, after an ACL injury suffered in just his fourth appearance.  It's taken him a couple years, but he looks to have fully recovered now and has once again proven to be a standout performer at Eredivisie level.

We once believed on the back of similar performances (at Vitesse) that he could be a part of Chelsea's first-team.  Do we believe that again?

weaintgotnohistory

 

[ulvhedin 473]

So what is his future? Is there any chance he will replace Mikel as backup for Matic/Kante?

[mccg 1,528]

Should sell him , move on, give his chance to youth

[OhForAGreavsie 5,776]

On 05/07/2016 at 8:00 AM, ulvhedin said:

So what is his future? Is there any chance he will replace Mikel as backup for Matic/Kante?

I've seen nothing in his game which suggests that he can be a Chelsea player, and I can think of no reason, other than financial, why he should want to be a back up here. He should be allowed to move on as soon as it is sensible to do so.

[robsblubot 3,251]

disagree with the reasons above as I hardly think Mikel is a chelsea or any remotely top club player. However, the problem isn't so much quality, but characteristics. Ginkel looks like a player who does better a bit up in the field, unless he's been doing what asked and can play a more defensive role, in which case then he should def replace mikel.

[Reddish-Blue 2,230]

47 minutes ago, Robguima said:

disagree with the reasons above as I hardly think Mikel is a chelsea or any remotely top club player. However, the problem isn't so much quality, but characteristics. Ginkel looks like a player who does better a bit up in the field, unless he's been doing what asked and can play a more defensive role, in which case then he should def replace mikel.

If we wanted someone that could play the defensive backup role in midfield, we should have kept Romeu. 

Van Ginkel has quality but he wouldn't be able to cover for Cesc defensively. 

[robsblubot 3,251]

2 minutes ago, Reddish-Blue said:

If we wanted someone that could play the defensive backup role in midfield, we should have kept Romeu. 

Van Ginkel has quality but he wouldn't be able to cover for Cesc defensively. 

agreed, but we don't do that and haven't had adequate cover forever. The top clubs have no mikels in their rosters: only we, liverpool, and united do.

Matic had a poor season, did mikel provide adequate cover? How did we play? Hazard was subpar, so who stepped up? My point is that if we say we are ok with mikel coming on, and often like last season, then anything goes: ginkel and others could do such a role.

I'd prefer we had 2 similar players for every position (or at least cover) but that's not how the club is run.