When he first arrived at Arsenal in the summer of 2010, it was thought that this striker could do well in the Premier League. He had just finished a season with French club Bordeaux, having scored 16 goals in 52 appearances for the team.
In the preliminary stages of the season, it was van Persie who was the main striker, but then, in an August match against Blackburn, the Dutchman suffered a severe ankle injury that eliminated a big part of his season.
This was the chance for Chamakh to prove himself.
In his spell of matches, he went on to do quite well; he was scoring goals consistently for the club and bringing the Gunners many victories.
Then, when van Persie was fully recovered from his injury, Chamakh was relegated to the bench. At that time, nobody knew that van Persie would start scoring goals prolifically.
This meant that Chamakh got less playing time, and van Persie received the opposite.
With this development, Chamakh's great goal-scoring form stooped, and the Moroccan ended up only playing some of the unimportant cup matches of the season.
The same would end up happening for the striker in the 2011-2012 season as van Persie's form continued to improve; he scored 37 goals in 48 appearances for the Gunners. He did not miss any matches due to injury.
Should Marouane Chamakh stay with Arsenal?
Ever since that, Chamakh hasn't been a similar player.
Now, here we are—it's the summer transfer window of 2012, and the Moroccan forward is one of the players who is expected to leave the Emirates.
For most fans, this news is like music to their ears.
While this is happening, Robin van Persie has declared that he does not intend on extending his contract with the Gunners. Arsenal have also signed French striker Olivier Giroud and German forward Lukas Podolski.
With a potential van Persie move, Arsenal will probably be looking to add on another striker.
Both of those forwards would be great additions to Arsenal. However, they might be a bit risky. Both of the players are talented and shouldn't have any problems adapting to the Premier League, but the transition could be a problem. The transition from any other league to the Premier League is always difficult for any player.
With a striker like Chamakh who has already played quite a few matches in the Premier League, why not just keep him?
It has been said many times that Chamakh plays badly. Yes, there have definitely been some matches where he has had absolutely no impact.
But one reason for his descent in form is his inconsistency. As mentioned earlier, he had a good spell for Arsenal in the period of time in which van Persie was injured in the 2010-2011 season. Then, after van Persie's recovery, in some of the matches Chamakh played he just didn't look like himself.
There were other matches where Chamakh was a threat in the air. In the Arsenal's 4-3 loss to Blackburn, Chamakh came on as a substitute late in the match. In the minutes that he played, he was a constant threat in the air. In fact, he even scored on a header.
This proves that Chamakh has it in him to perform well in the Premier League. He just needs more chances.
Recently, the Moroccan hasn't gotten many chances to play, so he hasn't been able to prove that he can perform well consistently.
In my opinion, he should be given one more chance to prove himself.
So, do you think Marouane Chamakh should stay at Arsenal?
Thanks for reading!