1 day ago
55
There was much optimism over Harvey Elliott's move to Aston Villa. The structure of the deal, a loan with an obligation to buy after 10 games, was viewed as little more than a technicality; the transfer was greeted with some sadness from a Liverpool perspective, but the general consensus was that he had earned the chance to make himself the real star somewhere, especially in a World Cup year.
I even had him in my fantasy football team at one point. Little did I know that this was a show of faith greater than anything Unai Emery would grant him across his entire first half-season in the West Midlands.
It is hard to fathom how things have gone so badly wrong. Not only is Elliott further from the England picture than ever, but the obligation to buy is in jeopardy too, raising the unexpected prospect of an immediate return to Anfield (potentially even as soon as January).
Given Liverpool's fortunes, you wouldn't necessarily bet against Elliott returning and forcing his way back into the picture. But after Arne Slot revealed recently that there had been essentially no contact with the playmaker since his loan to Villa, it's very clear that the Reds have been planning for a future that does not include him.
It leaves Elliott in a grim state of limbo, with FIFA rules prohibiting him from playing for another club this season, having already represented both Liverpool and Aston Villa. One way or another, he will need to knuckle down at a club where he is considered surplus to requirements between now and the end of the campaign.
Not only is this completely at odds with his level of talent, it is also incongruous with his attitude and application. Neither Slot nor Emery has had a bad word to say about his work in training or his approach to adversity, making the situation all the more baffling.
Speaking to AceOdds.com, Dean Saunders revealed that he is at as much of a loss as everyone else. He dubbed the situation "strange":
"It is a strange one, isn't it?," Saunders mused. "I think we are all thinking, what is going on there?
"If Harvey Elliott was at Liverpool, he would be in the team. It is not as big of a mystery as Dele Alli, that was a mystery, but the situation is still a bit similar to his.
"Either there is an agreement that they have to pay Liverpool a certain amount of money when he has played a certain amount of matches, or the manager just never signed him. They brought in Lindelof, Elliott and Sancho on deadline day, but did [Emery] sign any of them?
"Maybe he is trying to make a point now by saying he doesn't need them, [but] Harvey Elliott always lifts the tempo. He makes the runs, chases the goalkeeper, closes down properly.
"He is a good player. Maybe he is not top notch, but he should be getting games for Aston Villa."
Only Emery will know his exact reasons for leaving Elliott out in the cold. Publicly, he has pointed to the very specific demands on a number 10 in his system.
But if that is the case, then Saunders has a point: was Elliott ever an Emery signing? Has he been doomed from the start?
It is notable that Elliott, Sancho, and Lindelof have all endured somewhat similar fates. The Liverpool loanee's situation is the most egregious, but none of them have managed more than 12 per cent of the available league minutes.
Liverpool is no stranger to the tensions that can spring up between sporting directors and head coaches. Even the prodigiously talented Roberto Firmino once found himself on the wrong end of a power struggle, before the replacement of Brendan Rodgers with Jurgen Klopp saved his Anfield career.
And then there is the financial aspect. Again, only Villa insiders will know the truth, but Saunders is right to ask the question.
Liverpool may have thought it was simply agreeing to a structure that would help Aston Villa from the perspective of domestic and European financial regulations. But as soon as Elliott was unable to hit the ground running, the intricacies of the deal may well have planted doubt in Emery's mind.
As soon as Emery decided not to go all in on Elliott, he effectively became incentivized to freeze him out entirely. Failing to meet the appearance threshold prevents a $47 million (£35 million) charge from kicking in next summer, which is only sensible if the manager has no intention of making him a key player.
But the result is a "doom loop" whereby Elliott is not even afforded the chance to change the coach's mind, because Villa does not want to risk the obligation kicking in for a player who might not be fancied by management. The effect of the transfer politics is deeply unfair on a player who just wanted the chance to play more football.
Everyone involved has to take some responsibility. Liverpool perhaps should have foreseen the potential pitfalls of agreeing to a deal like this, Aston Villa should certainly have been more forthright with Elliott about its plans for him, and the player could probably have assessed for himself that game time was never going to be guaranteed at Villa Park.
But whether it is at Liverpool, Villa, or eventually somewhere else, the sincere hope has to be that Elliott gets a proper chance to show his talent sooner rather than later. He is an exceptional footballer, and it is hard to shake the feeling that he is a victim of cicrumstances more than anything else.
English (US) ·