The curious case of Harvey Elliott has left both Aston Villa and Liverpool asking themselves questions ahead of Saturday’s meeting.
Elliott will sit this one out at Anfield, but going by his start to life on loan at Villa this may have been the case regardless of his ineligibility.
The 22-year-old was left out of Unai Emery’s matchday squad for Sunday’s win over Manchester City, and his overall minutes for Villa so far this season begs an awkward question.
Why did Aston Villa sign him?
Signed on deadline day along with Jadon Sancho and Victor Lindelof, Elliott’s arrival came after Villa’s sticky start in the Premier League, where they looked short on attacking flair and appeared hung up on a summer of PSR restrictions.
Elliott therefore appeared to be an ideal addition. And, hands up, I wasted little time waxing lyrical about the move. “Step forward Elliott 2.0…”, or so the article went, suggesting the transfer suited all parties.
Villa were getting a gem who had just shone for England’s U21s. Liverpool had installed a buyback clause. And the player himself was showing an admirable hunger by reluctantly leaving the club he loves to get more game-time.
Or so I thought. But since joining, Elliott has made just one Premier League start for Villa, when he was hooked off at half-time against Fulham, and he hasn’t featured in the league since.
He has made five appearances in total for Villa, and with their obligation to buy for £35m next summer reportedly triggered if Elliott plays 10 matches in all competitions, Emery’s decision to omit the player from his squad entirely against City raises eyebrows.
Emery has preferred Morgan Rogers at No 10 and one of John McGinn, Evann Guessand or Donyell Malen on the right wing, and explained his reasoning post-City.
“He is training well, and he played some matches, but the performances weren’t what we needed,” Emery said. “Some players are playing as a No 10, and they are playing well, like [Emiliano] Buendia and Rogers.
“I am happy with him. He is training good. His commitment is fantastic… I spoke with him about it. My advice was to keep going, and training and when it is his opportunity, to play well. He is a very good player. He needs time to work and wait for his moment.”
The call for patience does little to quash the thought Elliott is not an Emery player after all, and the departure of Monchi in September adds to the sense that differences over recruitment strategy sparked the exit of Villa’s director of football operations.
And so, while Elliott had looked to be an astute deadline-day signing (again, hands up), with assistance from Captain Hindsight it appears the late timing was the greatest indication that he was never in Emery’s plans, and may therefore continue to be on the periphery.
Which, given Liverpool’s slump, leads us to the next question.
Could Liverpool recall Harvey Elliott?
Last season Chelsea, despite an £25m obligation to buy, were willing to pay a £5m penalty fee to Manchester United in order to not sign Sancho permanently – as first revealed by The i Paper. So even if Elliott racks up 10 appearances, it is no certainty Villa make this move permanent.
Nevertheless, beyond the Liverpool game it will become more apparent whether Elliott is going to reach double digits before January, when his parent club could recall him from his loan – or when Villa may decide to send him back.
It is a harsh outcome for a player who was named player of the tournament when England defended their U21 Euros crown in the summer.
But Liverpool may see the appeal, provided Elliott is willing to slip back into his role of impact player. That may sting and feel like a backwards step – just months after tearfully leaving them – but currently that is where his services are better required.
Since the early-season late winners dried up, Liverpool’s substitutes have been unable to transform matches. Nowhere was this more apparent than their three 2-1 defeats of late, at Crystal Palace and Chelsea and at home to Manchester United.
On all three occasions, Liverpool trailed, then equalised, then conceded late on, a stark contrast to their late winners against Bournemouth, Newcastle United, Arsenal, Burnley, Atletico Madrid and Southampton.
Federico Chiesa has been the go-to gamechanger, coming off the bench in seven of their nine Premier League games, but beyond his goals against Bournemouth and Palace – and Rio Ngumoha’s dramatic winner at Newcastle – no substitute has scored for Liverpool in the Premier League.
Your next read
That said, this appears to be a strength Liverpool have lost under Arne Slot on the whole.
In Jurgen Klopp’s last three seasons, no Premier League club’s substitutes scored more than Liverpool’s 33 across those campaigns, but under Slot their rate has slipped, with seven goals in last season’s title-winning campaign a total bettered by six clubs.
Elliott is far from the catch-all solution in this regard, but he was an enviable option off the bench for the league champions, whereby key players could be rested without a significant drop in quality on the pitch.
And with a leggy Mohamed Salah off to the Africa Cup of Nations in December, come January Liverpool could well do with a player the Egyptian calls his “little brother” to step into his shoes. Elliott might want that, too.