Aston Villa transfer window review: A step backwards or reason for hope?

Two final signings were added to Unai Emery’s squad in the form of Taylor Harwood-Bellis and Ibrahim Mbaye, while youngsters Brad Burrowes and Triston Rowe left on loan, with Luka Lynch reportedly set to follow.

It was a fitting end to a hectic window in the West Midlands. Overall, 10 new signings were completed, in addition to the delayed arrival of Modou Keba Cisse and the progression of George Hemmings and Brian Madjo into the first-team picture.

In the opposite direction, six of Villa’s Europa League final starting line-up bid farewell, while another three permanent exits were completed. Four further first-team players left on loan, three incoming loanees from last term returned to their parent clubs, and Amadou Onana’s serious knee injury will rule him out for the majority of the season.

In simple terms, that is 13 new additions for Unai Emery to call upon and 17 he can no longer turn to. They are staggering numbers. But ultimately, where does it leave this Villa squad?

Let’s tackle exits first. There’s no escaping that by losing Emiliano Martinez, Ezri Konsa, Lucas Digne, Youri Tielemans, Morgan Rogers and Ollie Watkins, Villa’s squad has been seriously depleted in terms of quality and experience.

The six represented Argentina, England, France and Belgium at this summer’s World Cup, and played significant roles in the Villans’ progression over recent years, which culminated in May’s Europa League victory. They are big characters who will be sorely missed this season.

Five of them also operated through Villa’s spine, representing a huge recalibration for the team going forward. It’s also difficult to dispute that several of the summer replacements are significant short-term downgrades. Harwood-Bellis for Konsa and Joao Gomes for Tielemans are the most glaring, but Zion Suzuki is unlikely to match Martinez’s outstanding levels. Johan Manzambi, Rogers’ successor, doesn’t possess glittering career stats, and Matteo Ruggeri for Digne also leaves the squad weaker at left-back.

There is also a fear that Villa fans have been taken in by the excitement of so many new recruits, like a child eagerly pointing to glass jars in a sweet shop. Was such a high turnover of players really needed? There was an undoubted acceptance in May that Villa’s squad needed a refresh, but has this not proved too much work in one window?

Of the 30 players to represent Villa in the league last season, 15 are not available to Emery this weekend at Hull. That will likely increase to 16 if Leon Bailey leaves as expected.

Parallels can be drawn with Liverpool 12 months ago, when the champions regressed after parting with just shy of £450m, while Chelsea’s ludicrous spending and squad churn in recent years has not resulted in any sustained success.

With such an array of signings, invariably Villa will have identified some stellar additions. Likewise, there are bound to be some flops.

The club have history in this regard, when in the summer of 2019, fresh from securing promotion back to the Premier League, 13 new faces were added to Dean Smith’s roster. They included would-be fan favourites such as Konsa, Tyrone Mings and Douglas Luiz, but also the less fondly remembered Wesley, Jota and Bjorn Engles.

Ultimately, this window will be judged on the same criteria as it was seven years ago: how many signings contribute to Villa’s success, and how many prove to be duds.

Yet despite the talent drain at Villa Park this summer, certain areas of the team now look better stocked than last season. The obvious improvement is at right-back, a problem position for several years. In Aaron Wan-Bissaka, a loan signing from West Ham United, Matty Cash will face genuine competition for a starting berth.

Indeed, the greater depth on the right flank extends to the advanced areas, where Ibrahim Mbaye will provide a more natural attacking option than John McGinn, while Alysson has shown signs he is ready to play a more significant role this term.

Alejandro Garnacho replacing Jadon Sancho could also be seen as an upgrade, while the squad generally has a feeling of greater depth to it. Cisse offers an extra defensive option, Madjo will challenge Tammy Abraham for the role of back-up striker, and Hemmings provides another midfield option. The latter has already started more league games this term than Harvey Elliott did last season, for instance.

That increased pool of players will help Emery, who saw his squad stretched when they last had to balance Premier League and Champions League ambitions.

Perhaps most importantly, the summer business has dramatically lowered the age of what was the second-oldest team on average in the Premier League last season.

There was also a belief that this summer marked the right moment for several players to move on, chiefly the wantaway Martinez and Watkins, while Digne turned 33 in July. Whether smart timing or not, it’s impossible to overlook that much of the rationale behind the transfer dealings arose from the need to comply with the financial regulations set by the Premier League and Uefa.

Some may even feel the goodwill generated by the Europa League success provided the perfect platform from which to overhaul the squad. After all, the club’s stock was on the up and players’ values were high. They’re unlikely to have remained so in 12 months’ time, nor would a move to Villa Park, to join an aging squad, necessarily be quite as appealing to new signings next year. Sentiment is rarely rewarded in football. There was logic to making such drastic changes.

And there’s an undeniable sense that Villa have built a vibrant young team that can develop alongside each other. The additions of Suzuki, Mbaye and Manzambi are especially exciting prospects.

Villa have been savvy this summer, willing to spend big money on the right player but also supplement that with cheaper additions. Leon Goretzka signed on a free transfer, Cisse cost a nominal fee, while Villa reportedly paid just £17m for Matteo Ruggeri.

That Villa are believed to have made a profit on their summer business - perhaps somewhere in the region of £50m - is another indication of the club’s prudent decision-making. It should also help Villa comply with those inhibiting financial rules.

And with Emery still at the helm and a younger, hungry side assembled, who knows what’s possible.

So what, in the end, to make of this ludicrous window?

It seems inevitable that Villa will be weaker this season as a result of the summer exodus, and it might have been wise to delay at least some of those outgoings. Konsa’s sale remains a particular sore point given the difficulty of finding an adequate replacement.

A step backwards seems likely this season, but Villa appear well placed to make forward strides in the years to come after assembling a youthful band of promising stars.

Villa may have bid farewell to many long-standing heroes, but they have also laid the foundations for a team capable of surpassing that Europa League success.