Ollie Watkins’ future at Aston Villa was already uncertain before the club travelled to Brighton, but his absence from the squad for the 4–0 defeat has raised a more immediate question – did the striker refuse to play?
There has been no public confirmation from Watkins that he made himself unavailable. However, when Unai Emery was questioned about whether Watkins had refused to play, the Villa manager declined to deny it.
“This question is for him. I can’t answer. I can answer only with my silence.”
It was a response that inevitably strengthened the impression that Watkins’ omission was not simply a selection decision.
The situation comes amid sustained interest from Al-Hilal, who are attempting to take the England international to the Saudi Pro League. Villa have reportedly rejected four bids, but Watkins appears keen on the move.
That leaves Villa with an increasingly difficult decision. Watkins has been one of their most important players under Emery, and losing him after the season has started would leave a considerable hole in their attack. Yet keeping a player who wants to leave presents problems of its own.
The timing could hardly have been worse. Villa were comprehensively beaten at Brighton, with their own mistakes contributing heavily to the defeat. Watkins might not have changed the outcome, but his absence inevitably became more significant because of what happened on the pitch.
It would still be premature to state as fact that Watkins refused to play. Unless the player, his representatives, or Villa confirm precisely what happened, that remains unproven.
However, Emery could easily have rejected the suggestion. Instead, his response – and particularly his reference to answering with his silence – has ensured that the questions will continue.
Villa must now decide whether continuing to resist Al-Hilal is worth the risk of retaining an unsettled player. Much will depend upon the size of the Saudi offer, whether Villa can find a suitable replacement, and how determined Watkins is to leave.
He remains under contract to Villa, who continue to pay his wages, and that inevitably adds another dimension to the debate. Whatever the circumstances surrounding his absence, supporters are entitled to feel that a player employed by the club should be available to represent it, particularly when the team needs him.
