Alejandro Garnacho has work to do at Aston Villa – but this is no Harvey Elliott repeat, just yet

There is an understandable temptation to look at Alejandro Garnacho's start to life at Aston Villa and draw comparisons with Harvey Elliott, particularly now we know there is no straightforward way for either Villa or Chelsea to bring the loan to an end in January, but I think we're getting ahead of ourselves if we assume the two situations are heading towards the same conclusion.

Matt Law has reported for The Telegraph that neither Chelsea nor Villa have a January break clause in Garnacho's season-long loan, meaning both clubs would have to agree if they wanted to cut the arrangement short during the next transfer window. Garnacho's lack of football has inevitably created a conversation around what happens if his situation doesn't improve, particularly given the profile of the player Villa have brought in, but we're still in September and there is a danger of trying to find the ending to a story that has barely started.

We've been here before, of course, because Elliott spent last season on loan at Villa without becoming anything like the important player people expected him to be when he arrived from Liverpool. By January it was abundantly clear that something had gone badly wrong, but the crucial context eventually provided by Emery was that Villa had an obligation to buy Elliott based on appearances and had already decided they weren't convinced about spending the money required to sign him permanently. From that point onwards, his lack of football wasn't simply about fighting his way up the pecking order because every appearance potentially took Villa closer to a financial commitment they no longer wanted to make.

I don't remember Emery talking about Elliott early in his Villa career in the way he is talking about Garnacho now, and that feels important when we're trying to work out what is actually happening rather than filling the gaps ourselves. Emery has been transparent about the fact that there are players ahead of Garnacho at the moment and has told him to continue working, but he has also talked about Villa needing to be patient with him, getting him progressively towards his best level and helping him find the confidence and understanding required to show the quality he has.

I've spoken to people who work in and around the club and I haven't heard any suggestion that there is a problem with Garnacho's application, timekeeping or attitude. We've had situations previously where those sorts of issues have existed with players, so I'm not pretending they never happen, but there has been nothing of that nature suggested to me here and Emery's public comments have also been positive about the work Garnacho is doing.

My reading of it, and this part is speculation rather than something I've been told, is simply that he isn't quite there tactically yet in terms of everything Emery wants from him. Some players absorb the information quicker than others and we've seen enough during Emery's time at Villa to know how detailed he is with players, particularly those operating in the attacking positions where their responsibilities without the ball and their relationship with the players around them are every bit as important as what they can produce individually.

There is another part of this which I don't think has received enough attention because putting Garnacho into this Aston Villa team isn't necessarily as straightforward as taking another attacking player out and replacing him with a better one. Villa have very rarely played with a conventional source of width from the left-hand side under Emery, so integrating Garnacho potentially requires adjustments from the players around him and maybe even slight alterations to the structure Emery has used successfully for the last few years.

That's quite a big thing when you think about it because you're not merely asking Garnacho to adapt to Aston Villa, you're potentially asking Aston Villa to adapt slightly to Garnacho as well.

Emery's attacking players have generally operated in quite specific ways and, even when Jacob Ramsey was nominally coming from that side earlier in his tenure, he was a very different player who wanted to travel inside with the ball rather than remain wide and attack his full-back in the way Garnacho naturally can. Morgan Rogers then developed into somebody who could bulldoze his way through central areas, while the current side has Johan Manzambi offering another version of that ball-carrying ability through the middle.

Garnacho gives Villa something they haven't really had under Emery, which is exciting because one of the things I like about this new group is that it appears to give the manager more ways of progressing the ball and hurting opponents, but it also means there is going to be a learning process attached to it. If Garnacho stays wide, somebody has to understand the spaces that creates inside; if he comes inside, the full-back has to react accordingly, and all of that has to work without compromising the structure Emery demands when Villa lose possession.

That becomes particularly relevant when you look at who Emery has trusted during these opening weeks. Outside of the goalkeeper and centre-forward, much of the team has consisted of players who have been working with him for a considerable period of time, while George Hemmings and Emi Buendía already understand the demands of playing off the striker. Ibrahim Mbaye has seemingly adapted quickly enough to earn opportunities as well and, when you're simultaneously trying to bed Nicolas Jackson into the side as a new number nine, there is some logic in surrounding him with players who already understand the movements and responsibilities Emery demands.

Garnacho therefore has two challenges at the moment. He has to get himself to the level tactically where Emery trusts him, but he also has to displace players who are currently giving the manager what he wants. That doesn't mean those players necessarily have greater individual ability than Garnacho, because we know the talent he possesses from what he has already done in the Premier League, but Emery has never picked his team purely on reputation and I wouldn't expect him to start doing that now.

The next few weeks might actually be incredibly useful for Garnacho because he has an opportunity during the international break to spend more time working within Villa's structure, getting repetitions into his game and potentially playing in lower-profile fixtures where the emphasis can be on understanding what Emery wants rather than immediately having to deliver in the Premier League. If tactical adaptation is the main thing holding him back, this is exactly the sort of period that could help close the gap.

There is also the simple fact that Emery wanted Garnacho. This wasn't somebody who just happened to become available at the end of the window and was dropped into his squad because Villa needed another body, because the interest goes back further than that and the manager has now got a player he believes he can work with. That doesn't guarantee Garnacho will eventually become a success because plenty can change in football, but I think it gives this situation a very different feel to somebody who has immediately found himself on the outside of Emery's plans.

That is where the Elliott comparison becomes less useful for me. The circumstances around his move were unusual because of the permanent obligation attached to appearances and we eventually discovered that Villa's thinking had changed to the point where the financial mechanics of the deal were influencing selection. Garnacho might currently be in a similar position when you look only at the team sheet, but the reasons behind it appear very different.

None of this means his current situation is ideal because clearly it isn't. A player of Garnacho's profile hasn't joined Aston Villa to spend the season watching from the substitutes' bench, Chelsea will understandably want him playing and Garnacho himself will want to prove that he can become an important player for Villa. The Telegraph report becomes much more relevant if we reach January and nothing has changed because, without an exit clause, neither club can simply decide independently that the experiment is over.

If we're still talking about Garnacho barely playing at Christmas then there will be legitimate questions to ask about what happens next, but September feels far too early to get anywhere near that point, particularly when Emery is publicly talking about the work required to get him into the side rather than giving any indication that he has decided the player isn't for him.

There will come a point when he needs to play because ultimately that is the only way any of this becomes worthwhile for Villa, Chelsea or Garnacho himself, but I don't see any reason at this stage to interpret his absence as evidence that something has already gone badly wrong.

Right now, it looks much more like a player Emery actively wanted being made to work his way into an established system and a manager refusing to select somebody on reputation alone. Garnacho has work to do, there are players currently ahead of him and the tactical fit isn't necessarily as straightforward as it might appear from the outside, but there is still a long season ahead for Emery to work all of that out.

The Elliott situation ultimately became about Villa deciding they didn't want to make a loan permanent. With Garnacho, everything we've heard so far suggests the challenge is making a player Villa wanted an important part of the team they are building.