Sterling scored 20 goals in the league last season. He scored 5 goals in the first 3 matches (1.6 pG), then 6 goals in the next 21 matches (0.28 pG) and finally 9 goals in 9 games (1 pG) after restart.
His goal drought in the middle of the season where he just scored 6 goals encompassed gameweeks 4 through 29. City dropped 25 points in this period.
I don't need to say this, but all goals are not created equal. Scoring the 3rd goal in a 3-0 rout is different from banging in a 90th minute match winner. Calvert-Lewin has scored 14 goals this season, Lacazette has scored 11. If the only things that matters is the absolute number, then would you say that they have had an equivalent season?
To be honest, I don't even need to compare Sterling with other players, I'll compare him with himself. He scored 17 league goals in 18/19 and 18 goals in 17/18. Would you agree that he was more influential in those two former seasons, even though he scored less compared to the 19/20 season?
I find this gotcha argument of "he scored 20 goals last season" really grating. As if football doesn't need context, goals scored is the only thing that matter, not when and how. It's even funnier because when people criticise Sterling for last season, they say 20 goals, and then when people point out the pitiful 9 league goals that he has scored this season, they say "look at other things that Sterling does, not just goals". Well which one is it? Does context matter along with goals, or is it whichever fits the narrative better?