It's not coincidence our results are poorer with him in the side than when he is not in there.
Hmm....Is it a coincidence? Is it even true?
Gundogan started 29 games last season. P29 W21 D2 L6. Lets look at the losses -
Shakhtar 2-1 - Are we going to blame Gundogan for that? He was playing with kids and reserves, it was a dead rubber Pep sent out a B team for.
Basel 2-1 - Again...We were 4-0 up in the tie (thanks to 2 goals from Gundogan) and we played a B team with Bravo, Yaya, Zinchenko, Tosin and Brahim all playing.
Liverpool 3-0
Liverpool 4-3
United 3-2
Wigan 1-0.
The serious games which affected the season. Gundogan started 2 Liverpool defeats, but then again we lost when he didn't start as well. Is he solely to blame? No. Liverpool are the team best suited to us and beat us with or without Gundogan. He was particularly bad in the 3-0 defeat but he was also playing as some hybrid RW/Attacking midfield experiment we've not seen before or since.
United - Gundogan to blame? Well he scored, and he wasn't the reason we conceded, but he did miss an easy goal which would have sealed it, so he's probably as much to blame as Sterling and the others who missed easy goals.
Wigan - Delph got sent off, the referee denied us an obvious red card. He's not to blame.
So if you exclude the "B team" dead rubber games he played because they're obviously not relevant, we won 21 with Gundogan and lost 4, three of which happened to be against the toughest opposition of the season, and 1 in a game where we were sent down to 10 men and got fucked by the referee.
He was in our biggest losses of the season, but then again KDB, Fernandinho, David Silva also played in all of those as well.
So basically our results aren't poorer with him in the side. It's not a coincidence because it's just not true.