And yet he employed 'wait and see' when the xG (to borrow that expression) was pretty low in terms of what advantage might follow, but then blew the whistle when the advantage did in fact accrue.
To excuse the decision you are bound to argue that he did not just make a mistake, he made two poor mistakes in quick succession. You are driven to inventing facts.
The evidence of your own eyes should tell you he played an advantage and then blew up when it turned out there was.
Occam's razor says you're wrong.