Can your stats tell me how many times he didn't pass the ball into space, look for a runner, take a man on, go round the outside and cross, or just generally try to speed things up?
Can those stats also tell me how many times he did put his foot on the ball when a break was on, pass inside when there was a through ball, cut inside when the box was full of players and lose the ball or piss a team mate off when he didn't react quick enough.
Stats are useful, but they don't tell the full story of anything.
BTW, everyone bar a few at the back were shit against Wolves. So being the "5th best rated" player in a poor team performance means he was pretty fucking terrible tbh.
Stats are useful and can be misleading.
The examples of play you refer to - how many of his decisions can you be confident were his instinct, or coached as his role in the game plan or even shouted from the side line?
If he doesn't follow instructions for his role in the team, he should be and would be dropped - unless his returns overall seem worth having in the side more than what someone else would contribute.
This is where I think he is currently. Overall he is a better option for the team than Johnson, Gil or whoever and offers us a different set of qualities.
5th best rated player does mean the fan perception of his performance was 'pretty fucking terrible' giving him a 5.71 average rating, even though he actually scored a really good goal and contributed. Were the goals conceded directly his fault? Probably not. Had we won the game 1-0 via his goal with exactly the same performance otherwise, would he have been rated as 'pretty fucking terrible' at 5.71? Probably not, more like 7.5-8.5 rated.
His contribution was regarded as shit by the fans, like is the case with most players in most games we fail to win - when really to score a goal is a great contribution. The problem was we were losing and he didn't come up with another 1-2 goals/assists, because that's what the situation determined we needed from him to regard his performance as 'good'. You can slow down play, cut inside and lose the ball, piss team mates off etc and be regarded as having a good game if directly contributing to goals being scored.
Stats that formulate a player rating at least take emotion out of the equation whilst equally not considering the state of play at the time of the actions. Losing with 5 minutes to go, punting the ball back to the keeper would be registered as successful passes when we all know that's not what we want to see at that moment. But in saying that, overall he was still one of our better contributors on the day.
Son for example has had plenty of stinkers where he scored and we won. Whilst his giving the ball away and missed chances won't be ignored, at the end of the day we can also recognise he did score, which when combined with a win is all we could really ask for.