Such a short sample size I thought you were trolling. Does one not want to consider the teams we played against?
That's an interesting point that I'll go into further.
The only two matches we've won this season where he didn't play as the #10 or on the right were Spurs and City. Otherwise we've drawn against Wolves, Sheffield United, Aston Villa and Everton, and lost against Crystal Palace, Newcastle, Watford and Arsenal. So we won two of the four difficult matches (and drew one), and won absolutely none of the six 'easy' matches.
Whereas when he's played on the right or as #10 we've won against Chelsea, Leicester, Norwich (twice), Brighton, Newcastle and Burnley. Drawn against Southampton, Arsenal and Liverpool. And only lost against West Ham and Bournemouth. So once again we won two of the four difficult matches (and drew both the others), and won five of the eight 'easy' matches.
So with him we have a slightly better record against the good teams (and I'd say his four matches have been more difficult than the four without him), while having a far superior record against the easier teams that we should be expecting to beat. To be fair I will say his easy matches have been a bit easier than the ones without him, but ultimately there's not that much difference and we should be expecting to win all of them.
Obviously it's a small sample size and the difference wouldn't be as extreme if we got a full season of both examples. But it's also obvious that he does make a difference, so it's ridiculous to say he's one of the main reasons we've done poorly when a very large majority of the games we dropped points in were the games he didn't play or was out of position to cover for injuries.