The point is that Tuanzebe has had excellent performances, I'm not sure any of Lindelof's performances qualify for being rated that highly, and if the Swede deserved more chances after his poor outing v Swansea, so did Tuanzebe after his strong game against them. Also, he is a better fit at RB so should have played there v Derby, with Victor at CB alongside Smalling instead of Blind, and he should have played there instead of Young when Ashley played there. Maybe Lindelof could have spelled Matic at DM sometimes, freeing up a place for Tuanzebe in the back line.
As I've said, Lindelof's nationality, national team experience and cost should have meant he was bought as an immediate first teamer only, and Darmian and Blind should have been sold, probably Young too.
I'm an idealist admittedly, I don't like loans because Butt and the Nevilles weren't loaned and IMHO Tuanzebe has world class potential that they didn't have. He's faster (I won't go into why that's obvious, with apologies to Michael Owen and Marc Overmars amongst others), stronger (he's over 6 foot tall, they're under the mark) and more skilful, and he probably has more stamina than Butt and Phil (probably not Gary though).
As a Man City fan, I don't think Phil Foden should need a loan because Scholes wasn't loaned and Phil has more pace and better dribbling ability (and more stamina already than Scholes did until 1998 obviously), but I bet he will need one. I don't mind however if it's world class quality who keep him out of the team, but I wouldn't want the midfield equivalent of Lindelof bought and given chances ahead of him. I didn't think Wilshere needed his loan to Bolton with Denilson being in the team (he did need his Bournemouth loan, but for different reasons).
And finally, if Tuanzebe needs a loan, maybe Lindelof should have one too, at least if a proven top CB is bought and none of Smalling, Jones and Rojo are sold.