Not quite my point. My point was that if we're using stats for 14 games this season to prove he's somehow turned it around, we need to look at the stats for the last 2/3 years...because he's been statistically amongst the worst GKs in every metric, including shot-stopping, basically since that God-like season under Jose.
14 games is too small of a sample size, especially because I saw a stat recently that said De Gea (pre-Carrick/Rangnick) had faced the 6th-least shots yet conceded the 2nd-most goals....so that plus my feeling he's conceded 3/4 soft goals this season (at least) makes me suspicious about those xG stats.
Don't get me wrong, I am putting De Gea in the 'Rooney' category. I feel bad bashing him all the time, but he's past it and a big problem for us. That's not to say he wasn't absolutely amazing for us for a long time.
EDIT: So I just checked out
https://fbref.com/en/matches/11a67612/Norwich-City-Manchester-United-December-11-2021-Premier-League
According to this, De Gea scored a PSxG of +2 against Norwich, despite them only scoring 0.8 on xG (I realise the two are not necessarily directly linked).
Again, going back to my point, any GK in the league would have saved the shots De Gea faced, so I just don't understand how that PSxG can be a useful metric. I would say the big issue with it is that is seems to be biased towards top-level GKs
who face a lot of shots. This would actually explain De Gea's "improved" form...as we had faced the 19th-most shots in the league under Ole. It would also explain why the GKs who face far fewer shots (Allisson and Ederson) fairly quite poorly.
I would love to know what is considered 'average', because if it's an average for the entire football league, then you must see my point. In that context, it clearly would favour 'elite' GKs (i.e. PL GKs) who face lots of shots.