There’s definitely something to the argument that they’re a stronger unit without him. He’s just so limited outside of his goalscoring, and while the idea of that being an issue sounds a bit preposterous, in the modenr game it really isn’t since centre forwards are expected to contribute more than just goals.
No there isn't. There's no proof of that.
The best performance City have had with Haaland in their team is the demolition of Real Madrid at home, 4-0. Since he has arrived at City, they've not bettered that performance in games without him.
When people say, "City are better off than Haaland", they're most likely referring to Pep's first iteration of City, and it's an ignorant take. That team was scintillating, but had a fatal flaw in terms of being prone to defensive collapses and malfunctions in high profile games triggered by counters. And as a result, Pep started working on making City more methodical and deliberate in the buildup. They were more exciting to watch, but I wouldn't say they were a better side.
City's second iteration was more mature, but couldn't put chances away, which hurt them in Porto and against Madrid the season before they finally won it, due to the lack of a reliable focal point.
With Haaland there were teething problems, which Pep solved with having Stones drift into midfield, providing the extra man there, and allowing Haaland to do what he does. This season, with Stones out due to injury, Gundogan/Mahrez (players who facilitated a more patient buildup) gone, the composition of the team has been different, and I think that has hurt City on both ends.
And it's fair to ask whether Haaland's skill-set is optimized for a side with Doku and Alvarez and Foden and De Bruyne behind him (it isn't). That is too chaotic of a selection for Pep ball which is patient and probing and choking at its best. But their strongest team has Haaland as the focal point, with the right personnel behind him.
