The problem is that you're not interpreting them correctly. They are of limited use because they can only tell you how someone plays in any given game, not how they're capable of playing. A couple of weeks ago, for instance, you claimed that Willock was only good as an impact sub late in games, citing how he was being used by Bruce as evidence, and since then he has started every match for Newcastle without dropping in either performance level or end product.
There is nothing about Willock's game or indeed career so far to suggest he would be an inadequate central midfielder. The bloke is class on the ball, and it's been immediately obvious since his first appearance for us in my opinion. Stats would favour Doozi and Ceballos in midfield, and I don't need any Squawka breakdown to tell me that they are too slow on the ball, that it takes too much time for them to invent things. Those kind of flaws are almost impossible to repair. Willock by contrast has clear ideas before he receives the ball and it's why he turns better, dribbles better and runs better. The rest is just maturity: when to attempt a risky pass, when to hold on or play sideways, but that's the easy part to figure out. That's why there are plenty of players who fashion themselves as short-passing possession midfielders but few like Willock who can push the team forward.
