Difficult to answer that last question as that'd be hypothetical but I'd imagine we'd be on three or four points, which would have been a massive improvement on last season's start also.
As starts go, we have had a better start than last season despite apparently being weaker, seems a bit of a contradictory statement.
Why is last season's start so important? The baseline performance is what we achieved over the season. I don't find the opening 2 games to be very compelling as an argument, if there was a 2 game trophy for that maybe it would be, but if there was we wouldn't be winning it on points or performance levels. I don't see a high player churn within the XI's we've fielded for me to want to go back to Erik ten Hag's first two competitive fixtures as a Man Utd manager and directly compare them to this season. It seems very artificial to put forward that argument.
What should be expected is that taking our average level of performance from last season, you'd hope for signs of improvement early on based on learnings from last season, preseason training time, and signings because it is supposed to be progressive development expanding on what we are building. That's fairly straight forward and intuitive and basically the point of management, incremental improvement at the least. Sometimes it doesn't happen early in a season, but let's call that for what it is, it has been pretty poor and so far Mason Mount in exchange for Eriksen hasn't yielded anything good.
The worry being that there isn't much to fall back on. It would be nice to think we could point to Mason Mount's great recent form for club or country. Or for his history of solid performances in the role we're playing him. But we can't do that, we basically have to go for these hopeful notions of "he'll improve" etc. It's good you are concentrating on two games because honestly that is about the one saving grace with Mount at the moment because the logic behind it looks very strange.