Thanks for sharing the article which is very thourough. I have to point out though, that it answers questions, that haven't been asked. I think, the poster Rozay made many attempts to explain that in his current state of course Bruno is vital to our game. Nobody really questions that. The issue we have (and I know not everybody has to agree to that but many do) is that our football sucks and lacks a structure.A good summary of how important Bruno is for us and how badly we need the other creative players to share the burden. Warning. Contains stats that may break the brains of the most prolific posters in this thread.
My conclusion (again, Rozays posts make a way better effort in doing so) - Bruno is a vital cog in a barely/badly functioning system that hasn't produced anything of note. That isn't all down to Bruno, it also has to do with Rashfords Ronaldo-fication, Antonys and Sanchos failures to hit the ground, Greenwoods case and our fullbacks being constantly under par plus our ongoing midfield woes. But me and quite a few others think, that it comes to the mid- to longterm detriment of the team to block any questioning of Brunos position on the team and whether he can be part of a successful team that plays modern and successful football. Because that is what many people think - maybe the team would be better off relying on players like Bruno and Rashford, who can be fantastic players but seem to flourish in conditions, others in the team do not really flourish in.
Again, this article is basically just illustrating the ongoing debate around here - some emphasize the players importance to us and his immaculate fitness levels while others point out that even with his efforts and output, the team still appears to go nowhere and is partly even behind teams who do not have a player like Bruno on their team.
And just like in many posts here, some aspects of Brunos game (lapses in concentration, defensive contribution (not just pressing but also not being done by dribblers), unneeded possession losses, rushed play and inability to carry the ball) have not been looked at in the article even though they are part of the overall picture.