He's definitely a good, talented player, but far too small a sample size and far too mediocre a run of teams to be going over the top.
Typical that people are expected to change an opinion they hold based on 7 games, though. If they rated him before this should reinforce that. If they were sceptical there needs to be more evidence.
I think he's good but not worth the money they paid for him. I am not so shallow as to suddenly change my mind based on a small sample size, especially when they haven't even been winning. Players have purple patches all the time.
This post is nothing against Wirtz - it's a critique of the modern fan thinking where you don't or do rate a player then you're meant to suddenly change your mind based on a small run of games (especially when most won't have even watched all those games and will just be taking the word for it based on 'stats' and 'MOTM', the latter of which is heavily influenced by the former).
My overall view is that he's a quality player to a point, but not good enough to be the main man in a team that dominates an era. That doesn't mean he cannot be a useful, quality player. But the former is what they expect of him with the money that paid for him and the hype surrounding him. Given that, it will take A LOT more than a run of games where Liverpool are barely even winning to change my mind (or the mind of anyone with a bit of substance and courage of their convictions).
That's not me putting him down - he can be a very successful player. But I think the hype in the summer was a bit much and it puts some guys off.