Not to sound like a chud, but I think a lot of men worry about misinterpreting anything, and landing in social or even legal trouble. Preferable to come off as oblivious or overly cautious than risk overstepping some personal boundary and being seen as a creep, or worse.
I've seen a lot of people use Olise's and Lamine's raw numbers to argue Olise had the better season, but when you deep the stats and look at the context you could see a very different story.
For the goals, Olise has 2 more goals while playing almost 900 more minutes, when you look at goals-per-90 you would see that Lamine has the better average with 0.51 vs 0.45
And for the assists where the biggest gap exists, Lamine has actually a better average of big chances created per 90, as Lamine has 52 BCC at 1.04 per 90, while Olise has 55 at 0.92 per 90.
Basically what the stats tell you is that Lamine creates more but Olise's attackers finish his chances better which makes sense since he plays with Mbappe and Kane while Lamine plays with Ferran.
So per 90, Lamine scores more and creates more, not to mention the huge gap in dribbles. Then you add a more successful year collectively with the world cup. So what exactly does Olise have over Lamine?
This is how easily raw stats can deceive you when you ignore context.