I can’t believe you can’t see how unfair it is to use matches to measure longevity. Are you going to punish Rabada for not playing enough matches in the future? Are you saying that Williamson has worse longevity than Root despite debuting earlier?

It seems like you’re the one who’s extremely biased and trying to manipulate the stats to make your player look better than he is.

Once again if you’re going to take Andersons best 10 year stretch, you’re going to have to compare that to Akrams best 10 year stretch as well.

Unlike you, I don’t need to cherry pick to prove my points. Akram’s complete 17 year career stats are excellent while Andersons is dogshit away from home.

If we’re going to look at their stats after 30 we should look at them before 30 too lmao.