This is the trouble with pure number crunchers. Stats are misleading if not seen in right context. Batsmen often play a specific role for an extended time based on the needs of the team. Does that limit their ability and potential? No. https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/status/1304304415986262016

If Kohli was playing for teams that had hitters coming all the way down till number 9 like WI or Eng do, he would play differently. He doesn't get that liberty with RCB or Team India.

The article argues how Russell is unarguably better than Kohli. But even Russells and Gayles aren't winning trophies for their IPL franchise where a more consistent and less aggressive batsman (like Williamson did in 2018) can carry his team through to the final.

The other mistake pure number crunchers make especially in the context of T20 analysis is comparing T20 stats across different leagues. Are numbers in BPL/PSL/BBL/IPL/etc comparable? Can you ignore the vast difference in quality of bowling attacks, pitches, pressure?

There aren't enough international T20 played. The sample set is too small to draw any useful conclusions. And top players like Kohli often miss a lot of international T20s. Chhetri has more international goals than Messi. But no one compares them on the basis of stats.

We usually don't compare FC cricket numbers across countries for a reason. We don't compare goals in Asian football leagues with European leagues. Even within Europe, we understand a successful player in EPL may not be super successful in La Liga.

But of course, pure number crunching is the easiest way to keep the mill of articles running. It is also an easy way to slice the data in a way that conforms to your pre-decided conclusions that split opinions and grab eyeballs.