I'm not denying that, that's why after that test Root went from 870 -> 925 and AB went from 1086 -> 1015. The current rating system gives more value to recent form, but it still takes past performances into account, and AB has been ATG level for years now so his recent slump isn't going to drop him like a stone. If Root has a great performance in his next Test he will jump to #1 - that's the case for Kane/AB as well.
I think if you're arguing in terms of the amount of runs I agree, but AB has been SA's lone performer in recent months which helps him in the rating system.. for example he made a couple of 40s in a recent India test that were rated as high as two tons considering how he played a lone hand. I'm not saying Root didn't have important contributions, just that AB's average during the last year or so has been deceiving, he hasn't been that much worse than Root, and AB has better historical weight just based on career length.
I watched the whole series and he looked a class apart. The system is designed to help players who do well with no support since it's clearly harder to make a big score in those situations. I think it can be argued that his 40s there were worth almost a ton.
You didn't watch the series
Standard Daemon answer. Either declare someone a troll or that they didn't watch the series. Bore off ****wit.
Yes, I think I am giving too much credit to the "Point of Entry" and "Wickets at crease" factors for T20s. In general, since the format is so short they don't matter as much as in ODIs/Tests.
Yeah I'd almost think about getting rid of that factor altogether in T20. Maybe just making it count for much less would be wise though.
Working in overs might help as well?
If you did, did you miss out on the two 50+ scores he made? Because saying "He scored a couple of 40s (which if his teammates had stood up would still have had no impact on the game) sprinkled in amongst some atrocious innings/dismissals" either implies you did or that you consider them atrocious innings.