Where did I say that the fact that the Bf 109 saw 2 days' more combat than the Spitfire was of any great import or significance?
If you look back to my post no. 2,148 I was replying to a poster's obviously semantic-pedantic-irrelevant point that the Mitsubishi Zero did not serve throughout the entire 6-year war – so it's pretty clear what I think about the 2-day difference.
Why I selected the Spitfire as most "overrated aircraft" is due to the fact the almost no Spitfires were posted or served outside of the UK until the middle of 1942 – almost halfway through the war – the Spit was a UK based fighter only for the first 3 years.
The Spitfire played little to no role in the invasion of Poland, the invasion of Norway, nor did it play any substantial role in the Battle of France either. It was the Hawker Hurricane which fought and destroyed aircraft of the Luftwaffe in most of these places. Very, very few of the Luftwaffe's losses in aerial combat were due to the guns of the Spitfire up to the French armistice at the end of June 1940.
Similar story in the Battle of Britain, I think we all know which aircraft shot down the majority of Luftwaffe over the UK in 1940 – just as Hawkers would also lead the kill rate in the the second Battle of Britain in 1944 against thousands of incoming V-1 missiles.