Richard- Black. Me- red. (Just getting used to quote function)
It's much easier to do this than what you did.
Just change what you had as COLOR to QUOTE and bang, you've got it.
I honestly wouldn't call Lee and Mcgill poor. Lee has had his problems with control and has never really reached the status of world class, in tests anyway, but he would walk into any West Indian team post Ambrose/Walsh.........probably as an all-rounder because they are so poor at the moment.
Walking into a West Indian team since 2001/02 is not difficult. Being able to do so does not prove one a high-calibre player. In any case, Lee between 2001 and 2006/07 was really not as good as some of the better WIndians - Dillon, Collins, Collymore. Granted he was, as I say, probably a bit better than Taylor, Edwards et al.
Lee was a very poor Test bowler for almost his whole career - it was just a couple of sensational periods at the start and near-end of it which, to some extent, camouflage this.
Mcgill lacked control but was a massive spinner of the ball and his 200+ wickets at 29 is a very decent record for a leggie who was in Warne's shadow all his career..
MacGill's record for most of his career, again, is poor - it was only the odd good game here and there with him, plus the fact that his record is improved massively by Bangladesh and ICC World XI games. Even just knocking those out changes his average to, IIRR, about 31-32; when you look at things on a game-by-game basis rather than just looking at the average, you see that he really wasn't that good. Again, granted, though, better than most of the WIndians of 2007.
Runs on the board is runs on the board mate. You have 2005 down as your location. Good on you, greatest series ever. But what about Pieterson dropped at the Oval by is old mate Warney on route to series clinching 158?
Haha, my 2005 location is only partly to do with that sensational Ashes series - it was just one of the many highlights of what was a great year for me. And yes, without question, had Warne taken that catch England would not have won that series. Runs on the board is all that counts in terms of the result, but in terms of assessing the calibre of batsmanship, how they were got is far more important than just the numbers in themselves. You yourself are arguing precisely this, in terms of the calibre of WIndian bowling.
He can hardly be blamed for the tests being dead. And I still maintain that a dead rubber in Sydney is bigger than any home game to the Windies at this particular time.
Not sure about that, under general circumstances - though in this case there is actually the fact that avoiding a whitewash was at stake. Of course he can't be blamed for the games being dead, and of course dead games or not they were fine innings', but he can be "blamed" for his performances when the series was live being notably down on those when it was dead.
Fair enough, he did play India well. I was in Tenerife watching that series and recall it well.
I think "well" underdoes it. As I say, I've never seen him bat better than he did that summer.