Ya there are about a million different teams playing cricket right ? Seriously your arguments are getting more desperate by the minute. If an Asian batsman averaged 20 in Australia and 20 in SA but performed everywhere else, you would accept that he is a great bat ?
Vaas averages less than 30 against 4 teams
Lee averages less than 30 against 3 teams . I feel inclined to leave out Sri Lanka as he has only played 2 tests against them but I am sure you won't agree to that because now it is in your favour.
Winner : Vaas
He played Zimbabwe only 2 times. Had he played them more he'd have likely averaged under 30 here which would mean he'd also have 4 teams he averages less than 30 against.
Vaas averages 40+ against 1 country.
Lee averages 40+ against 4 countries!!!!
Winner : Vaas by a mile.
ICC World XI is not a country and Vaas did not face them.
Also, he only played 2 matches in Bangladesh, which is where his record breaks down. Had he played there more (or even against them more) he'd more than likely improve that record. Which would make it 2 40+ countries, yet against Pakistan, he only played them 3 times even then. This is where your argument breaks down and is tedious. Even one of Lee's averages in the 30s is Zimbabwe and he played them 2 tests!
Counting off from points "less than 30" and "more than 40" are just arbitrary. Lee has many countries where he and Vaas may both be -30 but Lee may be averaging in the low 20s while Vaas in the high 20s yet it counts for both of them depending on the category.
But this is my point and it's rather clear: Lee may average 41 against England and Vaas may average 44 against India (both clearly bad), but Lee is striknig at 63 and Vaas at 94. This is where they differ.
Both have their bad countries, both have their good countries. Lee's bests are better than Vaas' bests and his worsts are worser than Vaas' worsts...however, in the end, that is all reflected in their average and SR - where Lee, overall, is only 1 point more expensive yet 13 balls faster; meaning he made up his really bad performances with really good ones, enough so that the difference in their averages is barely anything. However, Vaas on the other hand has not struck near as fast as Lee, regardless whether he was doing well or not and for that is a way behind.
No matter what childish excuses you come up with, Vaas has clearly been the more consistent of the two and a better bowler. Keep living in your imaginary world where every Aussie is better than every other player.
Again, you are blinkered towards average only (leaving out SR) and towards small samples. I am afraid you're not going to grasp the point because you seem impervious to changing your mind on this issue.
Now to add what you've missed.
Code:
[B]SRs[/B] [B]30s[/B] [B]40s[/B] [B]50s[/B] [B]60s[/B] [B]70s[/B] [B]80s[/B] [B]90s[/B]
[B]Lee[/B] 2 1 1 2 2** 1 0
[B]Vaas[/B] 1 0 2* 2 2 1 1
* one of them is Bangladesh for Vaas.
** one is Zimbabwe for Lee where he played 2 Tests.
And I could also mention the 80 SR Lee has is against 3 tests with Pakistan. So his higher SRs come against the teams he has played least (one which is a minnow). And I didn't add ICC test like you did otherwise that would be another in the 50s column for Lee. I could even mention that even 2 of the 60s Vaas has are about 1 point and change from 70s.
It's clear here that Lee strikes much faster, more often, against more teams.
Even in the averages, the countries where Lee averages highly are the ones he's played least (3 and 4 tests against Bangladesh and Pakistan), bar England.
-------
Without B/Z:
Lee
Vaas
