That I don't doubt.
I was being tongue-in-cheek as there are some posters here with genuine knowledge on this matter who have regularly debunked the myth that the ECML electrification was done 'on the cheap' or is substandard.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it was and it is.
Dewirements happen, we can try and stop it by designing better OLE and making reliability modifications to the existing designs, but bird strikes, debris in pantographs or wrapped round droppers and cantilevers, simple mechanical failure, tensioning failures and so on ad infinitum will all happen.
The OLE failure rate per service on the ECML is higher, but there are more electric trains on the WCML, so it suffers from similar numbers of OLE issues, despite being quite considerably more reliable. The delay minutes and cancellations from each dewirement on the ECML are of course much more severe and if you look at those metrics, the ECML can seem even more reliable, but that's down to headspan failures in a dewirement scenario
In terms of dewirements divided by the number of train services and/or pantographs, the WCML electrification is the most reliable OLE in the country, though the new GEML electrification will be taking the title when the rewiring program is complete. WCML electrification was, as a result, the baseline used for the target failure rate Series 1 OLE has to achieve.