The point is, you can't use two test matches to make an overarching point about a man's entire career, especially when the same person played an earlier series in the exact same location and cleaned up.
Also, the initial point was that somehow Ambrose was less effective on unhelpful wickets than Imran. That simply isn't true, Ambrose averaged 19 odd and struck at 50 at Bourda and the ARG (over 18 tests) two of the flattest wickets in cricket.
Yet when posters try and claim that Ambrose succeeded in the subcontinent, they point to basically one series in Pakistan, which actually had more sporting wickets (Imran's request before the series, if I recall) as an exception and Wasim, Waqar, Bishop all also enjoying great returns and only one innings even crossing 300 the entire series. To say that series is representative of how Ambrose would do overall in the subcontinent, especially India where he never played, is misleading.
They completely ignore the other series in 1997, on typical flatter wickets, which having watched it, I recall Ambrose basically just bowling in the corridor without much variation, and being smacked by Inzi anytime he tried anything short, while Walsh at the other end was bowling cutters at an angle and actually challenging the batsmen and Akram was getting his reverse on.
On unhelpful wickets, once Ambrose lost his pace from mid-90s onwards, he wasn't nearly as much as a threat as suggested. And no, comparing West Indies 90s pitches in terms of flatness to 90s Pakistan ones isnt right either.
Stats are helpful but also actually watching the bowler in action and judging how they would do based on how they normally bowl is important too. To be fair, I dont think Ambrose would do as badly as 1-139 over an extended run in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, but likely end up averaging around 27/28 if given a few more series. Of course, its speculation, but then his sample size is too small to make a clear case.
