Because cricket is a team game. Pakistan was clearly hurt by Waqar's decline whereas WI still had a ****ing fantastic fast bowler for most of that decade. You'd honestly take 5 years of ultra awesomeness and then 5 years of good to very good compared to 10 years of awesomeness?
Ambrose isn't just more rounded there, he's just better.
You've taken a 10 year period which has Ambrose ahead on average but Waqar ahead on wpm, and then you've got two 5 year splits, one where Waqar has a marginally better average and reasonably better wpm, and then another where Ambrose just absolutely ****s on him.
Yeah, I certainly appreciate your point.
However, I do think it's worth mentioning that even Ambrose deteriorated as a bowler in the second phase though not as much as Waqar. His average of 21.6 flatters his actual contribution as a bowler in that period as he did not take wickets at the rate that a bowler of that average is expected to and barely managed better than Waqar though at a much better average.
He was an extremely tight bowler capable of a superlative performance on a pacy pitch and very often a massively tight 1/35 of 20 overs. For instance, In the Frank Worrell trophy, 94/95, Ambrose had 13 wickets in 4 games at an insane 19.8. Out of those 13, He took 9 on a fiery low scoring game in Port of Spain where not one innings score exceeded 150. The rest of the series, He managed 4 wickets on the whole. This point was made in a Macca vs Ambrose thread in the past iirc by T_C, though I'm sure he rates Ambrose over Waqar. The point I'm making is while Ambrose was without doubt superior to Waqar between 1995-1999, He was not, IMO, as impact-full a bowler as an average of 22 for the period would indicate.
Vic's point about Ambrose despite being so super-tight that despite not being as prolific due to it, He created wickets for his team-mates is one I wouldn't be able to appreciate as I didn't see Ambrose in action for the overwhelming majority of his games though I concede that it might've been a massive plus for Ambrose as a bowler.
Anwyay, I can certainly see why most people would rate Ambrose higher but I don't think the suggestion that they are equals or that Waqar is negligibly superior to Ambrose is insulting or anything.
Cheers Jono.
EDIT:-Haha, sorry Vic. Just read.