Virender Sehwag vs Sanath Jayasuriya

[Top_Cat]

But the point is that the margin of error for Jayasuriya is so small. Once he gets going, he's so hard to stop. Too straight and he flicks you over backward square leg, too wide and the only bloke stopping it is the bloke in the 6th row at deep backward point. Maybe cover point, if you're only a medium.

This.

It stands to reason that if some days it's immaterial who's bowling when he does poorly, other days it doesn't matter who's bowling (or where they bowl to him), they'll go the journey. He's just that sort or player.

 

[Prince EWS]

That was my initial reaction upon reading the thread, but I was shocked to read above that they average the same in one-day cricket. Jayasuriya is a real legend of ODI cricket, whereas Sehwag is generally considered to be a surprising failure in the format.

This is a good example of why looking at overall career averages - particularly in ODIs - can be misleading.

Firstly, Jayasuriya was picked as an allrounder in ODIs a little while before he was ready to play as a specialist batsman. After 70 ODIs - mostly as a lower middle order batsman anywhere from 5 to 8 - he averaged only 15.18. In his 71st ODI he scored his first ODI hundred and it was only then he started opening on a permanent basis. Since such a time where he justified selection on his batting alone, he's averaged 35.96 at a SR or 93.26 - figures that resemble that of Adam Gilchrist much more than they do Sehwag.

Secondly, Jayasuriya played a fair bit of his career in an era where the expectations of batsmen were a bit different... to plug my own article, it's shown here in the global batting averages and strike rates table. He was in fact one of reasons this changed when it did - a lot of his legacy is based on the fact that he was a man slightly before his time - at least before he made his time become his own.

I don't really put him in the absolute elite class of ODI batsmen that some like to, but he wasn't too far aware from it, IMO. He's certainly a fair bit better than his overall stats suggest if you're comparing him to players with relatively younger careers.. indeed like Sehwag.

I said "Sehwag by a long way" or something similar in my first post on this matter, but that was obviously because I was going by the unwritten "assume Tests unless it is specifically stated otherwise" rule of CW. In ODIs it's Jayasuriya by a similar margin to what it is for Sehwag in Tests.

 

[Prince EWS]

But the point is that the margin of error for Jayasuriya is so small. Once he gets going, he's so hard to stop. Too straight and he flicks you over backward square leg, too wide and the only bloke stopping it is the bloke in the 6th row at deep backward point. Maybe cover point, if you're only a medium.

Yeah, I agree. That's what makes him what his is - a very good ODI batsman. But his inability (relative to other good batsmen) to keep the good ones out is still something I've noted. I honestly think Nuwan Kulasakera would pose him more problems in ODIs than someone like, say, Steve Harmison - not just in preventing him scoring, but actually getting him out. It's all about bowling the right spots to him.

I'm by no means suggesting he's rubbish or not better than Sehwag in one day cricket - it's just something I've noticed that prevents me rating him quite as highly as some others do. When rating high class players, I often like to imagine what would happen if we were picking a team from the international circuit to play a level theoretically one step higher than it - as if international cricket was domesitc cricket, basically. Jayasuriya is one I've always felt would fail to make the step up.

Hmmmmmm..... I have my doubts about this. I've seen many Jayasuriya knocks and the impression I got was that bowlers might start the spell well and early on you're in with a chance because he goes at the ball so hard. But after an initial onslaught, many bowlers, good or not, lose their nerve against him and he essentially turns them around from bowling well to bowling poorly and cashes-in accordingly.

Yeah, again, I agree with that. That's how he plays - he cashes in to the full extent of anything slightly off-line and tries to put the bowlers off their game. I maintain, though, that he's more vulnerable than the average batsman to balls in good areas, particularly early in his innings.

 

[honestbharani]

Viru in Tests and Sanath in ODIs.


Also agree with everything T_C and Vic have said reg. Jayasuriya.. The man can easily put off the bowlers if he manages to survive the early overs.. It honestly doesn't matter who was bowling to him with the new ball. Get him out early or else he will totally put you off. Very rarely does he stay on and not put off a bowler from his comfort zone..

 

[Isura]

How about T20s? I would still take Sanath. He's a mighty useful bowler and gives his all in the field.

 

[Uppercut]

This is a good example of why looking at overall career averages - particularly in ODIs - can be misleading.

Firstly, Jayasuriya was picked as an allrounder in ODIs a little while before he was ready to play as a specialist batsman. After 70 ODIs - mostly as a lower middle order batsman anywhere from 5 to 8 - he averaged only 15.18. In his 71st ODI he scored his first ODI hundred and it was only then he started opening on a permanent basis. Since such a time where he justified selection on his batting alone, he's averaged 35.96 at a SR or 93.26 - figures that resemble that of Adam Gilchrist much more than they do Sehwag.

Interesting analysis, not that I would argue for Sehwag being the better batsman, I just thought their almost identical averages an interesting aside.

 

[Uppercut]

Bangladesh have never been ODI-standard. Zimbabwe were until WC2003 and have not been since. That's always the way I've seen it.

No, I don't - maybe if I come across whichever thread it's from again at some point I might. In my experience though a post by gwo which has anything to do with me is accurate approximately 0% of the time.

I think you may be confusing "rude and abrasive" with "inaccurate". His maths is actually completely sound.

 

[Ahmed_Tariq]

How about T20s? I would still take Sanath. He's a mighty useful bowler and gives his all in the field.

In T20s, Sanath by a margin. Agreed with you, an excellent and handy bowler and a great fielder in T20s. The T20 format suits his batting too.

 

[Richard]

But the point is that the margin of error for Jayasuriya is so small. Once he gets going, he's so hard to stop. Too straight and he flicks you over backward square leg, too wide and the only bloke stopping it is the bloke in the 6th row at deep backward point. Maybe cover point, if you're only a medium.

And that's why he can't be dismissed as a completely useless player, only capable of scoring against rubbish bowling. Because he has of times, as I mentioned earlier and as Corey mentioned just 1 post above, managed to survive good bowling and get going perhaps due to the intimidatory factor. No-one is saying Jayasuriya would never score anything if he faced Allan Donald and Glenn McGrath every innings. He'd have his share of moments, of course he would. But there's no way he'd average close to the 35 which he averages over his opening career.

 

[Richard]

I think you may be confusing "rude and abrasive" with "inaccurate". His maths is actually completely sound.

I know it is - but I'm more than aware of those calculations already. Believe it or not, I'm not completely stupid - I do understand fairly basic maths.

 

[Uppercut]

I know it is - but I'm more than aware of those calculations already. Believe it or not, I'm not completely stupid - I do understand fairly basic maths.

Well once you've accepted that his calculations are correct, it's surely impossible to maintain a stance that claims such things as Virender Sehwag having an unusual amount of luck over the course of his 5000 test runs.

If you, as Prince suggested, believe Jayasuriya tends to score his runs against the weaker bowlers in an attack or bowlers who are not on their game, it's a pretty reasonable claim. In fact, to say he struggles more than most when the ball is put in the right area with a bit of lateral movement is just stating the obvious- as an aggressive batsman, his defensive technique isn't likely to be watertight.

Nevertheless, it's nice to see Jimmy Anderson go for 24 in one over in a test where he's throwing pies.

 

[Richard]

Well once you've accepted that his calculations are correct, it's surely impossible to maintain a stance that claims such things as Virender Sehwag having an unusual amount of luck over the course of his 5000 test runs.

It's not though. I've stated why - however big a sample size, anomalies are always going to happen. The calculations he presented were frankly fairly irrelevant, attempting to prove wrong something that wasn't even said. It's quite common to hear people responding to what they'd like you to have said rather than what you have.

If you, as Prince suggested, believe Jayasuriya tends to score his runs against the weaker bowlers in an attack or bowlers who are not on their game, it's a pretty reasonable claim. In fact, to say he struggles more than most when the ball is put in the right area with a bit of lateral movement is just stating the obvious- as an aggressive batsman, his defensive technique isn't likely to be watertight.

Oh, that's certainly not true. Sure, there are plenty of strokeplaying batsmen whose defensive technique is poor - that just means that as a fairly basic general rule stonewallers tend to be better batsmen. But you can have technically poor stonewallers like Gary Kirsten, and you can have technically excellent strokeplayers like Michael Slater, Sachin Tendulkar, Vivian Richards and Don Bradman, to name but 4 of copious examples.

Technically poor strokeplayers like Jayasuriya will very often turn-out flat track bullies, but then from time to time so will technically poor stonewallers - Mark Richardson being one example.

 

[Uppercut]

It's not though. I've stated why - however big a sample size, anomalies are always going to happen. The calculations he presented were frankly fairly irrelevant, attempting to prove wrong something that wasn't even said. It's quite common to hear people responding to what they'd like you to have said rather than what you have.

It did demonstrate just how extraordinary your claim was, though. To say that a batsman is the beneficiary of an anomalous career, the odds of which are one in several billion, is ridiculous enough. To say that you, by watching Sehwag bat, have pinpointed this trend through the course of the 7500 balls he has faced using nothing but your memory alone... Well. I'll leave it at that.

Oh, that's certainly not true. Sure, there are plenty of strokeplaying batsmen whose defensive technique is poor - that just means that as a fairly basic general rule stonewallers tend to be better batsmen. But you can have technically poor stonewallers like Gary Kirsten, and you can have technically excellent strokeplayers like Michael Slater, Sachin Tendulkar, Vivian Richards and Don Bradman, to name but 4 of copious examples.

Technically poor strokeplayers like Jayasuriya will very often turn-out flat track bullies, but then from time to time so will technically poor stonewallers - Mark Richardson being one example.

That isn't actually what I was saying at all. Forgetting what you say of technique, Jayasuriya's strength is attacking shots- his defensive technique alone would be lucky to get a place in a village side. Therefore, when he faces those balls that are difficult to deal with, he's found wanting- but by this stage he's often scored a lot of quick runs anyway, due his ability to punish the bad ball more effectively than, say, Andrew Strauss. If Jayasuriya was as good at defensive shots as he is at attacking ones, he'd be Bradman 2.0, so in a way it is stating the obvious that his defensive technique isn't the best.

Of course, it isn't a strict rule, but it's nothing especially notable.

 

[pup11]

Overall when one looks through all the formats Sanath Jayasuriya has been a much better player than Sehwag, but in Test match cricket Sehwag is just amazing (mind you, i am not a fan of the man but still he has freakish test record despite being inconsistent), Jayasuriya is also a superb test cricketer and has played a lot of superb knocks, but Sehwag has smoked bowling attacks in almost every condition (and scored big), but in limited over cricket not many players can match upto Jayasuriya and Sehwag is definitely not one of them (suprisingly enough one would expect an attacking player like Sehwag to do well in limited over cricket, but he has hardly done justice to his talent in limited over format), Jayasuriya has over 10,000 Odi runs and over 300 Odi wickets, and his destructive nature of batting is well know to one and all, so he is way ahead of Sehwag in limited over format.

 

[ret]

Sehwag is simply amazing in tests

in ODIs, though their stats are similar, the best of Jayasuriya is better than the best of Sehwag

but Sehwag is improving his ODI record and is probably on his way to becoming the best ODI batsmen for India with the likes of Tendulkar in the last phase of his career .... so in future, it won't be surprising if Sehwag ends up with a better ODI record than Jayasuriya

 

[Sanz]

It's not even a fair comparison. Sanath is an SL Legend and one of the very few SL cricketers responsible for making SL a force in International Cricket. His achievements are far more than mere statistics can say. He has been serving SL Cricket with distinction for last 20 years. He is one of the very few cricketers who has had success in every form of the game. Watched him in recent T20 and there also he was probably the only 39 year old destroying the attacks. Sehwag has had a good test career but, outside of it he has been average. He has long way to go before he can be compared to someone like Sanath.

Based on the achievements by the two players so far, I will pick Sanath Every Time in every form of cricket.

 

[ret]

It's not even a fair comparison. Sanath is an SL Legend and one of the very few SL cricketers responsible for making SL a force in International Cricket. His achievements are far more than mere statistics can say. He has been serving SL Cricket with distinction for last 20 years. He is one of the very cricketers who has had success in every form of the game. Watched him in recent T20 and there also he was probably the only 39 year old destroying the attacks. Sehwag has had a good test career but, outside of it he has been average. He has long way to go before he can be compared to someone like Sanath.

Best on the achievements by the two players so far, I will pick Sanath Every Time in every form of cricket.

based on your logic, it would be unfair to say that at the moment Sangakara is the best SL batsman!!!!

 

[Richard]

but Sehwag is improving his ODI record and is probably on his way to becoming the best ODI batsmen for India with the likes of Tendulkar in the last phase of his career .... so in future, it won't be surprising if Sehwag ends up with a better ODI record than Jayasuriya

No, Sehwag hasn't been improving his ODI record (at least, not for more than a few games at a time) for the last 6 years.

 

[ret]

No, Sehwag hasn't been improving his ODI record (at least, not for more than a few games at a time) for the last 6 years.

Sehwag has been good since his comeback to ODIs

 

[Richard]

It did demonstrate just how extraordinary your claim was, though. To say that a batsman is the beneficiary of an anomalous career, the odds of which are one in several billion, is ridiculous enough. To say that you, by watching Sehwag bat, have pinpointed this trend through the course of the 7500 balls he has faced using nothing but your memory alone... Well. I'll leave it at that.

Well one day I'll actually find some exact numbers. Until then, those Sehwag fans can mistakenly think it's ridiculous to consider the idea he's more lucky than most.

That isn't actually what I was saying at all. Forgetting what you say of technique, Jayasuriya's strength is attacking shots- his defensive technique alone would be lucky to get a place in a village side. Therefore, when he faces those balls that are difficult to deal with, he's found wanting- but by this stage he's often scored a lot of quick runs anyway, due his ability to punish the bad ball more effectively than, say, Andrew Strauss. If Jayasuriya was as good at defensive shots as he is at attacking ones, he'd be Bradman 2.0, so in a way it is stating the obvious that his defensive technique isn't the best.

Of course, it isn't a strict rule, but it's nothing especially notable.

Jayasuriya hasn't often scored lots of runs by the time he faces decent balls if the bowlers haven't bowled poor deliveries at him though. He either doesn't receive many balls that can trouble him and gets lots of the sort of stuff he can smash, or the direct inverse. Because if he's got the good balls, he doesn't have the stick-around time to stay there when the bad ones come along.

And yes, that is a bit simplistic TBH, but so is the analogy you posted. Reality is neither is quite true.