Virender Sehwag vs Sanath Jayasuriya

[Sanz]

Jayasuriya has been a good fielder, not spectacular. Sehwag is just a little behind in that regard - safe but nothing special. I'm not sure how you can say that Jayasuriya is a considerably better captain than Sehwag either. Batting, yes ... clearly Jayasuriya in that regard.

Sanath is a much better outfielder than Sehwag. As far as catching is concerned both of them are good or maybe Sehwag has slight edge.

 

[Prince EWS]

Never particularly regarded Jayasuriya as an outstanding captain myself TBH. He was a bit like Shaun Pollock - did a more than acceptable job with a mostly fine team, but certainly not an exceptional one.

Yeah, that's a fair assessment, but being a capable captain is something that "adds fuel to the fire" so to speak as far as his value as a cricketer goes, especially when being compared to someone who hasn't shown that.

 

[Prince EWS]

No one is blurring them together. We could be talking about football and tennis. One player may be stronger in football than he is in tennis but overall a greater sportsman than the person he is being compared to. Simple logic.

That kind of assumes that Tests and ODIs have equal standing though. IMO they don't - not even close. In fact, I take more from First Class performances than I do ODI performances when trying to judge someone's achievements or value as an overall cricketer.

 

[Precambrian]

Sehwag by a mile and half in tests. No comparison there.

As in case of ODIs, both are more or less on the same footing. However Jay has slight edge considering his better bowling, and ability to really go on and get big scores.

 

[pup11]

Sehwag by a mile and half in tests. No comparison there.

As in case of ODIs, both are more or less on the same footing. However Jay has slight edge considering his better bowling, and ability to really go on and get big scores.

There is no way the difference between both of them in test cricket is that vast, Jayasuriya has been a tremendous test cricketer in his own right, and as far Odi cricket is concerned Jaya is probably an all-time Odi legend, his average might not be great but one can put that down to the fact that at the start of his Odi career he was more or less a lower order bat who was primarily in the team as a bowler, but atm the man has 419 Odi's under his belt having scored almost 12000 runs and having taken over 300 Odi wickets, now that's simply awesome, and surely Sehwag is nowhere near his caliber in Odi cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

That kind of assumes that Tests and ODIs have equal standing though. IMO they don't - not even close. In fact, I take more from First Class performances than I do ODI performances when trying to judge someone's achievements or value as an overall cricketer.

Interesting your Watson fan really because his ODI and 20/20 form has trumped his FC for a while now, particularly with bat in hand. On the basis of FC form, there's no way he should be in the Aussie squad(s) yet couple IPL with his ODI form in the WI and there's no way he shouldn't be there. Yuvraj bucks the trend, of course, but it's pretty rare a player dominates in ODI's and doesn't perform at least serviceably for a Test side. Much more frequently do players who dominate FC cricket fail at the top level.

For mine, top-level form = top-level form. In terms of test selection, I'd weight a bloke doing well in the ODI side's form greater than a bloke domintaing FC cricket. Michael Bevan excepted because he was a pratt.

 

[Prince EWS]

Interesting your Watson fan really because his ODI and 20/20 form has trumped his FC for a while now, particularly with bat in hand.

The last few seasons - yes.
When I became a fan of him - certainly not.

I became a fan more based on his technique and ability than his actual performances though. Love watching him bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

The last few seasons - yes.
When I became a fan of him - certainly not.

I became a fan more based on his technique and ability than his actual performances though. Love watching him bat.

Well that's your call and you're entitled to it. And just for you, I'll post a photo of Watson batting in a recent very tense Test Match;

 

[SJS]

The basic difference is in their technique and the manner in which they play their strokes. Sehwag leans more towards orthodoxy and keeping the ball on the ground in comparison to Sanath. In fact, if Sehwag moved his feet more than he does, he would get very close to being very orthodox.

Sanath also plays more square off the wicket on either side (as a proportion of his total array of strokes) while Sehwag does play down the ground.

Even their sixes do not come from the same areas. Sehwag gets a larger proportion from mid off to midwicket while Sanath gets most in the rest of the ground.

Both are severe if you give them width outside the off stump but Sehwag is more on the balls pitched closer to him while Sanath really goes after you if you pitch short outside the stumps.

If you pitch on the stumps, Sanath will lift you over midwicket or squarer. while Sehwag will flick, more often along the ground in a wide arc on the on side.

This means that completely different lines of attack are needed for both and different field placings. It also means that since Jayasuriya hits more in the air, he will, while scoring more sixes, takes more risks.

Sehwag does look as if he has been coached while Sanath looks as if he has really learnt his cricket in the park.

 

[Uppercut]

The basic difference is in their technique and the manner in which they play their strokes. Sehwag leans more towards orthodoxy and keeping the ball on the ground in comparison to Sanath. In fact, if Sehwag moved his feet more than he does, he would get very close to being very orthodox.

Sanath also plays more square off the wicket on either side (as a proportion of his total array of strokes) while Sehwag does play down the ground.

Even their sixes do not come from the same areas. Sehwag gets a larger proportion from mid off to midwicket while Sanath gets most in the rest of the ground.

Both are severe if you give them width outside the off stump but Sehwag is more on the balls pitched closer to him while Sanath really goes after you if you pitch short outside the stumps.

If you pitch on the stumps, Sanath will lift you over midwicket or squarer. while Sehwag will flick, more often along the ground in a wide arc on the on side.

This means that completely different lines of attack are needed for both and different field placings. It also means that since Jayasuriya hits more in the air, he will, while scoring more sixes, takes more risks.

Sehwag does look as if he has been coached while Sanath looks as if he has really learnt his cricket in the park.

I'm not sure I agree with everything you say there. The fact that Sehwag moves his feet so little, and when he does it's generally away from the ball to make width for himself, makes him highly unorthodox in itself. He also goes after anything short outside off stump full-blooded just as much as Sanath, playing a late cut, upper cut over the slips (often for six), or sometimes just throwing the bat at it and hitting it over point.

The main difference, which you alluded to, between the two is that Sehwag uses a greater array of strokes. His back-foot drives are something rarely seen from Jayasuriya, and he's also more likely to, for example, play a sweep. He's also a lot tighter defensively, but the way in which they play renders that somewhat irrelevant.

I don't think either of them look coached tbh, and it's just as well because Sehwag would surely have been told to get his foot to the pitch and thereby lose what makes him unique, while Jayasuriya would have been crucified for the facetious complaint that he's "throwing away his wicket". Generally I'd rather bowl to Jayasuriya, and I much prefer to watch Sehwag. But in ODIs, Jayasuriya's definitely better- all one can debate is by how much.

 

[SJS]

I agree moving feet is important but that by itself does not define all in technique. Have a look at this comparison of how the two of them play there shots.

SEHWAG - Driving

 

[SJS]

Jayasuriya - driving

The difference is obvious.

 

[SJS]

Sehwag cutting

 

[SJS]

Jayasuriya cutting

 

[Ahmed_Tariq]

Haha, great pictures, SJS. You made the difference obvious.

 

[SJS]

Finally Jayasuriya plays a lot of cross batted stuff and sweeps which Sehwag mostly avoids or doesn't play much of. Shots like

 

[SJS]

Sehwag on the other hand deals with shortpitched stuff (not wide enough to cut) in a much more polished manner.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree moving feet is important but that by itself does not define all in technique. Have a look at this comparison of how the two of them play there shots.

SEHWAG - Driving

Yeah i'm a huge Sehwag fan, i love the way he bats. But the fact that he either doesn't move his feet at all or moves them away from the ball's pitch is significant enough that you could never really describe his technique as "orthodox", although he does play some shots by the textbook, particularly his drives off the back foot.

 

[Uppercut]

Jayasuriya - driving

The difference is obvious.

I love how in one of those pics the bails are all over the place. Just to prove your point

 

[Richard]

No one is blurring them together. We could be talking about football and tennis. One player may be stronger in football than he is in tennis but overall a greater sportsman than the person he is being compared to. Simple logic.

They may be a greater sportsman, but such a thing is utterly unimportant. You have to play one or the other, not a fusion of the two. They do not impact on the other one.