Sehwag Vs Jayasuriya
- Thread starter manee
- Start date
I'd say Sehwag is the better Test batsman. But Jayasuriya is better than him in one dayers due to his all round ability. Sehwag hasn't had the same success in ODI's as in Test's which is strange considering his style of play. It might have to do with the field being spread out in One dayers.
harishankar
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Location
- India
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
I think Jayasuriya played at his prime at a time when the fast bowlers were getting older and there was a slight decline in the quality of fast bowlers all around the world (late 90s). He also played a lot on flat tracks of the subcontinent and his success came against medium pace bowling on absolute belters ( he played a lot more cricket in Sharjah than Sehwag. ) 
Jayasuriya is merciless with any bowling which falls slightly short of top class and particularly on good wickets. On the other hand, his flaws are much more visible on seaming wickets against a half-decent pace attack. He also hits the ball in the air a lot better than Sehwag, hence his better success in ODIs where he can clear the field.
Sehwag's career took off because of his style of play and his fearless approach to batting even on hostile conditions (remember his debut Test century in South Africa), but that was the kind of batting that got his flaws exposed as well because he was tested with a lot of short bowling also. While aggressive, Sehwag's range of shots cannot easily clear the tight ODI fields whereas when the field is aggressively positioned, he can take full advantage.
The main difference between the two is the attitude I would say. Jayasuriya is well aware of his limitations and has tempered down his play according to the conditions and the quality of bowlers while Sehwag's early success seems to have gone to his head and he believed that he could get away with anything after his initial success.
Maybe getting dropped from the side would actually help Sehwag's career in the future.
Jayasuriya is merciless with any bowling which falls slightly short of top class and particularly on good wickets. On the other hand, his flaws are much more visible on seaming wickets against a half-decent pace attack. He also hits the ball in the air a lot better than Sehwag, hence his better success in ODIs where he can clear the field.
Sehwag's career took off because of his style of play and his fearless approach to batting even on hostile conditions (remember his debut Test century in South Africa), but that was the kind of batting that got his flaws exposed as well because he was tested with a lot of short bowling also. While aggressive, Sehwag's range of shots cannot easily clear the tight ODI fields whereas when the field is aggressively positioned, he can take full advantage.
The main difference between the two is the attitude I would say. Jayasuriya is well aware of his limitations and has tempered down his play according to the conditions and the quality of bowlers while Sehwag's early success seems to have gone to his head and he believed that he could get away with anything after his initial success.
Maybe getting dropped from the side would actually help Sehwag's career in the future.
Last edited:
voldemort
International Coach
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2004
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Averages mean nothing...
P.S. I want to see you buy a good guy from the transfer market in Battrick
If the sri lankan board have a reason to have Jayasuriya in the Squad and Indian board have decided not to have Sehwag, then its completely upto them to decide why...
I believe they have their reasons...
you cant marvel on the way a manager things.
also India is a big nation and finding an explosive opening batsmen is easy. Sri Lanka dotn have such a large option...
P.S. I want to see you buy a good guy from the transfer market in Battrick
If the sri lankan board have a reason to have Jayasuriya in the Squad and Indian board have decided not to have Sehwag, then its completely upto them to decide why...
I believe they have their reasons...
you cant marvel on the way a manager things.
also India is a big nation and finding an explosive opening batsmen is easy. Sri Lanka dotn have such a large option...
I dont think India will ever find an opener with such a great average and strike rate in test matches especially. I feel that Sehwag could have played on the A tour but it seems he has been totally shunned. The point about the sizes of the nations is a good one but Jayasuriya is widely regarded as a great one day opener by world standards.
He is? I think he's the only batsman I've ever seen dismissed by a Hoggard bouncer.
I think Jayasuriya is a better player, Sehwag is good but with Sanath I think he is the superior 'part-timer' and there's nothing between them batting wise. Viru probably being a better Test player.
Viru is definitely a better test player, he hasn't really got any country where he really struggles (over a long time anyway, can't really judge him on a couple of tests vs each minnow). Whereas Sanath struggles in South Africa (Quite badly) and in Oceania, but prospers in Pakistan.
I'd probably go (on a basis of over their careers)
Viru in Tests and Sanath in ODIs. At this time though I'd go for Sanath. Of course Viru is only 28/29 so has a long time ahead to rectify his career.
He is lethal. His backfoot cuts and punches are a sight to behold. And he pulled quite well too during his 300.
As said above, Viru has more shots, but can't control them. Jaya the opposite, his technique is a bit poorer.
As said above, Viru has more shots, but can't control them. Jaya the opposite, his technique is a bit poorer.
sohum
Executive member
I will go with what most people here have claimed. The Monk is raring to go with his hairline now almost completely receded, and taking all the excess fat along with it for the ride. He is selected for the Twenty20 World Cup and I believe Karthik and Jaffer's success will keep him out of the Test side for some time yet.
The Monk in Tests for me and Jayasuriya in ODI's. I have never regarded Sehwag as a very good ODI batsman, which is ironic given his style of play. This perhaps has something to do with the fact that he thinks he has to be over-aggressive during ODI matches whereas he would be easily scoring a run a ball if he just keeps the same style of play as he does in a test match. I think picking him only in Twenty20 is not a very good sign for the future because I'd really like to see him play in Tests again. Maybe picking him for the Pakistan home series and the Australia tour will allow him to relive perhaps his two best knocks (309 vs. Pakistan and 195 vs. Australia).
The Monk in Tests for me and Jayasuriya in ODI's. I have never regarded Sehwag as a very good ODI batsman, which is ironic given his style of play. This perhaps has something to do with the fact that he thinks he has to be over-aggressive during ODI matches whereas he would be easily scoring a run a ball if he just keeps the same style of play as he does in a test match. I think picking him only in Twenty20 is not a very good sign for the future because I'd really like to see him play in Tests again. Maybe picking him for the Pakistan home series and the Australia tour will allow him to relive perhaps his two best knocks (309 vs. Pakistan and 195 vs. Australia).
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Even though the ODI average differs by only about one run (and you might even dispute that on averages as openers), Jayasuriya is miles better at one day cricket. Put simply (before I go into convoluted detail), Jayasuriya is more likely to make a match winning score.
Think about it. Put two imaginary opening batsmen in a 5 match ODI series. One gets out in the 40s twice and out in the high 30s three times, averaging in the 40s for the series. The other scores a century, two 50s and two ducks; he averages about the same. However, the second player may actually have won the series by providing the team with big platforms.
Sehwag is much, much more likely to lose his head and miss out on a century, something that can make him a big liability if he's not producing scores. Jayasuriya in fact has one of the better 50-100 conversion rates in ODIs. Although his hundreds percentage isn't up there with Tendulkar or Gayle or Ponting or Saeed Anwar, it is better than 6%, significantly better than Sehwag's 8 centuries in 170 starts.
Of course, if we turn to just opener's stats, Sehwag's 8 hundreds come in 140 starts, 5%. However, Jayasuriya's 25 hundreds also all came from opening, so in 340 innings that is 7.35%. They may seem like small numbers, but the guy with a seemingly untouchable 41 hundreds, Tendulkar, still only converts 1 in 10 innings into a century. In truth, you might say it is only small things that are the difference between the greats and the could-have-beens.
In Tests, though it seems Sehwag is the clear master, somewhat ironically, since his Test game is comparable to (or better than) many top ODI players. However, where Jayasuriya's weaker patches have been largely attributable to injury and lack of match fitness, Sehwag genuinely seems to be a victim of his own success. He averages 91 against Pakistan and I think therein is an answer. His biggest scores have all come against Pakistan, often on some of the most appallingly flat tracks to have been used in Test cricket. Beyond the 1st Test of the frustrating 05-06 tour of Pakistan, it seems Sehwag finally popped.
Maybe he has lost total faith in his methods; that there is now a little voice saying "Dravid wins more games" (well, if the voice was honest, it would say Dravid loses less - only one Dravid hundred has been in an Indian loss, but that's another story). Whatever the case, Sehwag's loss of form is among the most dramatic seen in world cricket. Perhaps the drop was the worst way to deal with it. Perhaps they are trying to hard to deal with it.
Then again, perhaps there is reason for Sehwag to doubt his style. Going back to Jayasuriya's now closed account, 7 of his 14 centuries were a part of wins for Sri Lanka, while only 2 of Sehwag's 12 have had positive results for India.
I suppose we can question the value of averages and statistics quite a bit, but when it comes down to what results in wins, whatever that may be, it's very hard to doubt such a quality.
Think about it. Put two imaginary opening batsmen in a 5 match ODI series. One gets out in the 40s twice and out in the high 30s three times, averaging in the 40s for the series. The other scores a century, two 50s and two ducks; he averages about the same. However, the second player may actually have won the series by providing the team with big platforms.
Sehwag is much, much more likely to lose his head and miss out on a century, something that can make him a big liability if he's not producing scores. Jayasuriya in fact has one of the better 50-100 conversion rates in ODIs. Although his hundreds percentage isn't up there with Tendulkar or Gayle or Ponting or Saeed Anwar, it is better than 6%, significantly better than Sehwag's 8 centuries in 170 starts.
Of course, if we turn to just opener's stats, Sehwag's 8 hundreds come in 140 starts, 5%. However, Jayasuriya's 25 hundreds also all came from opening, so in 340 innings that is 7.35%. They may seem like small numbers, but the guy with a seemingly untouchable 41 hundreds, Tendulkar, still only converts 1 in 10 innings into a century. In truth, you might say it is only small things that are the difference between the greats and the could-have-beens.
In Tests, though it seems Sehwag is the clear master, somewhat ironically, since his Test game is comparable to (or better than) many top ODI players. However, where Jayasuriya's weaker patches have been largely attributable to injury and lack of match fitness, Sehwag genuinely seems to be a victim of his own success. He averages 91 against Pakistan and I think therein is an answer. His biggest scores have all come against Pakistan, often on some of the most appallingly flat tracks to have been used in Test cricket. Beyond the 1st Test of the frustrating 05-06 tour of Pakistan, it seems Sehwag finally popped.
Maybe he has lost total faith in his methods; that there is now a little voice saying "Dravid wins more games" (well, if the voice was honest, it would say Dravid loses less - only one Dravid hundred has been in an Indian loss, but that's another story). Whatever the case, Sehwag's loss of form is among the most dramatic seen in world cricket. Perhaps the drop was the worst way to deal with it. Perhaps they are trying to hard to deal with it.
Then again, perhaps there is reason for Sehwag to doubt his style. Going back to Jayasuriya's now closed account, 7 of his 14 centuries were a part of wins for Sri Lanka, while only 2 of Sehwag's 12 have had positive results for India.
I suppose we can question the value of averages and statistics quite a bit, but when it comes down to what results in wins, whatever that may be, it's very hard to doubt such a quality.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
Jay has less weakness's in his batting. He's much more athletic then Sehwag is. His bowling is better. His fielding is better. Sehwag has countless flaws in his technique and many weakness's in his batting to make his wicket almost a given, in ODI's at least.
Jaya any day
But looking at the form of the current test XI, there is no room anywhere. Ghambir is already my second choice for an opener if any thing does happen to the current pair, and the middle order has fired as well.
So unless one of the 'Big four' retire quickly, or there are mass injuries that are going to happen in the near future, Sehwag's chances in both Tests and ODI's are gone.
he can be our T20 specialist, though.
Jaya any day
But looking at the form of the current test XI, there is no room anywhere. Ghambir is already my second choice for an opener if any thing does happen to the current pair, and the middle order has fired as well.
So unless one of the 'Big four' retire quickly, or there are mass injuries that are going to happen in the near future, Sehwag's chances in both Tests and ODI's are gone.
he can be our T20 specialist, though.
Last edited:
I am sorry, but I hate the assumption that a fast scoring test batsman will be good in ODIs and twenty20s. This man averages near 50 in test matches and his bad run of form was only three or four series, hardly drop-worthy. Sehwag has always averaged 35 or under in List A and ODI cricket, shorter forms of the game are not for him, it affects his shot selection, leaving him in two minds a large portion of the time. If anything he will be worse in twenty20s than in ODIs in the long term.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
Averages don't mean much when you have only 20 overs to get runs.
a quick 35 (tops) which Sehwag can do, is all you really need.
I agree- In my eyes Sehwag has ALWAYS been better in tests then ODI's. But at the moment theres no room for him in the team.
And three or four test series is like a season, mate. drop worthy in my eyes!
I think that is. Strauss has been out of form for 3 series and should be dropped. 3/4 series is a long time and if you have a player letting the side down they should be dropped, no matter what they've done in the past.
sohum
Executive member
It's not the same as comparing him to Strauss. Sehwag can take the game towards India in a session and put the game firmly India's way in a day's play. Strauss is definitely not comparable, I feel, just because he doesn't have the same effect on the opposition. He may be playing classic cover-drives (Strauss) all-day, but Sehwag would cause the bowlers great frustration while maintaining a quick enough run-rate to make a result possible. In the 10 highest run-scorers in a day in test matches, Sehwag is only one of three contemporary batsmen--sharing spot number 7 with Herschelle Gibbs with 228 runs in a day in a list that is heavily dominated by Bradman.
It's not easy to maintain an average of over 50 for the most part of 50 matches. He has three double centuries+ in 52 games while Strauss hasn't crossed 150 in 43 games. (Not to mention that he scores 25 runs per 100 balls more than Strauss). Strauss is a great batsman but Sehwag's absolute utility is not comparable to Strauss'. He has also had surprisingly high consistency in the past, which was new for someone of his style.
In short, we need Sehwag back. He is leaner and fitter and definitely an all-round player as he is swifter in the field now and can bowl the occasional spell of accurate off-spin. Although the team is tight at the moment, I think it would be dangerous to write him off for the rest of his career.
It's not easy to maintain an average of over 50 for the most part of 50 matches. He has three double centuries+ in 52 games while Strauss hasn't crossed 150 in 43 games. (Not to mention that he scores 25 runs per 100 balls more than Strauss). Strauss is a great batsman but Sehwag's absolute utility is not comparable to Strauss'. He has also had surprisingly high consistency in the past, which was new for someone of his style.
In short, we need Sehwag back. He is leaner and fitter and definitely an all-round player as he is swifter in the field now and can bowl the occasional spell of accurate off-spin. Although the team is tight at the moment, I think it would be dangerous to write him off for the rest of his career.
Similar threads
