Mahela Jayawardene

[Black_Warrior]

10000 Test Runs
Average of 51
29 centuries

Achievements of a great batsman


Avg 34 against Australia

Avg 34 in England

Avg 32 against Pakistan

Avg 29 in South Africa

Avg 27 in New Zealand


Still a great batsman?


Would love to hear some perspectives on this.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No. IMO.

 

[Satguru]

Yeah, he has a few too many holes in his resume to be considered a true ATG. Poor records in one or two countries can be bryshed aside as bad luck, but Mahela does struggle away from the SC far too often to be a coincidence.
Sanga too, has been mostly poor in England and South Africa. Samaraweera is the same too.
Some problem with the Lankans imo

 

[Athlai]

Sangakkara is the best batsman in the world. True story.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yeah, he has a few too many holes in his resume to be considered a true ATG. Poor records in one or two countries can be bryshed aside as bad luck, but Mahela does struggle away from the SC far too often to be a coincidence.
Sanga too, has been mostly poor in England and South Africa. Samaraweera is the same too.
Some problem with the Lankans imo

Personally I have never considered Jayawardene a great batsman. He falls in the category of good-very good batsmen in my books because I have seen him struggle too often against quality fast bowlers.

Sangakkara - I don't want to talk too much about him here because that would deserve a whole new topic of its own... I would like to wait for the current South Africa series to conclude before I put him in the same category as Jayawardene. I know he has a huge fan following and is the number one ranked batsman in the world so I would need more armour before I take him on

 

[miscer]

Personally I have never considered Jayawardene a great batsman. He falls in the category of good-very good batsmen in my books because I have seen him struggle too often against quality fast bowlers.

Sangakkara - I don't want to talk too much about him here because that would deserve a whole new topic of its own... I would like to wait for the current South Africa series to conclude before I put him in the same category as Jayawardene. I know he has a huge fan following and is the number one ranked batsman in the world so I would need more armour before I take him on

i'll call it right now, IMO sangakkara is bad against the swinging and seaming ball but he can play basically anything else very well. now watch him prove me wrong with an unbeaten hundred as his team crumbles on a green top. lol.

but sangakkara > jayawardene fairly easily because sangakkara is actually really good in aus and nz and has some truly SUPERB 100s check these
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/251485.html my favorite sangakkara innings
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/291339.html second fav.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/251486.html

and he saved a game in england too.

 

[Xuhaib]

Moyo, Mahela and Sehwag are in the same tier of batsmanship imo though Sehwag destructiveness makes him a bit unique. Younis and VVS are imo the 2 most underrated batsman in subcont though we would have had a better idea about Younis had he made the trip to Aus and England in 09 and 10 but thanks to Ijaz Butt that did not happen however he sitll averages a cumulative 48 in Aus, Eng,NZ & Saf which looks pretty decent.

 

[ganeshran]

I know his stats against few sides are not upto the mark, but he is a delight to watch. Love his shotmaking

 

[Nomanculture]

Jayawardene is the Sri Lankan idol for FTBness. I hate people who go on and on about his elegance when playing shots, those shots account to nothing if you can't put up some deent scores everywhere in the world.

Sangakkara is a few levels above him.

 

[Migara]

MJ has been disappointing out side SC. But there are batsmen who suck in SC but considered great.

Sanga will feast on WI line up if he gets a chance. He may improve against England and SAF, but I am not that positive of him doing against IND, when Ashwin and Co are there.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Not sure if Sanga will get a lot of opportunity to play in South Africa and England again...when does SL tour India again? He is 37 right?

 

[Athlai]

not sure if sanga will get a lot of opportunity to play in south africa and england again...when does sl tour india again? He is 37 right?

34

 

[Jayzamann]

When you take away his scores at places where he fills his boots like the SSC, his average drops below 50, which is still no slouch by any definition. It's been said ITT already that he's good to very good, but not great.

Blah, it's all subjective.

 

[Prince EWS]

He absolutely is, IMO.

As fans we love to have checklists like this; we like our players to be well-rounded and face up to all the toughest challenges before we can call them great, but from a practical perspective it's a bit over-romantic a lot of the time. Each Test cricketer in the modern era plays about 50% of his series at home and about 6% of his series in every other country (I actually think it's even more home-biased for Sri Lanka for whatever reason), so Jayawardene is going to be far, far more valuable as a player averaging 70 at home and 30 in South Africa or whatever the exact figures actually are than if he averaged 40 in both countries. The latter may make him more rounded and maybe even more respected but the former is more valuable to his side; and he's developed his technique to accommodate the needs of his side rather than the desires of the legacy police.

I actually think players having poor records in certain countries is actually a coincidence a lot of the time with small sample sizes and differing career progression trends but even though it probably actually isn't in this case given the widespread nature of these stats, I don't think it matters that much. When comparing him to someone with a similar overall record, sure, it should come into it; but not when assessing his outright boolean greatness.

 

[Black_Warrior]

He absolutely is, IMO.

As fans we love to have checklists like this; we like our players to be well-rounded and face up to all the toughest challenges before we can call them great, but from a practical perspective it's a bit over-romantic a lot of the time. Each Test cricketer in the modern era plays about 50% of his series at home and about 6% of his series in every other country (I actually think it's even more home-biased for Sri Lanka for whatever reason), so Jayawardene is going to be far, far more valuable as a player averaging 70 at home and 30 in South Africa or whatever the exact figures actually are than if he averaged 40 in both countries. The latter may make him more rounded and maybe even more respected but the former is more valuable to his side; and he's developed his technique to accommodate the needs of his side rather than the desires of the legacy police.

I actually think players having poor records in certain countries is actually a coincidence a lot of the time with small sample sizes and differing career progression trends but even though it probably actually isn't in this case given the widespread nature of these stats, I don't think it matters that much. When comparing him to someone with a similar overall record, sure, it should come into it; but not when assessing his outright boolean greatness.

Your are quite right except that how valuable a player is to his side is different from whether he is a great player or not. I think Hafeez currently is a very valuable member of the Pakistan team, he bowls a bit, keeps the runs down and picks the occasional wicket, scores runs from time to time and is one of the better fielders in the side. Does that mean he is great? No.

And even when it comes to being valuable, Sri Lanka has a terrible record outside of Sri Lanka, forget about the sub continent. Him being one of the best batsmen in the side, a captain at one stage, if he cannot perform well outside, then he is not being all that valuable to Sri Lanka as a team either. He is valuable still, but would have been more if his performances overseas helped Sri Lanka perform better overseas.

In test cricket, you play each other home and away and you gain points by winning test series. If the aim is simply to perform at home because you will play more at home, then you are not helping your team to gain points and move up the rankings.

 

[Jacknife]

I agree that sometimes holes in players records can be coincidental, due to being out of form on tours or small sample size but when the same holes appears in countries like England, SA & NZ it's hard to come to any other conclusion but said player is dodgy against swing and bouncy pitches, it may not tell the whole story but it definitely gives you a fair idea.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I would put him below the likes of Inzy and De Silva.

 

[Satguru]

Mahela is definitely better than Aravinda, who was actually pretty awful pretty much everywhere except the SC. Inzi is a good distance ahead of both of them for me.

All 3 of them simply wonderful to watch

 

[ganeshran]

ftr, Inzi didnt do well in Oz and SA either.

 

[Howe_zat]

Wub him.

Being unimpressive in England all part of the charm...