Purely as a batsman Amla is way ahead of Jayasuriya. Just because the latter happened to have 2-3 good knocks in ICC tournaments, that doesn't mean his mediocrity of the rest of 440 games can be justified. There is a massive 20-point difference between the averages of Amla and Sanath. That's too big to ignore.
Good post.
Sanath revolutionised opening in ODIs. For that alone rate Sanath above Amla.
I have a lot of respect for Sanath, he was undoubtedly one of the best batsmen to watch but there comes a point when you have to put aside your nostalgia and see things for what they really are. Sanath hasn't really revolutionized opening because as the current Champions Trophy has shown, that pinch-hitter at the top who just swings at everything is a luxury only the very best teams can afford. Most teams still have openers who are not overly-aggressive and look to bat through the innings. The pinch-hitter was all the rage once upon a time but that strategy has now died out.
As far as revolutionaries go, Sarfaraz Nawaz was the pioneer of reverse-swing. How much respect does he get from you for this fact? Do you rate him above Zaheer Khan because Nawaz was the originator of Khan's greatest weapon? I think not. What about Saqlain Mushtaq? He did more to help keep off-spin relevant than Murali did however, almost everyone will rate Murali as the superior test bowler.
Similarly, Jayasuriya did popularize the pinch-hitter in ODI cricket but based solely on individual ability, Hashim Amla was the superior opener. I rate Amla better than Sehwag, Gibbs, Gilchrist as well, lest you think I am unfairly targeting the Sri Lankan. While these three iconic openers would get their team off to a good start, bashing a 30-odd at a SR of over 100, and on their day getting that big hundred. Amla scores that big hundred every few games and on average, contributes more runs to the team's cause than almost any other ODI batsman in history!
C'mon now that "35 averaging Jayasuriya" not only revolutionised the opening role in ODIs but he was also the MOTM in the 96 WC QF and Player of the series in SL's 96 WC win (averaged 37 striking @ 132 btw). Not to mention scored a quick-fire 40 odd in the semi and a 70 odd in the final of the 2002 Champions Trophy win as well (averaged 64 striking @ 86). Plus of course 3 Asia cup finals wins to go with it where he averaged 68 striking at 110 (with one Player of the series).
Now tell me what has Amla done in ODIs when it has really mattered?
This "when it really mattered" stuff is nauseating. Amla also has a match-winning century against Sri Lanka and a crucial 80-odd against Pakistan in the current and 2013 versions of the Champions Trophy, respectively. He played a good hand against India in the 2011 WC and helped South Africa beat the eventual champions. He also has centuries in the two World Cups he's played, albeit against minnow nations (harsh on Ireland). So it's not like he's an anomaly where he doesn't score any runs in ICC tournaments, he doesn't have any of those very memorable, big hundreds but then again, not every player does.
Sanath played 400 ODIs, I'm sure they mattered, which is why he played them. Same goes for all the ODI matches that go on outside of World events that happen every four years. Grant Elliot did not become an ATG due to his innings in the 2015 WC semi-final and Kohli did not become a garbage played after his 1(13) in the other semi-final of the same tournament. What they have done over a long period of time is the main body of work that will determine where they stand in the realm of cricket. A few matches at World events definitely help in enhancing one's legacy but for the most part, players are never judged solely by what they do at these events.
Sachin's 100 hundreds, Pakistan's 72 ODI wins, the ODI rankings, etc are all irrelevant if your "only when it matters" ideology is applied to cricket as a whole and not individual players and thankfully, the vast majority of the cricket world does not subscribe to this ideology.
Just shows your lack of knowledge, you can't compare averages from different eras and compare them at face value without taking into account difference in pitches, rules, bowling attacks, averages scores, peer averages. Also the difference is not 20 but 14-15, don't inflate the difference to suit your agenda. Amla's average is hugely inflated by bashing windies, if you remove windies then his averages falls 5 points to 45. 
