There is a major difference. The current Indian ODI/T20 team is full of ODI/T20 specialists, picked specially for the formats. Many of them haven't even played a Test match.silentstriker said:
Being short is usually an advantage for a batsman. Guys like Sobers are the exception, most great batsmen have been average/below average height.
There is, however, the objective of winning the series, and the way things are going, the series is being taken seriously. We don't expect them to do too many different things out there. Fair, Gambhir is overworked, but when Karthik is a reserve batsman, he (and the team) need those extra games. Alternatively, they can play Rohit Sharma in place of Karthik and bat him as low as six or seven, isolated from the new ball rising high over his shoulders, with one of Yuvraj/Dhoni opening.
That used to be in the past. Today's best batsmen (maybe not as great as those of the past) are all very tall. Most Aussies are over six feet, except Ponting, Katich (?) and Clarke. The whole England top order is tall. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and West Indies have some short players, but we don't see them batting at that stage, while Chanders can score against anything.
It's not a matter of fashion. Shorter height offers physiological advantages than a taller height for a batsman. The three best batsmen of the last twenty years are all short, for example.
.
Nah, its all about an optimum height rather than just being short. Those 3 are exceptions rather than the rule, IMO. It would be like claiming being short offers greater advantages to bowlers because the 3 greatest of the past 20 years, Marshall, Murali and Agarkar, were all short by conventional bowlers' standards. I reckon around 5'8" would turn out most dense if someone took time out to plot a scatter diagram of heights of all batsmen averaging above 50 in the modern game.
Hmm, that would be an interesting study, I'd be interested in knowing the results. Murali is not a fast bowler, so while it certainly helps spinners, it doesn't as much as a fast bowler. You can't point to exceptions, because no one is claiming that its impossible to be a great batsman or a bowler unless you are short or tall respectively (Sobers and Marshall being the exception).
Short batsmen have a few advantages, tall batsmen, some others. Like some great players of the past say, the tall ones have the power while the short ones have the footwork. As for the England top order, I don't say they're great, but at least practical, and don't seem to have trouble facing the short deliveries. More like, what is a bouncer or a snorter to Rohit Sharma may be at a good height for Collingwood or Pietersen to negotiate.It's not a matter of fashion. Shorter height offers physiological advantages than a taller height for a batsman. The three best batsmen of the last twenty years are all short, for example.
Plus, I wouldn't exactly look to the English top order to prove a point about great batting
That's a very iffy proposition. Rohit Sharma is short. Rohit Sharma has trouble with bouncers. Therefore being short means you have more trouble with bouncers. I don't buy it at all. Ponting is about as good with the short ball as anyone around in the last decade, and he is short. It's not the height, it's not being accustomed to facing a barrage like that in India against bowlers of high enough quality.
Colly?
Compared to him, some Indian players are dwarfs. Raina, Gambhir, Karthik, less so Sehwag and Rohit Sharma are quite small. It doesn't end there with the short ball weakness. Players from outside India and Sri Lanka may play the short ball better because they're used to it a lot more in their domestic games or A-tour experience. While the taller one doesn't play it better, the shorter one will struggle a lot more when both start from more or less the same level.Colly?
His only 5 ft 11 (max).
England's top order is hardly full of giants. Ravi, Strauss, Prior and Bell are all under 5 ft 11.
Gambhir?
Much as there's a perennial threat from Chopra, Vijay and miscast wicketkeepers, he'd be an exception to that line. His struggles are primarily due to lack of (or wrong) footwork, which has resulted in these two early dismissals.
.... probably Ind's best pacer on the tour