Do you think Sri Lanka could have won if not for the weather and poor light?

Question

i mean, they beat the Aussies in '96, and even that was not a very easy win, yeah?

and honestly, yesterday's light was sooo BAD! they ought to have had flood lights....

true, the Aussie batting at the beginning was good

Answer 1

yes i think that Sri lanks could have won. it seems always boring to watch the aussies win all the time. its really repetitive. sometimes the Australians that they are too good for everyone else. if sri lanka won the cup in 96 why not now?

they were unlucky...it would have been much more fun to see the Lankans win!

Answer 2

This was astaged drama to award Australia the 2007 Cup.Whilst I am not that happy nesessarily, that Australia has won the World Cup.But I feel for Sri Lanka who never really had a decent chance to chase the Australian's total. A terrible end to a disappointing World Cup which has done nothing to advance the game.
I believe that Australia is fighting unit and would have not beaten Srilanka over 50 overs.But having the final reduced to 38 overs and then played in the dark was a Joke.

Both teams should be given a fair opportunity. I ask the Sri Lankan supporters who have been so outspoken in their dispair of Australia not to blame Ausies for this farce.

Instead Blame the ICC who seem to make up rules as they go along. Personally I would have liked to see the match moved to Sunday so that we could have a real game of cricket and not the joke that ensued.
AUS got WC 2007 , but SL played under pressure.When the Final was on the same time their Capital city was attacked by Terrorists.Rain took over the match.
Toss was the deciding Facter.
Players got the Terrorists- news and Panicked ..

their kid wives & parents all living in Colombo.
They dont know target & Bad light as well as Rain. ICC must answer this question. I dont know this stupids why did not call this game to next day or limit to 25 overs. ( In rainy day even kid knows dark will come soon in evening ) Begining ICC has to limit this game to 25 overs or call to next day. But they want business than the game.
AUS is a powerful team. So how SL can face to them in bad lights?
This is the worst game I ever saw. Organisers had no common sense at all. they did according to the "Script" that Somehow or other "Australia must Win"
We were in no need of the victory so badly like Australia.

But we don't want like this stupid End either.

we did not bribe Umpires.we didnot Bragged either.
Long live asian Cricket.But ICC descrimination towards Asian players ? Can it be Pardened?
Dissapointing world cup Ever....2007

now every body jump to say dont blame on Noble australians.

What ahypocracy

when in Australia once Murali Was bowling The Racist australian crowd shouted that " no Ball"
Inthat match whenever Muralitharan took the Ball..
these so called Noble Australian Racist shouted
" no Ball"

Have any stood up against it ?

SOME Fans..EH?

booo hoooo
plz pity Oz
Cuz they R so good at acting Innocent.

Answer 3

Australia were going to definetly make 350+ making that a near impossible target to chase especially with australia's bowling capabilites

Gillchrist batted exceptionally well and i'm sure had they faced all 50 overs the middle order and tail would have gone for a "slog" and got a massive total.

Sri Lanka did have a slim chance but due to the dropped catch of Gilchrist they probably werent going to win. Both teams had the same conditions to play under although i do agree that SL had worse light.

But overall Australia still had about 85% chance of winning if they had fair playing conditions and both had 50 overs.

Good on ya aussies and congratulations. Proved everyone wrong and showed that you can win even without full strength side. (missing brett Lee)

Answer 4

Nope...don't think they stood a chance after the batting display from the Aussies. If the weather had been good, and Aus were going the way they were, they would have reached a total of 350+ in their allotted 50 overs and I don't think SL would have won even then.

Good on ya Aussies! They've shown that they are still the best. Can't believe people were writing them off before the WC just bcoz of a couple of losses to Eng and a series loss to NZ without a full-strength side!

Answer 5

Sorry but NO WAY!!!
Face the facts, Aussie were scoring at 7.5 runs an over, we would have made in excess of 400 if the full 50 overs had been played. Not even in your wildest Dreams could Sri Lanka chase that against our bowlers! AS to the actual conditions of the day. Yes pity about the light as we would have dismissed the Lankans outright. They were finished when Jayasuria and Sangakara were out.
So deserved WORLD CHAMPS AGAIN
Aussie then Daylight!
:) :) :) :) :) :) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

Yes they had a better chance.Sri lankans are not born pinch hitters like aussiees and they are more touch players where they build slowly and accelerate between 30 to 50 overs.So i think it was really unfortunate that they didnt get whole 50 overs.

Some say that if aussiees were given 50 overs they would have scored over 400 runs and i think its not true.Because if they were given 50 overs to bat their strategies would have been different from the 38over strategies which favoured them.Then they wouldnt have started so visciously like they did.So it was unfortunate for sri lankans.Aussiees prefer to bat less number of overs since they have pinch hitters from top to bottom.Sri lankan bowlers did panic and surprisingly vaas could not move the ball due to the fact that the ball was soaked with water and that made him not to swing for the first time of the tournament.

But Sri lankans do not have and they were not ready for a 38 over match(history proves that when overs are reduced SRILANKANS HAVE NEVER WON) so that tell s the story.

Answer 7

If they had the luck that Aussie had they would have won.When Sanga and Sanath was making a great partnership weather sucked there innings.

If Aussies were sent to bat in Moon light they would also struggle in that muddy pitch.

Answer 8

Look I suggest you forget about Sri Lanka they could not have won even if my Aussies did not turn up for the match.~~

Answer 9

I don't think so. May be Australia would have scored more than 350 runs in 50 overs in that case. Srilanka had a little chance if they had hold on to Gilchrist's catch when he had scored 31 runs.

Answer 10

ur wrong.......australia may score more dan 350 if dey get full 50 overs to play......and SL were on 167-4 in maybe 25 overs.......no batsman was left except silva and arnold......dilshan isnt good enough....only 10% of chance of chasing more than 350 by the players who were not out