Australia won th wolrd cup.anyway as far as i concerned it waz sri Lankas Unlucky. Day What du u think?

Question

Sri Lanka Wud Hav Win th match if rain is not there and over is not reduced to 38

Answer 1

Your dreaming.
Lanka never stood a chance of winning the way they played.Why do you Asian teams find it hard to take defeat?

Answer 2

yes, Australia was playing great game in WCup. But the Final was not the fair one.It could have either if played full 50 over. During Sri Lanka batting there are interruption due to rain and batsman do loose concentration or the tempo of game gets changed. They started well and then played in dark.
They could play another day if 50 overs can not be bowled.
The ICC was always unfair with Asian Teams. ICC should have Asian (from India,Pak,Sri Lanka)as Chief. Sorry is not the big word ..just do unfair and said Sorry, is it enough?
Squash ball was used.. was it fair in cricket? By rule no.. but it is the Asian country, they did not complain.. if India, Pak or S-Lanka or Bangladesh would be doing same thing.. it could have a big deal for ICC.

Answer 3

You nailed that mate!
I guess they got to do something about playing crucial fixtures such as finals, when afected by the weather-playing on some other day would be good. You never can guarantee duckworth and lewis to bring the most appropriate solution to either side in such a situation, ultimately the cup would probably be decided by the equation than by the quality of the two sides.
And it was quite evident when the lions were batting that the ball never bounced high as it did for the aussies, jayasuriya was dismissed due to that, did the umpires account for that, no for them it was just another dismissal.
Its high time that a change is brought about to the rules!

Answer 4

the rain did help Australia win, but the Aussies were unbeatable throughout this whole tournament. It might have been an unlucky day for Sri Lanka, but hey, a day being lucky or not cant change the past!

Answer 5

Considering the way Sri Lankan Bowlers bowled, I do not think Sri Lanka would have won the match even if rain did not interrupt or the game was played 50overs.

Answer 6

I would like to have seen the 50 overs played, but weather conditions detered that. Sri Lanka played theyre best, you cant ask for more..all credit to the players.

Answer 7

yes itwas really unluck of Sri lanka and some bias umpiring brought world cup sinister end
i agree australia is a fantastic team
as well as srilanka..
oooh i wish ....
if they had played it sunday ...50 overs & gilchrist played
with out Squash ball...fair umpires ruled..
i am day dreamin here eh...
this ICC and Speed all are under obligation to Big Australia Continent.
that is the truth

Answer 8

Jayawardane himself has accepted defeat.
Your chances of winning ended with the exit of Sangakkara and followed by Jayasurya in their attempt to increase the run-rate.
The match was taken away by Gilchrist who still offered a catch.After all you lost to a deserving winner.You can still be proud of your great fighters.

Answer 9

yes first you cheat
then you gonna beat

the way to be beaters
take the path of cheaters



gilchrist played that way cuz they had known only by cheating
they could win
if they had played it sunday ...50 overs & gilchrist played
with out Squash ball...fair umpires ruled..
i am day dreamin here eh...
this ICC and Speed all are under obligation to Big Australia Continent.that is the truth
they do whatever to beat srilanka cuz
if they played fair & squre Oz would be doomed
so gilchist took the wrong way
its acrime
so he is asorta criminal,,,,for honest Fans
down with cheaters

Answer 10

It was just Adam ilcrist innings that changed the match.
CRICKET fans on the sub-continent have questioned Adam Gilchrist's match-winning innings in the World Cup final because he had a squash ball inside his batting glove.

Gilchrist belted 149 off just 103 balls to rip the rain-shortened final away from Sri Lanka but cricket bloggers in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India have now asked whether the Australian wicketkeeper's innings was "legal".
After the match, Gilchrist said he had "something" in his left glove during his innings and when he reached his century he repeatedly pointed to his left batting glove with his right hand.

"I had a little message, to wave to someone at home in Australia about something in my glove," Gilchrist told the post-match media conference.

He then confirmed the message was for his batting coach and former West Australia player Bob Meuleman who, Gilchrist said, had advised him to carry a squash ball in his left, bottom hand to help him with his grip.

"His (Meuleman's) last words to me before I left the indoor training centre where I train with him in Perth were, 'If you are going to use it (squash ball), make sure when you score a hundred in the final you show me and prove to me you got it in there'. I had stayed true to that."

Some cricket fans are now asking whether, if Dennis Lilee's aluminium bat, Ricky Ponting's graphite-coated bat and Hanie Cronje's earpiece were declared illegal, Gilchrist's squash ball should be deemed an illegal artificial aid to batting.

To read what the bloggers have to say go to: http://wordpress.com/tag/cricket-etcetera/

"Two questions arise," wrote one blogger. "If using a squash ball isn't ok as per the laws of the game, is his innings legal and does it count? And if it doesn't count, can Australia claim to have won a hopelessly one-sided and farcical victory?"

Another blogger said Gilchrist had indicated the squash ball in his left glove helped him with his grip during his "stupendous knock".

"But that's also where questions over the legality of Gilchrists innings, or the seeming lack of it, come in," he wrote.

"Can a batsman carry an object, in this case, a squash ballnot connected with cricket to help him on the field? Did he secure the prior permission of the umpires? Was the fielding side captain aware of the use of the squash ball? Did (Sri Lankan captain) Mahela Jayawardene approve its use?

"And, above all, and in a manner of speaking, did Gilchrists hidden ball give him an unfair advantage in knocking the daylights out of the Lankan bowlers?"

He lists the law of cricket No.3 as saying:

"Before the toss and during the match, the umpires shall satisfy themselves that

(a) the conduct of the game is strictly in accordance with the Laws. (b) the implements of the game conform to the requirements of Laws 5 (the ball) and 6 (the bat), together with either Laws 8.2 (size of stumps) and 8.3 (the bails) or, if appropriate, Law 8.4 (junior cricket). (c) (i) no player uses equipment other than that permitted. (ii) the wicket-keepers gloves comply with the requirements of Law 40.2 (gloves)."

Jerome Gasperson joined the blog from Australia: "You have very valid points and there are a few more unanswered questions that are worth pursuing further:

1) Gilchrist never used the squash ball in the past and also in any of the other 10 games prior to the finals. Did the squash ball help?

2) Gilchrist was out of form and didn't score many runs in the whole World Cup tour apart from the finals. Did the squash ball provide Gilchrist the required assistance to bring him back to form?

3) The World Cup final was between Sri Lanka and Gilchrist (not Australia). All other in-form Australian batsmen were struggling to score except the out-of-form Gilchrist who had this squash ball to enhance his grip or did it?

4) Most of his shots, mainly his eight sixes, were massive and cleared the grounds. Did the squash ball help?

5) The number of sixes hit by Gilchrist amounts to eight in the finals, compared to two in the previous 10 games. Is it because of the squash ball?

6) Gilchrist's average without the last innings would have been a mere 30.40 compared to the 45.30 after the finals. Did the squash ball help to boost his average?

7) Gilchrist's strikerate without the last innings would have been 91.57 compared to the 103.89 after the finals. Again, did the squash ball provide that extra power?

"I am not taking anything away from Adam Gilchrist's excellent innings," Gasperson wrote.

"That was an amazing innings which will be remembered by many for years to come. However, the question still remains: is it legal to use such equipment and will it provide assistance?" ::