Did australia win the cricket world cup 2007 fairly against sri lanka?

Question

Was sri lanka batting in near darkness a fair way to end it?

Answer 1

I did not think that this match ended fairly.
Gilchrist should not have used that squash ball in his batting gloves. Sri lanka had to bat in really poor conditions.
Someone above said that they lost the match because they lost early wickets, but if you remember correctly those wickets went down because the rain was about to fall, the place was dark and sri lanka had to accelerate....and the conditions were not fair enough for them to do so.
If the place hadn't gotten that dark, if the rain hadn't fall i think the match would have ended differently.

Answer 2

Once Australia posted the huge total, the match had gone out of the gripof Sri Lanka. Though it looked like that Sri Lanka are making a match of it while Jayasuriya and Sangakkara were batting, once they were out, Sri Lanka virtually lost the match and even if rain did not stop the game, there was no chance for Sri Lanka to win.

Answer 3

They won alright but not fairly. If Gilly used a foreign object to gain an unfair advantage thats cheating!!. Even during the match i was baffled on how an out of form batsman managed to have a strike rate of 150+. Its possible for batsman to achieve this but not consistantly for 30 overs plus. I also found it baffling that the batsmen on the other end were only averaging half that(not that they were deprived of a stay at the stumps). The sri lankan were not bowling badly either. I also found it astonishing how even mis-hits seem to clear the boundary by a mile. i remember telling my self at the time, there must be something wrong with that bat. but days later when the squash ball scandal came out...yes it all made sense...If the roles were reversed and it was somebody from the subcontinent or another country, australia will be screaming blue murder...it is also a fact that many of the influential people in the ICC are australian and like many other under hand tactics that the australian have used in the past to dominate world cricket, this episode too would most likely be swept under the crapet like Brett lee's bowling action which came under scrutiny few years ago but nothing happened..guess why??? yep thats right he's Australian.
I'm not taking anything away from the australians. They really are a good side. But i wonder if they played fairly minus sledging and all the other dodgy tactics will they win as many matches?...probably not

Answer 4

If you seen the match against India how they played.... I would say yes Sri Lanka will give great fight to win the world cup. But they have to meet tought teams like Australia and S.A., WI, Ierland (kidding...) SRI LANKA will bring the cup to Asia.

Answer 5

I agree that that was unfair... but sri lanka had lost that game way before then. They lost too many wickets early and there was no way they were gonna come back.
Oh, and the next world cup is in 2011... and being playing in south asian countries

Answer 6

Yet another bad loser, it's really not a good trait to have. The ICC have said it was perfectly legal to have a squash ball in a glove, so what is wrong? You are just grasping at straws and trying to have a whine, and the worst thing is you just want to try and disrespect the winners by saying they are bad sports. Get a life!

Answer 7

yup. even if the batter for sri lanka couldnt see the ball, it was impossible to make 53 runs in one over.

Answer 8

you have to wait for 3 more years to see this no body knows it because the next word cup is in 2010.

Answer 9

Goto: http://www.colombotown.com

Answer 10

Oh my good god pal, it is Gilly's squash ball that won the match and the WC for the Aussies. They did not win fairly.. They never do...