What do you feel about the FINAL WORLD CUP MACTH??

There is no doubt that in the finals Australia outplayed SriLanka in every department of the game. But still I feel that the final should be played for the full 50 overs as commented by the SriLankan coach Tom Moody. After all final should provide equal opportunities to both the teams as we know that a few overs can change the face of a match in cricket and SriLanka was also capable of upsets.The spectators should also be provided with full entertainment for the money they paid. Apart from the curtailed match the Australian wicketkeeper Adam Gilgrist provided a splendid display of batting and Macgrath in bowling.

it is great to watch the australian team making a great victory over there and they had proved their talent again........but it's a bit of luck for them,as the rain started well after they had finished the batting session and the over has been reduced for the lankans..........

first of all,ausies showed there power but telling that they dont want to play malinga coz he took one of the ausies wickets early and the game was stopped dur to tenson between the two teams. lara was happy bcoz if the teams not manage within themselves the cup would stay in west indies but the game started...malinga played but the wicket he has taen was not given to him. even 1 wicket makes the difference,i think world cup finals dont deserve that drama and raining collapsing the matches beauty and importance.

World cup final should be 50 overs. Imagine that rain fell for another hour and this became a 20 over game. It is a complete different game. This is not the the 20/20 world cup this is the 50/50 game where lots of skills come into play not just power hitting. Gilchrist innings was amazing no doubt but I don't think he would have gone that hard if it was a 50/50 game. The ball wasn't swinging for Vass and 38 overs broke SL bowlers concentration. Gilchrist was also using a sqaush ball in his glove. I don't think it is illegal. I really think that this game would have been different if it was 50 overs. A sorry end to a sorry tournament.

ya this world cup did not carry as much fun as it should be there are various reason behind this one reason is that the schedule was so long ,,,,,,,other reason was the suppermacy of australian on all other teams ...........final was expected to be somewhat more entertaining but it was sadly obstructed by rain and the hole fun was spoiled ........

Srilanka were definitely not comparable with Aussies for a 38 over game. The strength of Srilanka would have shown if they had played their full 50 overs. The less the number of overs, the more dangerous the Aussies are. The Aussies are mostly power hitters. Everyone in the Aussie line up is capable of playing a demolishing innings. But that is not the case for Srilanka. Apart from Jayasuriya, nobody is a power player. That got Srilanka on the defensive, and they were chasing the game always after what Gilchrist did to them. Who in the world can ever imagine that a man can do this to a top side in a world cup final. He really butchered the Srilankans.

Well subathra, i think that there was no problem in the match. When Australia batted there was no problem in the brightness. Even when Sri lanka batted there was enough brightness till the time they loosed all their main batsmen. Sri Lankans came to know that anyhow they are going to loose, when they saw their all top batsmen getting out. Secondly, if match was to be played for 50 overs, then i am sure that Australia would have made the world record of Top Score in a One-day match. If Australia is going to bat first, then it means that they are going to dominate the game! SO i dont find any problem in the match :)

dunno!!

Well i must tell this.Sri lankans were not ready to play a 38 over game.You know their full potential is when they play 50 over games.They build up slowly and acclerate in the middle overs.Thats the type of team we have seen.Where Aussiees are quite different with a tendancy to do pinch hitting from the beginning to the end which.When the number of overs were reduced aussiees got a big advantage coz they could play their natural game where they did. Actually Sri lankans started to panic from the begining coz of the sudden radical reduction of overs and eventually made their strike bowlers to give many runs away.ADAM GILCHRIST PLAYED FANTASTICALLY AND I SIMPLY DONT KNOW HOW HE GOT THAT AWESOME POWER YESTERDAY AND HE WAS OUT OF THIS UNIVERSE YESTERDAY. He was simply devastating sri lankans.Didnt you notice that all other australian batsmen could not score run a ball including ponting.So i feel for a moment that gilchrist had something special which no one had.

Well that made me feel very bad really bad. 1999 - Pakisthan lost to Australia, 2003 - India Lost to Australia, 2007 - Sri Lanka lost to Australia, All 3 nations are Asian Countries and they are the cricketing giants in Asia. At least all the 3 Asian giants entered the finals continuously and no other nation replaced Australia from the west. That is a bit of concern for those nations. Personally i am sad that India couldn't make it to the finals or at least the second stage.