-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
AUSTRALIA VS SRI LANKA [the final chapter] (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bos1234
- Start date
HotShot
-_-
Thank god for the Gilchrist century otherwise it could of turned out to be a shit match. It was pretty shit anyway only 38 overs. ... AT least the Final has to be 50 oversbrogan77 said:
Sri Lanka were not doing too bad.. until Sanath got out. But the toss was pretty crucial although didnt know it - it was pretty crucial the team that batted first had better light.. just imagine if the match was pretty close in the last few overs - and you could barely see the ball...
But Gilchrist was outstanding.. and made the final and the World cup a lot better. otherwise it could have gone down to be the shiitttest WC in history.
el gwapo
Member
lololol too optimistic really Sri Lanka needed early wickets, never happened, once Gilly got 149 they had the World Cup, no team chasing has been successful in getting like 250 plus. And their 'secret weapon' Malinga went for boundaries.
wuddie
Black by Demand
at exactly which point did sri lanka had any chance of savaging the game?? sri lanka were on the back foot from the first over and never looked like getting into even terms with the aussies.bos1234 said:
once aust were 0-149 it was all but over. put into perspective that none other aust batsmen made any real contribution, when we expect everyone else to blast away like gilly did, esp hayden and symonds, the situation could have got a lot worse for sri lanka.
aust raped every team in every game right through the tournament, it is only justice that they win the world cup. three in a row baby!
HotShot
-_-
To be honest - Australia didnt dominate the lankans. more like Gilchrist did. Hayden and Ponting both struggled and got out in the thirties - I mean normally that takes some effort especially when Hayden is in form.Exphate said:
Gilchrist + small grounds + luck ownz everything. One man team on the final day.
Lanka were on track with Jaysuriya and Sangakarra. But I still feel - you have what a reserve day for single match or something in this WC - that in a final and the semis - you should play 50 overs each.
Clearly the toss was crucial, whoever batted first had it easier - with the light and stuff. But hey that summed up the World Cup - piece of crap.
CSI: CRIMES ™
Member
Tait plays like a bitch.
His bowling =2001 version of brett lee.
but they should have a rematch. WTF is with dead ball called for running in the pitch
His bowling =2001 version of brett lee.
but they should have a rematch. WTF is with dead ball called for running in the pitch
Gilchrist played a great innings.
No more will McGrath with his impeccable lien and length "corridor of uncertainty"(cricket players will know what that is) ever grace the cricket field. What a champion, greatest fast bowler since i have been watching cricket.(1996)
No more will McGrath with his impeccable lien and length "corridor of uncertainty"(cricket players will know what that is) ever grace the cricket field. What a champion, greatest fast bowler since i have been watching cricket.(1996)
Last edited:
did you even watch the game??wuddie said:
it was clsoer than what everybody thinks.. dont jsut look at the final score and judge the game
at about the 16-17th over sl and aus were evenly matched. Aus hadnt lsot any wickets and sl had lost 1..
The toss was very very crucial.
bos1234 said:
At the 16-17th over SL had "a glimmer of hope." (quote, cricket 2007 website)
Jayawandera said he was unsure about whether he would have batted first. He said he was even happy to lose the toss. Even though batting first was yes a small advantage. Becuase of the shortness of the game the bounce didn't seem or die and it didn't seem to slow up.
Last edited:
yeah i agree with hotshot, it was a close game until jay and sangkarra got out....batting first was a huge advantage...icoz there was no spin, swing, seam, wen lanka bowled, and wen they batted it was poor lighting, some swing and spin for the bowlers, rain and the D and L to worry about, wet ground to slow the ball in the outfield, momentum stops due to rain
the pitch was relli unfair to those batting 2nd
t was basicallly 50:50 game...whoevea won the toss would win the game (aka bat first)...but u cant take the game awya from gilchris who made the best innings after some poor form, the 4 best team went into the semi finals, best 2 teams into the final and the best team won.
it would have been great to have a final without rain and 50 overs, it would have been a much closer game...congratz aussies
and wuddie, yea it would have been relli bad if symonds, clark, ponting and hayden started, but they didnt because the lankans bowled better to them than they did to gilchris
the pitch was relli unfair to those batting 2nd
t was basicallly 50:50 game...whoevea won the toss would win the game (aka bat first)...but u cant take the game awya from gilchris who made the best innings after some poor form, the 4 best team went into the semi finals, best 2 teams into the final and the best team won.
it would have been great to have a final without rain and 50 overs, it would have been a much closer game...congratz aussies
and wuddie, yea it would have been relli bad if symonds, clark, ponting and hayden started, but they didnt because the lankans bowled better to them than they did to gilchris
Last edited:
mednerd said:
I disagree with nearly everythign you said then.
Especially the start of the second paragraph, and will only explain that. HOW WAS IT A 50:50 GAME! Aust. have dominated world cricket for nearly a decade, they are playign impeccable cricket, have by FAR the best batting line up in the world, they have a better bowling attack than SL(they bowled the team out in every game in the WC), are in unbelievable form, have the best fielding in the world, flogged SL in the super 8 games, they had their strongest battign side and bowled them out for under 200.
1st paragraph, only thign i agree with is momentum stops due to rain.
3rd paragraph i just find that lol imo.
Last edited:
funnybunny
funniest bunny in th land
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Messages
- 404
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
doesnt matter, he and hotshot got most of it rite and icc orgnisers realise it
on a side note...finally the icc looks at shortening the cup.
mate, 50:50 he meant because of the chance of the toss...50:50 it would be heads or tails, it was pretty obvious that rain and poor lightening had an effect, the ball started to swing late in the game and the lankans bowled better to them coz their run rate was less than 140 which glichris's rr was.
oh yea...yet they had a weaker batting side and score more than 200 in 38 overs,
Last edited:
Ok ill back down.funnybunny said:doesnt matter, he and hotshot got most of it rite and icc orgnisers realise it
on a side note...finally the icc looks at shortening the cup.
On another side note, who thinks the ICC is over doing it with having the 20-20 world cup in SA(i think) this year.
Further side noting.. I have absolutely no motivation to play cricket at the moment, i hope that changes before grade trials..