Tried to watch the start of the 2007 Cricket World Cup Final between Australia and Sri Lanka, but rain delayed the start, so I missed Adam Gilchrists spectacular 100. I almost missed the end of the Final as well, but this can be blamed on the decision to end the game in complete darkness.
The win by Australia is its 3rd in a row, and as usual there are those who say that this is bad for cricket. I guess the thinking is that sport is more interesting when it is a contest, and when it isn't a contest, it is no longer interesting. Personally I don't see it that way. To me competition is (mainly) about doing your best, and if one sides "best" is far superior to everyone else's, then I can enjoy watching the skill and abilities of the winners.
In one sense it brings to mind Bobby Fischer's run of 19 (or 20) straight wins during the lead up to the 1972 World Championship Match. While I was too young to remember comments at the time, reading the coverage of Fischer's run, both from that period, and in retrospect, no one seemed to think that this was bad for chess. The same goes for Fischers 11-0 win of the 64/64 US Championship. Rather than being bad for US chess, it inspired a generation of players to try harder to keep up.
BTW Both the Canberra Raiders and ACT Brumbies also won this weekend, so all in all it was a good sporting weekend.