SRT is past his prime and is grossly overrated now, however I might like him as a cricketer and as a Cricket crazy Indian fan.

Amit verma of Wisden in his 23 Yard Blog writes:

Jay Acharya writes in, and revives that hoary old comparison between Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar. He says, "cricket in those [Bradman's] days was hardly competitive and the only series in which the Don was seriously challenged was the Bodyline [series]." He goes on to say that Bradman did not have to content with captains planning strategies specifically to counter him, and he benefited from rarely having to score against defensive field placings, as Tendulkar has so often. He concludes, "maybe the Don is better than Sachin but probably only marginally and I believe that had he played in the era in which Sachin is playing his average would have been hovering around the 60-mark rather than the late nineties."

I disagree, Jay. The reason Bradman is eulogised is not merely because his average is high, but because he outsrips his contemporaries by such a huge margin. I've just examined the average batting averages (love that phrase!) through the decades, and found that batsmen in the 30s and 40s, when Bradman played, averaged 31.1 and 34.2 respectively, while batsmen in the 90s and 2000s, Tendulkar's era, average 29.4 and 31.4 respectively. The contemporaries of Bradman and Tendulkar, thus, averaged more or less the same – Bradman, however, outstripped them comprehensively, and stands almost 40 points clear of his nearest contemporary. Tendulkar, on the other hand, stands at No. 8 on the latest PWC Ratings, and doesn't even have the highest average in the Indian team.

Now final are set B/W pk v aus lets see that how aussies beat pk

Yaar , maan ley meri baat...... chalo the final is not far now.... Leekh ke rakh lau... Aussie would be the winner unless kuch match fixing hui ho

Kis duniya mein jee rahe ho mere bhai..... R u unsure abt PHIXING

Well, a team can only be fixed to lose a match, not to win it. Australia's very high success rate means that the probability of their having fixed matches (to lose) is well nigh negligible.
If Pakistan can indeed be fixed (if allegations are to be believed), they too can be fixed only to lose.
So the possibility of the match being fixed and Australia losing doesn't, in my view, exist.
If Pakistan win, they'll win on merit. If Australia win, there can be room for doubts!

Kaunse Merit ki baat karte ho bhai , Pakistan team aur Indian teams are totally unpredictable , dono ke pass badhiya se badhiya players hai but kehta hai na ki Race ka Ghoda agar Daud ke din hi kaam na aye tau kis kaam ka.... I still remember watching the aussie and england's game during last worldcup , aussie ...they where 7 wickets down and supporters of england had already started celebrating the victory and than the the 7th wicket and 8th wicket partnership lead them to victory... yaar kabhi suna hai India ya Pakistan during big events like worldcup or etc and when 7 wkts down they still fighting the game with cool minded..... Yaar elegance and class bhi koi cheez hoti hai , why we all keep forgetting that any sports any game is an effort of team work and dedication. Aur yahan tau sachin nahi kehla na is liye harr gaye... Zaheer ke tang mei kuch problem thi na isliye last bowl pe chaukka gaya... come on yaar.. this are all lame excuses.... Look at the way we beat pakistan in worldcup and later on the way Aussie beat us in worlcup... Ricky pointing was literally laughing looking at Indian players and I was boiling inside with agony.... uffoooooooo its not easy to be fan of unpredictable indian team pal mein kushi tau pal mein ghum

Now my point was that a team can only be fixed to lose, not to win. Australia's very high success rate suggests that they don't fix matches. So if Australia lose this match, this would be due to the merit of the Pakistan team, or their own bad performance. The Pakistanis may be unpredictable, but they have the most talented cricketers in the world, in my view. They do have merit.