Maybe I am just too much of a fan of Sri Lanka, or maybe I am able to see another perspective, but the team's strategy against Australia was odd, to say the least.

Sri Lanka were playing the holders in one of the tougher Super 8 games in the World Cup. Both teams had confirmed their positions in the semi-finals, so it was not a crucial game. But it was important for each team to get a psychological advantage ahead of a possible meeting in the final.

In what looked like a very strange move, Sri Lanka 'rested' their top bowlers, Muttiah Muralitharan and Chaminda Vaas. The captain, Mahela Jayawardene, explained that the two bowlers had endured injuries earlier and in order to ensure that they did not develop any problems, he chose to rest them.

Experts like Ian Chappell and Arjuna Ranatunga were shocked beyond words. Chappell went to the extent of suggesting that the ICC's anti-corruption cell should enquire with Sri Lanka as to why they did not play their best team. He was also upset for the sake of the fans, who had come to see the best teams play.

Sri Lanka have a good team, but of course, Australia is a different peak to climb. For ANY team to beat Australia, whether in the Super 8 or in the later knock-out stages of the World Cup, they would need to do something different. They would need to bring in a surprise factor and hope to upset Australia's rhythm. Sri Lanka as a team, and perhaps with Tom Moody's input, might have worked on this gamble. But think about it:

1. If, without the key bowlers, Sri Lanka had managed to beat Australia, what a phenomenal boost they would have got.

2. If, without the key bowlers, Sri Lanka had managed to take the fight to Australia, and lost, then they also have a psychological advantage. They tell themselves that they lost because the stars were not there, and yet, even without them, they gave the Aussies a scare. In short, good psychology ahead of the next meeting.

This, in fact, is what happened. Sri Lanka fought back from being 24 for three to post a total of 227. At a time when Jayawardene and Chamara Silva were going strong, it appeared that Australia were short on ideas. Similarly, with a rank ordinary attack, to get Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist thinking about the bowling initially, and then picking up both of their wickets early, was also creditable. If Australia wanted to make an impact, they should have been able to take the game with 10 wickets to spare.

3. The three missing bowlers have different styles and are a handful to cope with. Not getting the opportunity in the Super 8 ensures that when they meet in the knock-out, the Sri Lanka bowlers start with the upper hand.

This, then, becomes the surprise plan that Sri Lanka will spring on Australia. I think it was a smart move. It also shows the confidence that the Lankans have - that they were willing to take the risk of losing one game, in the larger interest of winning the tournament later.

I continue to back them to win the tournament. In spite of Australia's amazing run, I have the conviction that we can do it!

Was it a Sri Lankan 'plan' against Australia or are the press making too much of the absentees? Send your views to Sportingo.