Try to resist resorting to personal attacks and if someone does have a snipe at you, don't give it more respect than it deserves. Sour grapes are to be expected, but you can be poor winner too. Considering the tournament is now over, there's nothing much to be lost if I lock this thread.
/mod
Still, I think it is a bit rich to say Pakistan weren't the best, but won anyway. It's like saying that Australia would have been the best if they made it to the final. Tournaments aren't just about having the best players, or even just about the winning of matches, they're about delivering the right game at the right time and having enough fuel left in the tank to cross the line. Pakistan did play better and better as the tournament wore on. In the end there was a real depth of confidence to their game, especially in the crucial handling of the seemingly untouchable Mendis.
Pakistan's strength was not vested in one player (though Shahid Afridi certainly has started to live up to a decade of hype), but in a whole team. The batting averages don't look great, but an average never tells much of variance. After some initial blemishes, Pakistan were a team of players backing each other up. Their youngsters were carefully picked and used sparingly, never given too much to do. While Sri Lanka had some of the best players of the tournament, Pakistan needed only to neutralise a few players to gain the upper hand.
Cricket isn't a game that spends a lot of time in 'finals mode' but when there is a game with everything on the line, it can often shake the will of players who aren't well accustomed to it. Most of Pakistan's side bore the burden of that final two years ago. They knew all too well what they needed to do.