CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

Australia skipped into the second round of the World Cup on Sunday and they deserved a place in the Super Six.

What Australia did not deserve was the castigation they received for their go-slow play towards the end of the match.

Going into the match against the West Indies tied on two victories each with New Zealand who still had lowly Scotland to play, Australia, the second favourites who had lost to Pakistan and New Zealand, were one victory behind the West Indies on three and with New Zealand expected to defeat Scotland to make it three for them, they (Australia) had to win the match to make it to the second round.

Victory, therefore, was Australia's first goal as that would leave them on three victories with the West Indies but with a better net run rate.

In a beautiful response to the challenge, Australia, probably lucky to have won the toss in conditions favourable to bowlers, smashed the West Indies for a mere 110, and despite a few hiccups, hopped to victory, joined Pakistan in the next round and left the West Indies and New Zealand to fight for the third spot from the group.

According to the rules of the tournament, however, if New Zealand followed Australia into the second round, Australia would carry no points with them - for the simple reason that they had lost to Pakistan and New Zealand.

If, however, it were the West Indies who followed them, Australia would then carry two points with them - for the simple reason that they had defeated the West Indies.

With New Zealand expected to defeat Scotland to leave both teams on three victories and two losses each, the fight between the West Indies and New Zealand would then be down to net run rate and Australia, deciding that it was in their best interest to keep the West Indies run rate as high as possible, took their own sweet time knocking off the runs after they had played themselves into a position where they could afford to do as they pleased.

In the opinion of many, that was not cricket, the crowd booed and jeered and others slammed the Australians for tarnishing the image of the game.

The Australians, however, did nothing wrong. In fact, as New Zealand's captain Stephen Fleming said afterwards, he would have done exactly what Steve Waugh did - and it is a safe bet that so too would any other captain in the circumstances.

What Waugh did was this: he simply looked at the rules, saw a loop-hole, and used it in an effort to give Australia their best chance to win the World Cup.

Should Waugh and the Australians be castigated? Not at all.

Although the rule was obviously put in place to ensure that the teams play to win all their matches in the first round, it is flawed, and the ones who conceived it and those who accepted it are the ones who should be chastised.

Because of the rule, Zimbabwe, who finished with three victories and two losses, have carried four points from Group A - four more than India who finished second with the same record and a better run rate, and two more than South Africa who finished on top with four victories and one loss.

And because of the rule, New Zealand have carried two points from Group B - two more than Australia who finished in second position because of a better run rate; while South Africa carried only two from Group A, and Pakistan, with the same record of four and one, have carried four - the same number as Zimbabwe.

Apart from the possibility that because of the points carried over, the rule could decide the teams moving into the semi-finals, it apparently served no purpose.

Pakistan, after winning four matches and topping the group, lost to lowly Bangladesh and because of the rule, they lost nothing - neither were they booed or jeered, nor has there been anyone shouting, it is not cricket.