Trevor Chesterfield

It is a long time since there has been an opportunity to sing 'God Defend New Zealand' and although the memory was a little rusty on the correct sequence of the words it did not really matter too much. At 10.30pm and the murky light of a Scottish twilight deepening, no one really minded how it was sung in a side street bar off Princess Street. It was the thought which counted.

New Zealand were through to the Super Sixes and life in the Scottish capital had taken on a euphoric hue: all was well in the World Cup tournament 1999 as the six over mid-wicket by Chris Cairns settled the issue. Forget the big upset at Northampton later in the afternoon where Bangladesh beat Pakistan: it was so obviously contrived that no one really believed the Pakistan platitudes over an episode which smacked of a certain misplaced sanctimony.

After all, England had already been unceremoniously evicted from their own party and Sri Lanka had long lost the crown they won with such deserving grace in 1996. This time around they had developed an attitude problem and it showed as their batting crumbled as easy as feta cheese.

For the Kiwis, however, it was far different. They had, despite some Australian spite, made the World Cup Super Six stage: a little triumph which pushed out the West Indies on a superior net run rate; not a system to please every one, but controversial or not, the victory over Scotland in 17.4 overs had lifted the lads from the Shaky Isles into a position in which they even had one over Australia in terms of points carried forward.

On Saturday Bob Woolmer, South Africa's coach, had placed his good housekeeping stamp of approval on the format and the small print; Brian Lara sniffed at its esoteric message of how, what where and why, and this after Australia had seemingly dragged them into the second phase through laboured batting modelled on Geoff Boycott's school of batting theories.

South Africa's coach Bob Woolmer may have placed his stamp of approval on this year's World Cup net run rate format but there are those who have serious questions whether the formula is a fair way to decide pecking order when teams are locked on points.

Which, if you listen carefully to the arguments from the Kiwis, Australians, West Indies and even the long-faced English, you can guarantee radical changes when the tournament is held in South Africa in 2003. If you catch their drift they do not like the net run rate at all.

Whether the International Cricket Council is prepared to ditch the system is another matter. Steve Rixon, the New Zealand coach has, grumbled about it not being equitable and he is not alone.

He is not impressed at all the way fellow Australian Steve Waugh, the Aussie captain, was able to play a type of footsie with the system by batting as slow possible when it suited their aims to manipulate the run rate. The idea had been to eliminate New Zealand: their qualifying for the Super Sixes meant they would go through with two points the Australians none. Had the Windies qualified the Aussies would been the beneficiary of two points from the win over Brian Lara's side.

As Woolmer admitted, South Africa knew what they had to do to qualify for the semi-finals: winning two matches is a mite tougher than one. They might fancy their chances with the Kiwis, but beating either Pakistan or Australia is no so easy.

Lara has advanced the argument before that manipulation is not at all preferable yet the system allows for such strategies, especially in rain-affected games. Not that the New Zealand captain Stephen Fleming remained silent on the subject either.

``I knew what they (Australia) were trying to and I guess I would have done the same if we had been in a similar position,'' he said after beating Scotland.

A reflective, if ebullient South African coach felt the system was by far the best. And this came after the defeat by Zimbabwe in Chelmsford. ``I hope they keep it as it is,'' he said.

England's failure to get into the second round can be attributed to their run rate - or lack of it.

One theory put forward has been to change the net run rate to a net wickets/runs format on overs faced. It would have given South Africa a net difference of +8.27 and England somewhere around +6.18; India would have qualified ahead of Zimbabwe while Kenya was marginally ahead of Sri Lanka. A list of which teams would have reached the Super Six under this format and their NWRO (net wickets/runs overs) will appear in the next column.

What had been surprising in some cases in the first round, was how teams would rather accept playing on in the murky cold gloom than go into a second day and the possibility of invoking the need for the dreaded Duckworth/Lewis system. It has been viewed with resent by some World Cup captains because of its often uncompromising sliding run rate scale.

Projecting totals based on theory is one thing but putting them to practical use is another, despite arguments that it has been scientifically researched over several years. Some years ago there was a scientific theory, along with a paper on ballistics and presented in all seriousness, of how swing and reverse swing were optical illusions.

It has become the farce of the World Cup, almost as ludicrous as an Inzamam-ul-Haq call for a quick single and Pakistan's highly dubious defeat by Bangladesh: the release of the official World Cup song. Making its entrance when it did, the day after England had their invitation to the remainder of the tournament revoked because of shoddy batting, is inviting the sort of ridicule those running (or should that read 'ruining?') the tournament should expect.

There had been a prior warning that this was likely to happen. Not that it bothered the organisers, they went ahead, quite oblivious to the all too obvious pitfalls.

But, like the Punch and Judy show it has become, the words are spun out and horror of horrors, not a mention of the word cricket in the whole terrible message. Surely they 'disorganisers' could have asked Sir Tim Rice to provide few suitable lyrics. After the banal 'anthem' of 1992 it is surprising organisers wanted a song of any sort.

There have been those who asked, after the event of course, what the odds were on Bangladesh beating Pakistan (possibly 500/1) which are good odds, and even a mischievous hint of 'what a killing the Mumbai bookies made' was heard in far off Edinburgh.

But after watching the video replays of the highlights (about three times at the last count) there is a suggestion of some Pakistan collusion at Northampton. After all, Inzamam almost sitting on his bat declining to run and watching Saeed Anwar 'sacrificed for the cause of Asian brotherhood,' as well as Ijaz Ahmed walking down the pitch and chopping an inside edge into his stumps, was a little too contrived.

Okay, no one can quibble over the two lbw decisions, not even Inzamam is that clumsy, but questions can be asked about the hara-kiri run outs of Azhar and Saqlain.

So, why does it not come as a major surprise that Bangladesh won? That is the point: there are many who are pleased they did.