Duke: And thanks to the D/L rules, if SA had not let the last ball before the delay go for no runs, we would’ve won. It was that close.
I’d forgotten that South AFrica went out after in the last world cup as well. They seem cursed with rain results as well (remember the 22 runs off one ball debalce in 1992?).
But the real quesiton is was the result affected by the tides??
I had to leave for work just as they were going off (OK, so I skipped my first train, but it was getting good).
Did anyone notice that two overs beforehand the Boks sent a runner onto the ground to tell the batsmen how many they needed and the umpires (quite rightly) sent the cheating bastard straight back off before he could talk to the batsmen?
It’s easy to blame the rain, but it should be noted that if South Africa were good enough to beat the Windies or NZ (or SL - the D/L system makes it easier on the side batting second) they’d be through by now. Besides, if the umpires took them off the over beforehand (and on TV the rain looked heavy enough to do so), SA would have lost by four runs.
You’d think that by now the Boks would realise that splitting the points isn’t always good enough.
So, who had odds before the competition that the only African team through to the next stage (and probably the semis) would be Kenya?
F U C K !
Rather than blaming anyone else, I would blame the organisers. BOTH WI and SA are adversely affected by rain to the point they don’t qualify.
Tentatively,
Pool A (points carried forward)
1)Australia 12
2)India 8
3)England 3
Pool B
1)Sri Lanka 7
2)New Zealand 4
3)Kenya 10
Which I think will end up like this
Australia 24
India 16
Sri Lanka 11
England 11
New Zealand 8
Kenya 10
—> Aus vs. Eng & Ind-SrL
----> Aus vs. Ind 
—> ???
How do you get those scores? I was under the impression that there were no bonus points (so why 4 for a win? Beyond me), so that would make:
Aus 8
Kenya 8
India 4
Sri Lanka 4
New Zealand 0
Zimbabwe (who I feel will beat the Pakis) 0
I’d then narrow that down to a final table of:
Aus 20
Sri Lanka 12
India 12
Zimbabwe 8
Kenya 8
NZ 0
This would mean Semis of Australia/Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe having qualified over Kenya by beating them) and India/Sri Lanka, and a final of Australia/Sri Lanka.
From this link, a team carries forward 4 points for winning against a qualifying opponent, 1 point for winning against an eliminated opponent and 1/2 point for tie/no-result against an eliminated opponent (I missed this last part earlier)
So,
Australia (win Ind, Eng + win rest 4) == 12
India (win Eng, win rest except Aus) == 8
England (lose Aus Ind, win 3 of rest) == 3
Sri Lanka (win NZ, lose Kenya, win rest 3, tie 1) == 7.5
Kenya (win SL, NZ, win rest except SA,WI) == 10
New Zealand (lose SL, Ken, win rest) == 4
While Zimbabwe’s a fine team and Pak’s down, I just don’t see Zim convincingly beating Pak unless Pak make some major blunders. Sorry.
You’re right about the points - I hadn’t seen that before. Cricinfo doesn’t seem to mention those points rules.
Zimbabwe don’t need to beat Pakistan convincingly - they only have to edge them, and I think that the Pakis heads may go down if they don’t get a lot of success very quickly, which is what they need if they’re to qualify on run rate.
Dunno what the odds on Kenya making it to the Super Six were, but Blue Square in England has only moved them from 1,000-1 to win the Cup at the start to 250-1 now.
Pakistan are a big confidence team — a lot like England. They’re very capable of losing the plot.
And they’ve lost three wickets already, for 73. Poor Inzy got out for 3. 
Oh, and it’s raining. Great.
All the sides I like to watch (South Africa, Pakistan, West Indies, England) are either out or going out.
Which means a wash-out leads to Zim getting 2 points and going ahead of England.
I’m not sure I like how things are turning out.
There really is no justice is there? England do the decent thing, and go out. Australia behave in their usual charming manor, play in Zimbabwe and go through. Along with Zimbabwe.
Pah!
Zim vs Pak …abandoned.
Zim through.
Justice is blind (and wet).
Well no one can accuse this tournament of being boring…
So, England out after the abandonment of the Zimbabwe/Pakistan match. And so it turns out that the ICC’s ruling that the Eng/Zim match was a “forfeit” and not an “abandoned match” was crucial after all. I’m sure that there will be a lot of finger-pointing in the English media, this time deservedly so.
Like owlstretchingtime, I’m puzzled by Australia’s decision to play in Zimbabwe and even more so by the lack of comment that decision provoked. I’m glad now that the ECB, for once in its heretofore brief life, put its money where its mouth is, even though it probably cost their advance in the tournament.
Ken 58-7 off 22 against WI’s 246. Something tells me Kenya might not win this one.
So it’s
1)Australia 12
2)India 8
3)Zimbabwe 3.5
1)Sri Lanka 7.5
2)Kenya 10
3)New Zealand 4
I haven’t been completely following that angle, but why is that a puzzling decision ?
Gyan9, it’s been a huge issue in the UK, and not elsewhere. Sections of the UK press have whipped themselves into a frenzy about it.
The Australian approach seems to be this: (1) the team takes the board’s advice on security issues. (2) Australian foreign policy is not evaluated by its cricket team. Unless told not to play by the government, we play.
And I see the Granuad’s already calling it “The Super Four”.
hawthorne, that’s part of what puzzled me. The situation seemed very similar to Sri Lanka in 1995/96, when Australia did not play.
I thought it was interesting that Michael Holding is arguing (on Wisden.com) that teams which pull out of matches in the World Cup should be scotched from the competition–I wonder if he would have applied that to the West Indies in 1995/96, when they also did not play in Colombo?
I also wouldn’t be so fast to call the second stage “the Super Four.” Kenya has a real chance of making the semi-finals, incredible as that may seem. With 10 points going into the Super Six, they’ll get 14 if they beat Zimbabwe (not a stretch considering that Zim’s only points in this tourney have been on the field against Holland and Namibia, by forfeit against England, and by rain-out against Pakistan). Zimbabwe could not then overtake them, and New Zealand only could if they won all three of their Super Six matches, including one against Australia.
Latest news from England–Nasser Hussain has stepped down as one-day captain. Marcus Trescothick and Adam Hollioake are being mooted as potential successors. Personally I think the ECB will go for Alec Stewart as an interim captain while Trescothick is groomed for the captaincy on a more permanent basis, unless The Gaffer decides to retire immediately.