The ICC decided some time ago to fine tune the World Cup schedule, specifically the Super 8 match-ups. A top seeded team in a group will be considered at the ‘#1’ team in that group, even if they are second on points. For example, if South Africa top group A, Australia will still be ‘A1’ for the purposes of figuring who is playing whom and when, in the Super8s. The only change to this will be if one of the ‘minnows’ makes it through. Then it will replace the team it has eliminated. (For example, Scotland will become A1 if they oust Australia. Ya, right).
The reasoning would seem sound- this will be a big help for the press, media in general, broadcasters, administrators and travelling fans to plan their schedules. For example- again, you’d think Australia will make it to the second stage, but now don’t have to wait to see where they stand in the group to know when and where they will play once they are through.
Yet, given that this change to the schedule (from its original generic one) has been made on the ICC site without them, apparently, offering any explicit reason, it will come across as predictive rather than practical; nonsensical rather than sensible. Also, shouldn’t this have been decided much, much earlier for it to fully serve the purposes mentioned above?
The reasoning would seem sound- this will be a big help for the press, media in general, broadcasters, administrators and travelling fans to plan their schedules. For example- again, you’d think Australia will make it to the second stage, but now don’t have to wait to see where they stand in the group to know when and where they will play once they are through.
Yet, given that this change to the schedule (from its original generic one) has been made on the ICC site without them, apparently, offering any explicit reason, it will come across as predictive rather than practical; nonsensical rather than sensible. Also, shouldn’t this have been decided much, much earlier for it to fully serve the purposes mentioned above?
