KEY POINTS:
Kon Tiki explorer Thor Heyerdahl once described progress as man's ability to complicate simplicity.
Given Heyerdahl was Norwegian, he probably wasn't thinking of the International Cricket Council at the time, although his theory happens to work wonderfully well with the present World Cup and particularly the method devised for separating tied teams.
It's hard to know how many times an organisation should be given the benefit of the doubt for bungling a fairly straightforward process but, on present form, the ICC must soon be facing an upheld finger, if not a couple.
By employing a blanket run-rate provision as not just the first - but the only - criterion for a second-round tie-breaker, they seem to have once again tempted teams to look beyond winning matches, to consider damage control and even manipulation.
Hence, when the New Zealand skipper, Stephen Fleming, was faced with a likely loss against Sri Lanka the other day in Grenada, he chose not to risk all in the hope of achieving the unlikely.
Instead, he effectively conceded defeat, in the interests of minimising damage to his run-rate.
Consider the contrast when Sri Lanka were under the hammer against South Africa earlier in the tournament. Sri Lanka, instead of succumbing to secondary considerations, risked all in the hope of a fairytale finish.
Lasith Malinga proceeded to take four wickets in four balls, and Sri Lanka went within a whisker of pulling off one of the great World Cup upsets.
Cricket followers who remember their World Cup history will likely recall the scenario played out at Manchester in 1999.
That was when Australia tried to graft New Zealand out of the second round by going on a cynical go-slow against the West Indies.
Having dismissed Brian Lara's side for a paltry 110, Australia attempted to minimise damage to the West Indies' run-rate by taking as long as possible over the chase.
They eventually got there in 40.4 overs for the loss of four wickets, courtesy of Steve Waugh's 19 off 73 balls and Michael Bevan's 20 runs off 69.
This was a horribly cynical display in front of a fiercely bipartisan Old Trafford crowd, and proved beyond doubt the dangers of complicating a winner-takes-all methodology and corrupting what always used to be the glorious uncertainty of sport.
Only a couple of years later Fleming himself usurped Waugh's effort after he instructed his players - when a loss against South Africa at Perth became likely - to lose by enough to ensure they didn't collect a consolation bonus point.
This time round there were more than 15,000 Western Australians in attendance as Adam Parore and Daniel Vettori - who required about eight an over for victory - gave the South African death bowlers the dunny-door while accepting defeat without honour.
No one doubts that the ICC need to have a tie-breaking method at this tournament.
The first criterion for teams equal on points at the end of the Super Eights rounds, however, should always be a head-to-head decider; a system that favours the winner of earlier games.
The second criterion should be the number of wins amassed, and the third, if required, might be run-rate or even net run-rate.
But the ways things are shaping at this tournament, the idea of trying to counter-attack - however unlikely - is destined to remain a fanciful notion right up until the semifinals, when run-rates will, mercifully, be taken out of the equation.
Only then can we be certain that both teams - rather than just one - are trying their utmost to win.
