Sure, Simon, I know and knew you were only asking. But, you know, I like to reason about these arguments. And I know you like to reply, that's why I started, LOL :-) Serously now, I apologize whether I was rude or offensive or anything. Not my intention, it was probably because my English is not that sophisticated. Sorry.
That said, let's go on, if you like:
1) Your "viceversa" attempt has no logic. You wouldn't be eliminated by him. You would be eliminated by the 4 who did better than you in your group. You met them.
2) The results of the 2 groups are comparable now less than ever, because a different number of games were played. As a result the sums of averages of the groups are not the same, like it should be (50% x 8 players = 400% each group), but it's: group A = 391% and group B = 410% (Try! Sum them!). So no surprise that some player of group B has a better average of his equal-ranked player of group A. There are more "percentage points" in group B now.
..That said, even if you'll make your analisys at the end of the round robin, when sums will be equal and mandatorily = 400, you can't make speculations like that. Yes, I wasn't serious when I told "it should be group B to have only 3 players qualified". I added a ":-)". The groups were made by time-zone criteria, so no clue they're balanced. Who could say that best 8 players are not ALL in Group A? Who could say vice-versa? You can't exclude all the 8 (or 7 or 6) best players are in the same group. Nobody can say whether they're balanced or not. Nobody can't say anything about it. That's why comparisons between the 2 groups make no sense. They could be heavily unbalanced.
You will can say something about it after the quartefinals, when there will be A-players against B-players. Then we'll see which group was the best. Unfortunately, too late.
Vdip Cup Standings
ahead of him. 
)
)
)
)
)