Jansen's Double Crown and Abhishek's Return: Why the ICC Rankings Raise More Questions Than the Data Answers

You can write two names in the same column on a whiteboard — Marco Jansen and Abhishek Sharma. But when you start putting the ranking arithmetic on that same whiteboard, the gap between them becomes clear. For Jansen, that gap was decided in 22 balls of a Test match — his second-innings spell against Australia delivered the win that placed him simultaneously on the No. 1 Test bowler and No. 1 Test all-rounder chairs. For Abhishek Sharma, the same gap collapsed into a 35-ball century — 113 off 38 balls against New Zealand, and his return to the top of the T20I batting list. Both stories are true. But the question is: should both be read the same way? In my experience, the biggest danger of a rankings bulletin is that it prints every rise in the same ink.

Over the past few years, whenever the ICC weekly rankings arrive, my habit is to check three things first: the ranking date, the points margin, and how many matches of that format the movement rests on. That habit formed in 2026 when I built a twelve-minute breakdown of Washington Sundar's powerplay spell for IPL season 10 — eleven matches, a 6.86 economy, and a final lost by one run. In that video I noted against every number the sample size it came from. The same discipline is needed with rankings news, because a Test ranking's weight rests on the match you just watched, while a T20I ranking can put you on top after a three-match series.

Jansen's double crown matters because it comes from two different skills in the same match — ball and bat — and in Test cricket that combination is considered the hardest. For South Africa this is not just one player's rise; it fills the gap that has always existed between their pace attack and their lower order. When a bowler like Dale Steyn calls Jansen 'the best cricketer in the world', that is praise, but for me the most interesting part is the basis on which it was given — one match, one series, or a full cycle of performance. The ranking arithmetic does not answer that question, and that is where the reporting responsibility begins.

Abhishek Sharma's return should be read differently. A 35-ball century is an extraordinary event in T20I cricket, but it is also worth remembering that Ishan Kishan took the No. 1 chair from him in July this year. The top spot changing hands twice in two months shows that stability at No. 1 in T20I rankings means something very different from Test rankings — here one brilliant innings can lift you up, and two poor ones can bring you down. That is not a weakness, it is the nature of the format. But it is the journalist's job to tell the reader that, otherwise they will link the change to form fluctuations and draw the wrong conclusion.

There is another aspect of rankings bulletins that often gets missed — the imbalance between teams. In this report, while Jansen and Abhishek are the main story, Temba Bavuma's 179, Harry Brook's rise, the entries of Scott Boland and Simon Harmer, and the ODI movements of Ben Duckett and Shaheen Afridi are also recorded. This is where the real test of rankings reporting lies: can you place every rise in the context of its format, its sample, and its competition, or are you presenting everything in one list? For me, Bavuma's 179 is the same kind of data as Jansen's double crown — but the difference between them is that Bavuma's innings comes in the context of a series tied at 1-1, while Jansen's rise came from a decisive win. The rankings weigh both on the same scale, but the stories are different.

I learned from thirty-one days in Russia that a subtitle can be a bridge or a blind spot. The same applies to rankings news. When you write in Hindi that 'Jansen reached No. 1', the reader does not know how many points that rise represents or what is needed to defend it next week. The real bridge in rankings is built when you give the points margin, the ranking date, and the context of that week's matches together — otherwise it remains just a headline that goes stale next week.

A factual omission should also be noted here. Many rankings reports give neither the ranking week date, nor the points, nor the match report the rise came from. In this report too, the match figures are attributed to the article itself, not to an independent scorecard. This seems small, but when a reader wants to cite it, they cannot verify it. In my experience, rankings news is most useful when date, points and source are all clear — because rankings change every week, and their value lies in their time frame.

A counter-intuitive angle is also necessary. Jansen's double crown and Abhishek's return both came in the same week, but their impact is not the same. A No. 1 Test all-rounder ranking is built and held during a series, while a No. 1 T20I batter ranking can be built by one innings and put in danger by the next. Writing rankings news without understanding this difference is like treating possession percentage as a measure of victory in football — the number is right, but the story is incomplete. For me, the biggest danger of rankings reporting is that it gives every rise equal importance, while on the field every rise has a different price.

Now, looking ahead. For Jansen, the next test is how long he can hold this double crown, because staying on top of the Test rankings requires playing regularly and taking wickets. For Abhishek, the question is different: can he hold the No. 1 T20I chair for more than one series, or will this chair also change hands in two months? One firm prediction of mine is that the next ICC rankings update will see another change in the T20I batting list, while Jansen's place in the Test bowling list can remain secure for at least one series — provided he keeps playing. This prediction can be tested in the coming weeks, and I stake my byline on it.

The biggest lesson I learned from empty stadiums was that when the crowd goes silent, you hear the fielders' calls — 'inside', 'keeper's', 'no run'. The same should be done with rankings news: strip away the noise and listen to the voices that tell the real story — points, dates, sample size, and format. Jansen and Abhishek are both in the right place at the right time, but fitting their stories into the same mould would be unfair to them. Next time you read a rankings headline, ask: which match did this rise come from, how many points is it, and what is needed to defend it next week? That question turns rankings from news into analysis.