Starc Returns to No.1 in ICC Rankings, but Jansen’s All-Round Rise Is the Bigger Signal

When Mitchell Starc returned to No.1 in the ICC Test bowling rankings after taking nine wickets in Cape Town, the headline wrote itself: the fast bowler was back at the top. Yet the table becomes more revealing when it is watched for longer than the headline cycle. Jasprit Bumrah, Starc and Marco Jansen have all appeared in the No.1 conversation within a short period. The name is moving because the gap is narrow.

That is the real story of this ICC rankings update. Starc’s achievement is genuine, but its meaning has limits. His nine wickets in the decisive Test, compared with Jansen’s three, created the immediate swing. One match changed the order. At the same time, Jansen retained the No.1 position among Test all-rounders and reached a career-high rating. The headline chose the bowling crown; the more durable signal was hidden in the all-rounder table.

A qualification is necessary. Some details in the available ICC material appear internally inconsistent, particularly the references to the match winner and the series result. This report therefore treats the individual ranking movements as the usable data, while considering the series result and certain captaincy or role descriptions pending independent verification.

One match, three No.1s

ICC player rankings convert performance into points. Recent matches, opposition quality and format-specific weighting all matter. The system is not a simple average, yet a major performance can have a rapid effect when leading players are closely grouped. Starc’s nine-wicket match produced precisely that kind of movement. Jansen’s three wickets were insufficient to keep him ahead in the specialist bowling table.

It would be premature, however, to read the result as a final verdict on the world’s best Test bowler. Starc had previously taken the top spot from Bumrah, then lost it when Jansen moved ahead, and has now regained it. The sequence suggests a tightly packed summit. One five-wicket haul in the next Test, or one quiet match from a leading bowler, could alter the order again.

Based on my years of watching matches, rankings often capture the most visible performance without fully describing a player’s total value. Starc’s nine-wicket display is a good example. His angle with the new ball, reverse swing with the older ball and ability to take wickets when pressure is highest are real strengths. The No.1 label will carry greater weight only if the performance is repeated across the next series.

At present, the top of Test bowling is less a fixed summit than a sensitive zone. Turning a one-match win into a lasting claim requires multi-series consistency.

Jansen is not the loser in this story

Jansen’s position is more interesting because his bowling ranking slipped while his all-rounder standing strengthened. According to the ICC update, he remains the No.1 Test all-rounder with a career-best rating. Calling this simply a decline in bowling would be to read only half the player.

An all-rounder is assessed through a different equation. Three wickets in a match may look modest beside Starc’s nine, but a half-century, a useful partnership and the availability of additional overs can alter a team’s structure. Jansen’s value lies in that combination. He is not merely another fast bowler; he can turn a four-bowler plan into a five-bowling-option attack while lengthening the lower order.

This exposes a less discussed feature of rankings. A one-place loss in the specialist bowling table does not create an equivalent loss in the all-rounder table. Jansen’s combined batting and bowling contribution accumulates differently. If his batting continues to develop while his bowling retains a reliable wicket-taking base, he becomes more difficult to replace than a player who offers excellence in only one discipline.

For South Africa, that matters to balance. Jansen, Simon Harmer, Kagiso Rabada, Wiaan Mulder, Aiden Markram and Ryan Rickelton all feature in the movement described by the update. Read together, those changes suggest activity across batting, pace, spin and all-round options. It may indicate a group whose roles are becoming clearer, although home conditions and the small sample prevent a definitive conclusion.

Harmer and the weight of conditions

Simon Harmer’s six-wicket performance exposes both the strength and the limitation of the rankings system. The available account says that a six-wicket second-innings haul at Newlands lifted him nine places to No.7, one position ahead of Rabada. On an ageing surface in the fourth or fifth innings, off-spin can become more influential. Footmarks, reduced bounce and batting fatigue create assistance that may not exist on day one.

The performance remains important. A match-winning spell in difficult conditions is part of any bowler’s skill set. But the ranking does not separately discount a spell according to pitch, innings or opposition quality. Six wickets remain six wickets. Harmer’s rise should therefore be celebrated without being treated as proof of an unchanged standing in neutral conditions.

The relationship between Player of the Match awards and ranking points is useful here. The award identifies the decisive story of a match; the ranking carries that performance into a longer table. They are not the same judgment. Harmer’s spell was highly valuable to South Africa, but repeating that impact in a different overseas Test would be a separate test.

A pitch can give a bowler an extra voice, while the rankings do not always distinguish that voice from permanent ability. Harmer’s rise needs context as well as applause.

Pakistan, India and New Zealand’s losing risers

Several Pakistan players moved up in the ODI rankings during a home tri-series. The rises associated with Shaheen Afridi, Haris Rauf and Fakhar Zaman show how a cluster of players can gain ground when a series provides enough matches and opportunities. It does not mean that every player has suddenly entered a new performance tier. Familiar conditions, opposition quality and match volume all influence the movement.

The India–New Zealand T20I example offers a different lesson. India won in New Zealand, yet some New Zealand players still rose in the rankings. There is no contradiction. A team result measures collective performance, while an individual ranking responds to runs, wickets and match impact. A player from the losing side can perform well enough to gain points.

The available list places Shreyas Iyer seventh in the T20I batting ranking, but the associated captaincy description requires independent verification. Small errors in role labels weaken a report, particularly when one release combines Test, ODI and T20I tables. Names, roles and formats must be checked separately.

Azmatullah Omarzai’s position at No.3 among T20I all-rounders is one of the more durable signals in the update. Afghanistan’s domestic system is not as deep as India’s or Australia’s, yet its players continue to make international impact. Omarzai’s ranking is a visible result of that pathway. The next challenge is maintaining the position across different conditions and stronger opposition.

Rankings, transparency and reporting responsibility

ICC rankings releases are ready-made material for newsrooms. One number, one player and one quick headline can travel instantly. “Starc back at No.1” works for broadcast graphics, social posts and endorsement narratives. It can also encourage audiences to forget that a ranking is a moving calculation rather than a final verdict.

More methodological context would improve the release. If the ICC explained the match sample, recency weighting, opposition ratings and the influence of home and away conditions, readers could interpret each rise more intelligently. At present, the audience often receives the output—who moved up and who moved down—without seeing enough of the calculation behind it.

The available material also contains conflicting signals about South Africa’s series triumph and the Cape Town result. The match and series context may have been merged in the supplied account, or the final Test may have been played after the series outcome was already settled. Until another reliable source confirms the sequence, firm conclusions should be avoided. Citing a primary source does not remove the need for verification.

I have often seen a small ranking story decide the narrative of an entire day in a press box. Yet the pitch usually contains a longer story than the table. Jansen retaining the all-rounder crown, South Africa producing several risers across categories and New Zealand players gaining ground despite defeat offer a broader reading than Starc’s return alone.

What comes next

Three questions matter in the next Test cycle. Can Starc repeat this level across successive series? Can Jansen retain the all-rounder No.1 position while recovering ground in specialist bowling? And can South Africa’s group movement survive conditions outside home territory?

The ranking crown belongs to Starc for now, but its shine should not be mistaken for permanence. Every new spell can redraw the previous week’s table. The most useful way to read No.1 is as the beginning of the next examination, not the end of the argument.