ICC Test rankings April 29, 2012

Chanderpaul No. 1 Test batsman after three years

ESPNcricinfo staff

West Indies batsman Shivnarine Chanderpaul has regained the No.1 ranking for Test batsmen after nearly three years. Chanderpaul was the leading run-scorer in the recently concluded home Test series against Australia with 346 runs at an average of 86.50. Australia, after winning the series 2-0, moved up to No. 3 in the ICC Test rankings, replacing India.

Chanderpaul reached the top after his twin half-centuries in the final Test in Dominica, moving ahead of the South African duo of Jacques Kallis and AB de Villiers. He also passed the 10,000-run mark in the series.

Chanderpaul last attained the No. 1 ranking in July 2008 and held it for seven months. He briefly dropped to No. 2 in February 2009, but returned to the top spot three Tests later, after the fifth Test against England in Trinidad. In May 2009 he lost his spot to Pakistan batsman Younis Khan. Chanderpaul's ranking slipped to as low as No. 15 before he made his way back up.

"It feels good to be back in the top spot in Test cricket," Chanderpaul said. "I am batting well at the moment, and when things are going well for you at the crease, you try to keep going and building and look to make the most of every innings you play."

Australia began their tour of the West Indies on equal points with India. The win gave them a one-point lead over India.

For the full list of rankings, click here.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Andrew on May 2, 2012, 10:19 GMT

    @ jmcilhinney - how long is a piece of string? If the "string" extends from the SL test series, Oz are in good shape. Really how relevant is the Ashes now? A new regime, a new coach(s), new players. The next Ashes will almost odds on be something like 2009 or 2005, (with a different winner!). The 2010/11 Oz ashes campaign, was a disaster which started with a money grabbing tour of India, when the boys should of been playing Shield cricket - handing away home advantage. The selectors then sold out by turning the 1st test squad into a marketing gimmick with a cast of 1000s, (Doherty ahead of Hauritz?), then picking players who ultimately were not fit for duty - Bollinger, Hilfy & Siddle. Great series win for England (no denying, I'd underline that if I could), the fact remains though - despite all I just mentioned - it was 1all with 2 tests to go.

  • John on May 2, 2012, 8:20 GMT

    jasonpete on (May 01 2012, 07:45 AM GMT) So when you say away performances you are basing it purely on the SC ? SA certainly outdid Eng vs Pak and Aus outdid Eng vs SL but how did SA do last time they were in SL? Maybe you could look that up. Winning both at home and away are both taken seriously - or did you realise as you typed that SA have drawn most of their home series and Aus recently drew at home to NZ. If you gain more kudos for winning away series then surely by the same token you lose kudos for not winning series at home?

  • John on May 2, 2012, 1:23 GMT

    @jasonpete, winning away is hard and to be respected but Australia were thrashed by England and drew with NZ at home while SA have been very inconsistent. Why should a team be revered for winning away if they can't win consistently at home? The argument about winning away goes to the greatness of a team. No team who can't win away can be considered great but neither can a team that can't win at home. If you win half your games away but lose half your games at home are you really any better than a team that wins all their games at home but loses all their games away? 50% is 50%. England may have lost 3-0 in UAE but at least they didn't lose 3-1 with three innings defeats at home.

  • Dummy4 on May 1, 2012, 13:06 GMT

    Shiv will go down as argubly the biggest unsung hero in the history of West Indies cricket. He just quietly goes about his business and performs on such a consistant level. His appetite for batting and occupying the crease is a throwback to the type of top-order batman, who bats the innings whilst the rest of the team bats around them. Dravid and Kallis did it brilliantly for their respected countries and Cook and Trott simular type of intent is the reason why England became number 1. As some others have mentioned, maybe the Board should consider hiring Chanders as a part-time Coach, to teach the other players concentration, application and discipline, which is badly needed in the batting line-up. I'd even go as far to have Shiv in my WI all time eleven, which would be only based on the players i've seen in my lifetime.

  • Scott on May 1, 2012, 10:38 GMT

    Why don't all of the West Indies follow his lead and stop batting like a club side?

  • mythily on May 1, 2012, 7:45 GMT

    Valavan,In comparison with England ,SA and Australia away performances are always better and last few series proved it..England (spin weakness )and India (pace weakness) perform good only in their home conditions better (or in other places similar to their home conditions ). Winning at home is not taken seriously compared to winning Away series which SA and Australia doing it consistently.

  • Andrew on May 1, 2012, 7:09 GMT

    @dunger.bob - very good (& cynical) points. I think the "...some boards actively weighting their itineraries towards away series where conditions suit them best..." can be avoided if you use a system whereby the series (say India v SL in SL), can only replace the previous occassion India played in SL. So assuming the BCCI wanted to manipulate the Rankings (totally for the sake of arguement), & not tour Oz again in the next 10 years - the 4nil drubbing stays on their record until such time as they tour again, (no points degradation). Fact is, regardless of where a series is played, most teams struggle away from home most of the time (IMO). Again (for supposition), should India choose to host Bangladesh & Zimbabwe every year for the next 10 years, there will be no gain (except for player stats), as each year the series replaces the last & even if India win say 3nil every year, there will be ZERO net effect. What do you reckon?

  • rob on May 1, 2012, 2:25 GMT

    I'd like to say something about the 'should away wins be worth more points than home wins" debate. I think its fraught with danger and I've got a couple of reasons to think that way. First, I'm not convinced its actually fair. .. is it fair that SA beating Aust. in Aust. (where conditions are relatively similar to SA) is worth the same number of points as India beating England in England where the conditions are very different. Another example might be India beating Sri-Lanka in SL worth the same as NZ beating SL there. ..another reason, and this is a bit cynical, is that we could find some boards actively weighting their itineraries towards away series where conditions suit them best while avoiding series in those places where conditions definitely don't suit them. .. at the moment that is not an issue because there is no extra reward for winning away from home at all. .. I just think that messing around with this will turn out to be a nightmare in the end and not worth the effort.

  • Peter on May 1, 2012, 0:03 GMT

    @ Valavan. Sorry to put a splinter in your judgment, but there is no way that NZ & English pitches are similar to Sth African & Australian. Totally different. @ Samdanh. Enjoyable reading from a true cricket fan, spot on! @ Dravid_Gravitas. India is still on 4th due to its historical credit of winning a collective number of series over a period of time. These are deducted in cycles, but credit where it's due, they got the points over a period of time & so should lose them at the same rate. All rises & falls are gradual, you won't see #1 drop to #8 in a short time. That said, they still have a number of points to defend in the next 18 months or so & will struggle to hold onto their present spot let alone rise even if they win series in close contests. West Indies, New Zealand & Pakistan have the greatest to gain while England will also hit their "wall" of losing points within the next 10 months. Well deserved to Shiv, btw, thumbs up!

  • Dummy4 on April 30, 2012, 23:59 GMT

    Chanderpaul again proving that age is no barrier in batsman's performance............Hence batsmen must not be dropped soley on the basis of age, rather their performance over the past 30 innings in same format must be looked at before dropping them in that particular format.

  • No featured comments at the moment.