Aaj Logo

Published 06 May, 2011 02:55pm

ODI Rankings: Ajmal vaults into 3rd position

The 33-year-old from Faisalabad, who took six wickets in the series which Pakistan won by 3-2, has climbed 16 places and now sits in third position, just five points behind Zimbabwe’s left-arm spinner Ray Price.

Saeed’s rise means the top four spots are now occupied by spinners with New Zealand’s Daniel Vettori leading the field and England’s Graeme Swann sitting in fourth position.

Saeed’s jump also means he has now become Pakistan’s highest-ranked bowler with Captain Shahid Afridi dropping out of the top 10 after a disappointing series by his high standards.

In the Reliance ICC Player Rankings for ODI batsmen, West Indies opener Lendl Simmons has rocketed 150 places to 67th position after finishing as the leading run-getter in the series with 279 runs at just under 70.

Hafeez, who was the second most successful batsman in the series with 267 runs, has improved his ranking by 17 places and is now in 49th position. Misbah-u-Haq’s series contribution of 184 runs has helped him move up three places to 31st spot while Umar Akmal has achieved a career-best ranking of 23rd after rising four places.

Hafeez’s all-round performance in the series has also helped him become the sixth-ranked all-rounder in the world. His 267 runs and six wickets in the series have helped him climb six places in the Reliance ICC Player Rankings for ODI all-rounders.

In the Reliance ICC ODI Championship table, Pakistan had started the series with a difference of 35 ratings points relative to West Indies. This gap had meant Pakistan was expected to win the series convincingly. As such, because the rankings are weighted to reflect this difference, Pakistan’s failure to win comfortably has meant it has dropped points.

Despite losing the series 3-2, the West Indies has earned four ratings points which puts it five points clear of ninth-ranked Bangladesh, while Pakistan has dropped three ratings points to open the gap with fifth-placed England by five points.

Read Comments