Chappell’s amazing Kallis snub

2012-01-30 14:05

Rob Houwing, Sport24 chief writer

Cape Town - Former Australia captain Ian Chappell has delivered his verdict on the greatest modern Test batsman ... while not giving South Africa’s Jacques Kallis the benefit of a single word of mention in his appraisal.

Chappell, 68, widely regarded as an astute television and print commentator but often considered in these parts to hand South African cricket laurels sparingly or not at all, hands the accolade to retired West Indies legend Brian Lara in his latest ESPN Cricinfo column titled: “Who’s the pick of the modern greats?”

But he has narrowed the candidates down to just three: Lara, compatriot Ricky Ponting and Indian maestro Sachin Tendulkar, describing the trio as “the three most dominant batsmen of the (modern) era”.

But Kallis, whose batting statistics glow with at least equal strength alongside those players, and boasts way superior bowling figures to any of them, is bypassed altogether, with Chappell not even taking the time to explain the Proteas star’s omission.

 In reaching his pro-Lara verdict, Chappell says: “There’s no doubt Ponting has resurrected his career and provided himself with an opportunity to add to his glittering (career) record.

“He’ll never reach the statistical peak of Tendulkar, but while the Little Master continues to stumble with the defining (100th Test and ODI) century in sight, often because of a mental aberration, Ponting impresses with the strength of his mind.

“Nevertheless, if you told me I could pick just one from that trio I’d take Lara. I loved the way he played spin bowling and I admired his determination to always do it ‘my way’.”

There is a school of thought that Chappell has harboured residual bitterness over being part of the Aussie side famously whitewashed 4-0 in South Africa in 1969/70.

*Here in player alphabetical order, are the key Test statistics of the three players discussed by Chappell, but also including Kallis:

Player Tests Runs 100s Ave Wickets  Ave Catches

Jacques Kallis 150 12 260 41 57.02 274 32.51 180
Brian Lara 131 11 953 34 52.88 0 0 164
Ricky Ponting 162 13 200 41 53.44 5 54.6 193
Sachin Tendulkar 188 15 470 51 55.44 45 54.33 113


  • Slang - 2012-01-30 14:20

    Boks! (soos in karton)

      Phil - 2012-01-30 14:40

      Well Chloe long as he is bothering the sheep ...he is leaving the babies alone.

      Topsy - 2012-01-30 15:20

      YAY 4 ONCE - SA CRICKET FANS IN UNISON . . . chappell u wanka !

      Nick - 2012-01-30 15:54

      Rob - Ian Chappell is quite CORRECT. And - I am a South African - one capable of acknowledging sporting greatness in other nations and their players too... Firstly - he was talking about the modern game's greatest Test batsman - so any reference to being an all-rounder or Kallis' bowling stats - have NO relevance at all to his discussion. It's as a batsman only. Secondly - yes - while Kallis has notched up a high number of Test centuries - not until last year's series vs India - could he ever score a Test double ton. To date - he only has 2. Lara has 9. Ricky Ponting has 6 or 7 - ditto Tendulkar. Brian Lara has a couple of TRIPLE centuries too - and the world's record Test score - 400 not out, a record he also held previously (375) before Matthew Hayden eclipsed him with his 380... It's the ability to score the really big double hundreds and more - on pitches and conditions around the world - that set's the greatest apart from the really good... And Lara; Tendulkar and Ponting have ALL scored many more Test double centuries than Kallis - and they have scored them home AND away throughout their careers - Kallis' 2 are only at home - and only scored right towards the end of his career...... Kallis is definitely 4th out of the 4 players mentioned by Ian Chappell - only one-eyed SA supporters can't see this... So - yes - Lara is most certainly a MUCH better batsman than Kallis - ditto Tendulkar and Ponting.

      npretorius2 - 2012-01-30 16:04

      @Nick, I also agree that Brian Lara is the greatest test batsman in modern times. But the fact that he doesn't even mention Kallis as a contender is what gets under most peoples skin. Objectively I think it should be 1) Brian Lara, 2) Sachin Tendulkar, 3) Jacques Kallis.

      Willem - 2012-01-30 16:21


      Willem - 2012-01-30 16:22

      @Nick suck on that GO KALLIS

      tyron.rees - 2012-01-30 16:23

      @Nick. Firstly let me agree with you completely that Lara probably is the most dominant (but possibly not the best) batsment out of the lot but I can not agree with the fact that Kallis is not even mentioned. First of all he has a much higher test batting average than all other three candidates. Kallis has also played the majority of his innings in the beginning of his career under a struggling team, the amount of pressure on him to succeed then due to our poor test make up far outweighed the pressure put on any of the other 3 batsmen (e.g. ponting batted after the likes of heyden and slater and before steve waugh stepped in). Another point is that the majority of Kallis' innings were in SA - a much "harder" place to bat when compared to India / Australia / West Indies (Average score over the past 10years, all grounds in all tests per wicket as per cricinfo: Aus 35.83, Ind 37.98, WI 35.24 SA 32.52). It is a massive difference - for Kallis to have a better average while batting in harder conditions is monumental. If you look at South Africa's cricket history, we have very few double centuries anyway - probably owning to team dynamics, playing strategy and playing conditions. Lastly you have to consider Kallis' bowling - it requires more effort in the field which effects his mental and physical strength while batting. For Kallis to have a better average than the three candidates while putting so much extra effort in in the field, must mean he is a better batsman.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 16:30

      Tyron , what has Kallis's bowling got tp do with his rating as a TEST Batsman ?

      Nick - 2012-01-30 16:32

      @ npretorius2 - Remember - the subject of Mr. Chappell's discussion was "most dominant" - Kallis has hardly ever dominated an attack - certainly not to the extent that Messrs Lara, Tendulkar, and Ponting have over their careers - hence the fact that, of the 4 - Kallis has, by far, the lowest strike-rate... Secondly - one cannot get away from the fact - that Kallis has only scored 2 double centuries in his entire career - and only in the last 14 months at that - and BOTH - at home. Lara has 9; Tendulkar and Ponting 6 or 7 (I think it's now 7) - scored home and away. Hey - if we wanted to look at Test batsmen who have dominated attacks in the modern era - Virender Sehwag and Adam Gilchrist would be higher on any list than Kallis. Viru has a Test ave of over 51 - scored at a strike-rate of over 81 - Kallis couldn't even manage a strike-rate like that in ODI's... Facts. Gilchrist himself pulverised attacks - with much, much more dominance than Kallis has ever played in any form of international cricket.. Kallis has been a slow accumulator of runs all his career - not a dominator (hence his parcity of double centuries) - the 3 batsmen Ian Chappell mentioned have dominated attacks - and scored many double centuries and more.

      Grant - 2012-01-30 16:42

      @Nick - If you take AVERAGES into account, then more big scores equates to lower consistency. Let me explain - assume 3 batsmen all average 50 over 10 innings. Assume in 3 innings resulted in scores of exactly 50. 1st guy gets 100 twice, and 200 once (plus the 2 fifties)...means that for his average to be 50, he will score ZERO in his other FIVE innings. 2nd guy gets 100 once and 200 once (plus the 2 fifties)...means that for his average to be 50, he will score 17 in each of his remaining SIX innings. 3rd guy gets 100 once, no 200's (plus the 2 fifties)...means that for his average to be 50, he will score 43 in each of his remaining seven innings. So who's the better batsman? The one who makes 3 big scores with 5 failures, or the guy who makes 1 big score but hardly ever scores poorly? Considering that "consistency" is the attribute most commonly attributed to champions, I fail to see how big scores (at the expense of more frequent failures) makes anybody a better performer.

      Grant - 2012-01-30 16:43

      PS - I amended my figures to show 2 fifties each instead of 3, otherwise player 1 would have needed negative scores to keep his average ;)

      Chumscrubber1 - 2012-01-30 16:53

      Hate it but I have to agree with Nick.

      Hugh - 2012-01-30 17:01

      @nick, Kallis has a higher batting average, which to me says he dominates just fine, and he is a Test Batsman, go read the comparisons again before jumping on your rocking horse.

      brendonml - 2012-01-30 17:09

      @ Nick, while Kallis doesnt have the huge scores, it makes his batting average even more impressive! Lara had a few triple hundreds to bolster his average. For a large part of Kallis' career he had to come against the likes of Mcgrath, Warne etc. while Ponting did not have to come against his own team mates.

      Nick - 2012-01-30 17:09

      @ Grant and Tyron - yes - you gents make very valid points.. However, Grant - if you want to talk of a batsman having to bat in a struggling team - no-one has had that struggle more than Brian Charles Lara.. Secondly - we were never really a "struggling" team - yes there were times our top-order batting was very mediocre - but not quite consistenly "struggling".. Yes - so Kallis did occupy the crease and score "more consistent" runs - as I mentioned in another post - an accumulator. You must remember - Ian Chappell was talking about "most dominant" - and a slow accummulator of runs does not define a dominant batsman. So - yes - while Kallis accumulated his runs (slowly - he has the slowest strike-rate of the mentioned batsmen) - he hardly ever dominated an attack.. See my previous post re Sehwag and Gilchrist on that issue too - much, much more dominant batsmen than Kallis. @ Willem - yes mate - I get your "average" argument - however - when one plods along at a strike-rate significantly below 50 and occupy the crease - a batsman of that class (of whick Kallis is - I'm not decrying his pedigree) - he would, naturally, have a very good average (see Grant's examples re consistency).. If Kallis scored at a higher strike-rate - he would not have scored that many centuries (and had that average).. Again - Chappell spoke of "DOMINATING" an attack - and Kallis is way down the list when it comes to his dominating attacks or flaying the bowling to all corners in a Test match...

      npretorius2 - 2012-01-30 17:33

      @Nick, I agree with most of your points. And I agree that Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar are great players. The matter of the fact is this article is not about who actually is the best Test Batsman of the modern era, but rather who was omitted from short list because of some old hasbeen who didn't bother to take him into account because of his personal dislike of everything South African and English. Old Ian Botham should have bl*%*ksimed him harder. I have never liked mr Chappel a bit as a commentator or any of his biased columns. Go to and type "Ian chappel is a" and you will see even Google thinks he's an idiot

      lloyd.mollison - 2012-01-30 17:35

      @Nick your view is as useless as Chappell himself! You argue that one needs to make big scores to really be considered the best and then say Kallis would be 4th! If you do some research you will quickly see that there are plenty of people that have scored higher runs then Kallis once off! Um... well ... personally I would rather have someone that contributes 50's or 60's to EACH game, then a once off 400 only to go out for ducks or single digits in coming games... cause that is what must have happened! A person that adds a average of 57 runs to the game is better then a person that adds a average of 52! For anyone else who things Lara is the best! Ask yourself who would you have in the team, a guy that brings you 57 runs or one that brings you 52!!!

      David - 2012-01-30 17:48

      It is just one man's opinion, that's all. We all have our opinions, on many things. And, we're entitled to have them.

      Johan - 2012-01-30 17:53

      OK, I agree that Brian Lara was the best batsman of the modern era, but Kallis is very close to him (however as a full cricketer, Kallis is second to none). Ponting made the majority of his runs while he was in the world's best team, meaning less pressure on him to perform. Tendulkar has played more than half of his tests on the sub-continent i.e. flat pitches (mostly). The reason I rate Brian Lara as the best BATSMAN is because what Kallis recently said in an interview. This might have been said in one of the other posts (sorry), but he was asked who was the best batsman he has ever played against and his answer was Brian Lara. Kallis' reason for the answer was that he (Kallis) would bowl a delivery and Lara would drive him through the covers for four. The next delivery would be exactly the same and then Lara would pull him for four. That shows that Lara had an amazing eye and understanding of the art of batting. He wasn't just following a recipe that said if the ball pitches "there" I should drive, or when it pitches at another spot, I should pull it. Lara also played in a very weak Windies team for most of his career. If he played for Aus or SA, he would have been the greatest batsman ever, without question (many people have said this). HOWEVER, having said that, Kallis as a batsman is very close to him and as a full cricketer, Kallis has no equal by a very large margin. Screw Chappell, this Aussie clown had an average of 42.42 and a bowling average of 65.8. Nuff said.

      Grant - 2012-01-30 18:10

      @Nick - I just re-read the article. Chappel was putting forward his "pick of modern greats". Dominating the attack alone is not what makes a great, and besides, do you not agree than that somebody who has nothing to lose (Lara) can play with a lot more freedom than somebody who has the RESPONSIBILITY to perform (Kallis)? Note how Chris Gayle also dominates the attack, but his team kept losing. If I'm not mistaken, the top rated batsman in the world at the mo is a Bangladeshian - another batsmen who's allowed to play however he chooses. Consider this too: Do you think that any South African team would ALLOW a single batsman to score 400 runs? The South African ethos puts winning ahead of individual performance/milestones, and as such, declarations put a halt to anything in excess of necessary. Ultimately there is no doubt that all of these players are great in one way or another - but revert to the issue behind the article in the first place. It's not about an individual's choice as to who he thinks is the BEST...its about the fact that somebody with batting figures shadowing everyone out there (AFTER having bowled so much to boot), was not even given a mention as "one of" the greats. And quite frankly - that's just being silly!

      Johan - 2012-01-30 18:16

      @Nick - Big scores (like 200-300+) usually happen when the pitch is flat and nothing is happening. Show me a team total less than 450 when one of the batsmen scored a double or triple century. Kallis has the highest batting average of all the modern batsmen, and that is with only 2 double tons. Scoring big scores on flat pitches means that your average gets boosted A LOT. Kallis has achieved the highest average without needing a 300 or 9 200's. For example (this is a very simple example), I score 5 and 7 against England in the first test (we lose), then in the second test I score a 300 on a flat pitch (draw). This equates to an average of 104. Am I suddenly a great batsman? NO. A century in a low scoring match is worth its weight in gold if compared to a 200 in a 600 run innings. The fact that Kallis hasn't made that many double or triple tons, just shows how frequently he has made a lot of runs for SA. Hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say here.

      mrbroom - 2012-01-30 18:16

      You don't include Kallis' strike rate in your stats. The article was (most dominant. Not the best... Kallis is a great, but dominant he was not...

      Grant - 2012-01-30 19:42

      Just an example to prove a point RE Lara: He scored 400 against England to reclaim highest test batting score. He did this at a strike rate of 68 (nothing special) on a pitch where the no 7 batsman also scored 100! This chewed up 202 overs - approximately half of the match. This meant the only way for a possible win was to bowl the opposition out twice in 2 days via follow-on. They managed to enforce the follow-on, but tired bowlers could not finish the job. As CAPTAIN, Lara's 400 runs effectively handed England a draw. So how is scoring 400 runs on a pitch that yielded 1458 runs for only 20 wickets in all "DOMINATING"? An achievement, yes - but a selfish and meaningless one...

      Thomas - 2012-01-30 20:49

      With those stats Lara shouldn't even be there!!!!!!!!!!

      Ryan - 2012-01-30 23:29

      @Nick What's with your obsession with a single big score? Which batsmen would you rather have, one who scores 50, 50, 50, 50 or 0, 0, 0, 200? Both have the same average and yet by your method of rating a batsmen, the inconsistent batsmen is FAR better because they have the same average but he scored a wonderful double century, and your excitement over his double has completely clouded any form of logical thought in that the presence of a high score actually inflates his average above what it should be, and this batsmen can in no way be relied upon to score 50 if he gets 0 for 75% of innings'. So if 2 batsmen have the same average, I would always pick the guy without the massive scores because, to win test matches, you need the steady contribution of 50's on tough, fast SA pitches rather than one unnecessarily large 300 on a flat track forcing a draw, and then another 3 or 4 ducks when you need him most. By the way, Kallis not only has the same average as the others, he has a higher average than the lot, and that without the 300's inflating it.

      Shaylin - 2012-01-31 09:05

      To be honest guys.... test cricket has never been about accumulating runs at a rapid pace! thta's why it is test cricket! Strike rate shouldn't have anything to do with it!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not 20/20 cricket! I'm not saying Kallis is the most dominating test batsmen but he should definitely get an honorable mention. He als o does bowl quite a few overs which takes its toll on a player physically. His average speaks for itself guys! Rahul Dravid should also get an honorable mention..... the bloke has also accumulated a lot of runs even though at a slow strike rate! And guys when Brian Lara made 400 the West Indies ended up drawing to England. Id rather make 100 for my team and win a test match than make 400 and draw. South Africa wouldnt even let a batsmen go to 400. They would declare way before that....

      Shaylin - 2012-01-31 09:12

      Rahul Dravid 164 Tests 286 INNINGS 32 Hundreds 13288 Runs 270 HS 52.31 AVG 42.51 SR

      Ian - 2012-01-31 10:20

      OK Seriously. First off: JK is not the best batsman. Flip he is madness! But Tendulkar and Lara are just that much more dangerous. When Kallis steps up to bat you KNOW he will get some runs, but he wont take a game away from you (think AB when batting well). The thing about Lara and Tendulkar is this: as a SA supporter i sh&t my pants when they walk to the crease, these are batsmen that will take your game away from you, and they will win games by themselves. Lots of debate on averages, and lets be fair, there is not much of a difference between 57 and 55. And remember Tendulkar has been playing for india since he's been 16, thats consistency. Lara played largely before cricket got as commercialised as it is nowadays. So i think its a bit unfair to compare him to guys who are still currently playing. All in all, Kallis is the BEST ALLROUNDER, but take away his bowling figures and he's on average just slightly ahead of the rest - though behind on total runs scored. Tendulkar is in my mind the greatest batsman, he plays with skill and flair - amazing to behold. Kallis, flip he's an amazing cricketer, and to watch his cover drive... But he just doesn't have that flair that would set him a touch above the rest. O and ponting........ .... ... yeah he's solid... plays a lot, good avr, nothing fancy..

      rheinhardt.peens - 2012-01-31 10:31

      @Nick.....Clearly you dont know the game hey.....Kallis strikes fear into opposition!!!!!

      Byron - 2012-01-31 12:44

      @ Nick So the greatest score big hundreds and that is the defining attribute that makes them great? I give you a choice then who would you want more a player more likely to score runs consistently (higher average) or a player who scores huge scores less often. For me averages count for a lot and Ponting and Kallis have played in similar conditions at the same exact period and Kallis averages almost 4 runs more! For me it is Lara then Tendulkar then Kallis. You are spot on that his bowling is irrelevant though

  • kritzinger - 2012-01-30 14:21

    To be honest, as long as JK bats as well as he has been, who cares about a hasbeen's opinion? Side note - Ricky Ponting shouldn't be near the top ten, let alone top three.

      dirk.smit1 - 2012-01-30 14:49

      I am with you - Like Ian Chappell, Ricky Ponting is a dick. Looking at the list in the article, there is not one of these three that are a better overall cricketer than JK.

      David - 2012-01-30 17:57

      Diamond dick. How many times does it need to be said: we're talking batsman; not cricketer!

      Sean - 2012-01-30 21:47

      JK Deserves to be there !

      Alan - 2012-01-31 12:04

      Who is Chappell??????

      Julian - 2012-01-31 12:44

      Hey, you. You got something on your face., Stupidity!!!!

      Bob - 2012-01-31 14:05

      HalfLoaf and Diamond Dick, you are missing the point, the article has nothing to do with "best allrounder" or best cricketer, it's refering to the three most dominant batsmen of the modern era, as great an allrounder as Kallis is he will never be mentioned as a dominant batsman, he may be regarded as a Great batsman but dominant NEVER, I think Chappell got it about right with these three.

      kritzinger - 2012-02-01 07:20

      Bob, I didn't miss the point. Based on a number of factors such as ability to get hundreds, ability to bat under pressure, technique, ability to adapt his game, I think Kallis should have made the top three. Fielding and bowling weren't a factor. That's also why I think Ponting should be further down. I'd put Mattie Hayden before Ponting.

  • Fred - 2012-01-30 14:27

    Chappel is still chaffing after the 1970's thrashings the boks gave the aussies. Touted as the World;s best batsman at the time he failed abysmally in South Africa. The carrot still hurts.

      npretorius2 - 2012-01-30 16:12

      @Patrick, how is this relevant to anything mentioned in this story?? Please do not breed, as it will lower the collective IQ of SA...

      Christopher - 2012-01-30 16:17

      Are you stuck in a time warp Patrick?? Snap out of it before you fade away brother.

      brendonml - 2012-01-30 17:11

      Lol Patrick, im sorry to say that I found that half amusing.

      Fred - 2012-01-31 08:58

      Seems somebody by the name of Patrick posted some stupidity, deleted it, and has run away.

  • Michael Kleber - 2012-01-30 14:27

    stats speak for themselves but i guess it was only his opinion , not so Mr Chappel

      Phil - 2012-01-30 14:41

      Gary ..he was not talking about the greatest all rounder.

      Patrick - 2012-01-30 16:47

      @bonham. i was stealing peanuts that time i regret not being a comrate now my government friends are now all millionaires.

      Mike - 2012-01-30 17:17

      Patrick your in the wrong column mate. This is sport. I think you are looking for the politics section.

  • Burton - 2012-01-30 14:28

    Typical, he's Australian. No need to wonder why

      Patrick - 2012-01-30 17:53

      @mike thanks for hightlighting . i was browsing in two tabs

      Alan - 2012-01-30 23:02

      @ Patrick, really enjoying your dry sense of humour and sorry tohear you went to jail for peanuts. Glad though that you are here supporting one of South Africa's Greats JK! All best for your future and no more stealing.

  • Gary - 2012-01-30 14:28

    We should not care what a biast Aussie says..Jacques is the greatest all rounder in the modern game and his stats speak for themselves. Let the Aussies say and do what they want bunch of chops..

      dirk.smit1 - 2012-01-30 14:51

      I agree. They are like a bunch of Yanks during the NFL World Cup. There are more teams in the world than just Aus you stupid Kangaroo hunters

      David - 2012-01-30 18:02

      Oh gary, read the original claim -- batsman, pal, not allrounder !!!!!

  • Burtfred - 2012-01-30 14:30

    Chappel wouldn't feature in the top ten commentators list, so who cares what he thinks?

      rheinhardt.peens - 2012-01-31 10:26

      Well said... interesting read!!!

  • Grant - 2012-01-30 14:31

    Sorry, but Tendulker and Kallis are the only 2 to consider...and the only reason why Tendulker could be considered better is because he has sustained the level for a longer time. Century conversion rates are the same, with Kallis heading averages. Brian Lara did not last as long, scored fewer runs, fewer centuries and has lowest average of all on the list. Chappel is a chop!

      Paul - 2012-01-30 15:21

      Kallis himself rates Lara the greatest batsman of the modern era. Of course, he couldn't pick himself. Chappel has very little standing around the world anyway. He and his brother were involved in that cowardly underarm ball saga against New Zealand, causing his own Prime Minister to call them cowards. Also, the story I like most is when Ian Botham klapped him off his chair in a pub in England! Unfortunately it didn't keep the opinionated twat quiet for too long.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:33

      "Chappel has very little standing around the world anyway. He and his brother were involved in that cowardly underarm ball saga against New Zealand " Do some research before you open your mouth and prove that you are a goose.

      Dirk - 2012-01-30 15:52

      As usual a biassed OPINION from a bitter hasbeen Aussie cricketer.

      Paul - 2012-01-30 17:02

      My sincere apologies to Ian Chappell and Oz fans. It was his brothers Greg and Trevor who were involved in that "disgraceful" underarm incident in 1981.

      Nick - 2012-01-30 17:41

      @ Grant - Brian Lara is a MUCH more dominant batsman than Kallis could ever be. He dominated attacks. Read up in the dictionary what "dominate" means - it ceratinly wouldn't apply in cricketing terms - to a slow plodder who could never even score a double century (until last season vs India - at home)... Yes - the only reason Lara's ave is lower - is he was exactly what Chappell said - a "DOMINATOR" of attacks - which, by definition, would mean getting out 'cheaply' more often... However - it also explains that fact that the genius scored 9 double centuries, and a couple of TRIPLE centuries AND the Test record of 400 not out... While Kallis plodded along to his plethora of 'small' hundreds. Dominant batsmen score BIG hundreds (ie 200's and more) - accumulators score more consistent hundreds - without ever actually dominating - which is what Kallis did - hence his higher average... Oh my goodness - to try and compare Kallis to Lara - when the proviso is capacity to dominate an attack - what an insult to Lara... And - as I've mentioned before - Virender Sehwag and Adam Gilchrist are/were also two batsmen who dominated/pulverised attacks much, much more so than Kallis could ever do - in any form of the international game for that matter...

      Grant - 2012-01-31 12:29

      @Nick - I'm afraid you are now just being dumb. The proviso was NOT capacity to dominate. The question was "Who's the pick of modern greats?" You have picked up on the word "dominate", and hinged your entire argument around that. Go back to the REAL question, please! Besides, if you were talking only in terms of "domination", then why disregard the low scores that compensate for the big ones? How "Dominant" was Lara sitting in the dressing rooms after scoring zero? Furthermore, if "run rate" is what you use to define domination, then Shahid Afridi could be the greatest? Lara's big score of 400 was scored at a run rate of 67% - woohoo! Big scores on their Jason Gillespie considered a greater batsman than anyone else who hasnt scored a double ton? Lara also has some nifty dishonesty to put under his belt... Remember him stepping onto his stumps against SA (before 3rd umpires), and not walking...went on to score big. Quality!

  • Chris - 2012-01-30 14:32

    Chappell's se ma se cricket box

  • Jako - 2012-01-30 14:33

    what a has-been loser

  • Ken - 2012-01-30 14:34

    Who cares what Chappell has to say ! He is a pratt anyway . I remember him and Tony Gregg having a spat on TV once because Chappell said the South African umpires had been biased during his tour of South Africa ! If my memory is right I think the only South African he has praised is Barry Richards !

  • richard.hipkin - 2012-01-30 14:37

    Getting an Aussie to praise a South African is like getting Mugabe to accept gay people..

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:45

      " is like getting Mugabe to accept gay people" Or the Zulu King ....or president Zuma.

  • brian.matthee - 2012-01-30 14:37

    Ian Chapell - one-eyed, subjective, silly old fart! Maybe the result would have / could have been the same but the statistics above at least calls for a lengthy deliberation. Kallis is my Man!! Maybe we should start a "Stop Ian Chapell from ever writing an atricle or commentating" like the Bryce Lawrence campaign.

      Stephan - 2012-01-30 15:17

      When you mention retards from Africa, I assume you count yourself as well?

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:34

      Stephan ...the "retards" are the ones making dum idiotic statements ...including those about sheep. If the cap fits ..wear it.

      Bill - 2012-01-30 17:00

      Het Phil, make a sentence with the words "pot, kettle, and black" if you can string enough sensible words together.

  • Bill - 2012-01-30 14:37

    He is Australian, and who on earth cares what a bunch of ex-cons think?????

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:35

      And who cares what a bunch of irrelevant people who skulk behind electric fences think?

      Bill - 2012-01-30 16:58

      Those fences are needed in case the ex-cons revert back to type, it is in the genes after all...............

      Mike - 2012-01-30 17:19

      Bill and Phil. Your in the wrong subject mate. This is sport. I think you are looking for the abuse section

      Phil - 2012-01-31 01:57

      " it is in the genes after all" You mean like the penchant for rape and violence in SA ?

      Julian - 2012-01-31 12:13

      I’m impressed Bill, I’ve never met such a small mind inside such a Massive head before.

  • lloyd.mollison - 2012-01-30 14:37

    Chappell your stats as a batsmen and a bowler are embarrassing. Your ability to see a great cricketer is equal to your ability to see a cricket your prime!

  • shawnholten - 2012-01-30 14:37

    Who the hell is Ian Chappel after a bath?

  • Arthur - 2012-01-30 14:38

    Chappell, of under arm fame! What a prat. Can't imagine Kallis is losing too much sleep over the opinion of a disgruntled, small-minded ..... (word I was going to write rhymes with banker).

      Shistirrer - 2012-01-30 15:03

      Ian is Greg and Trevor's older brother, he was commentating on that match. A Chapell's a Chapell.

      louis.langenhoven - 2012-01-30 15:07

      ye it runs in the family

  • mengelbrecht1 - 2012-01-30 14:38

    Stiil smarting from the "KLAP" he got in 1970.

  • Phil - 2012-01-30 14:38

    First of all , why mention bowling or catches is not the best all rounder! Secondly it is Chappels opinion ..which he is entitled to. Personaly Kallis's record speaks for itself....but he does seem to be underated ...for whatever reason I dont know. If you take a look at the original article on ESPN ...none of the 10 or so posters mention Kallis either. Obviously Kallis is not generally rated in the same class.

      Bruce - 2012-01-30 15:21

      Phil, you seem to be brainless tit who does not have the capacity, to read, understand or write english, you do belong in Austrailia

      Leon - 2012-01-30 16:26

      philipus whats up your ass maybe a chappel Idiot

      Arthur - 2012-01-30 18:22

      The underarm bowling incident of 1981 took place on 1 February 1981, when Australia was playing New Zealand in a One Day International cricket match, the third of five such matches in the final of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.[1] In order to prevent New Zealand from scoring the six they needed to tie, the Australian captain, Greg Chappell instructed his bowler (and his younger brother), Trevor Chappell to deliver the last ball underarm, along the ground. This action was technically legal, but seen as being against the spirit of cricketing fair play.

  • Isabel - 2012-01-30 14:39

    I have known for a long time that he is anti-South African so this is not a surprise. Our very existence must be an unbearable burden to him ha ha!!

      Phil - 2012-01-30 14:52

      "Our very existence must be an unbearable burden to him ha ha!! " I don't think that third world SA is even on his radar.

      Ivan - 2012-01-30 16:01

      Phil, let me guess you are one of the lot that ran away when the going got tough after 94. Now of course you are a virulent anti South African Bigot. Go cuddle up to a sheep

      Phil - 2012-01-30 16:08

      "Phil, let me guess you are one of the lot that ran away when the going got tough after 94. Now of course you are a virulent anti South African Bigot. Go cuddle up to a sheep " Guess again Ivan. I just get embarrassed when idiotic South Africans from the rape capital of the world ....where even Babies are not safe ...make half-witted comments about sheep.

  • Mikewright85 - 2012-01-30 14:39

    "women lie... men lie... numbers dnt lie"

  • Patrick - 2012-01-30 14:42

    Rob I fully agree with Mr Chappell. His comments are about batting, not all round ability. The key word is "dominant" Kallis is a very good batsman, but is neither attacking nor dominant. The statistic you omitted to mention is the strike rate of all four. In modern cricket, this has become of paramount importance. (even more so in ODI's) The longer a batsman stays at the crease, the greater the peril should be for an opposing side. Although Kallis has improved in the last two years, with a strike rate of 42, and his inability to impose himself on the opposition, being excluded by Chappell is hardly surprising. Ironically if Kallis had played in the 60's, 70's, or 80's, he would be seen as a great. In the modern era however, he is a throw-back to a less aggressive era of battling. As an all rounder, he is dazzling!

      Patrick - 2012-01-30 14:48

      Burtfred, lets talk about this when you grow up, and stop reasoning like a child.

      Deon - 2012-01-30 14:53

      This is about Test cricket not ODI or T20, although Kallis is about always on the top end of batsmen in the IPL. It is all about hundreds and averages. Kallis is King.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 14:54

      Patrick I think you are right on the money....even if you didn't get any test hundreds (can you believe that goose?)

  • reginald.dube - 2012-01-30 14:44

    ok article is another joke!!! Ian Chappell was comparing batsman!!! why did Rob see fit to include bowling stats ? they are don't matter... the stats don't say who those 100's were scored against. i will take fewer 100's from a stronger nation, than more 100 from a weaker team. what Rob Houwing did is the same as Ian Chappell did used the stats to support there opinion.

      Ryno - 2012-01-30 15:03

      JK has scored a hundred against every test playing nation!\

      reginald.dube - 2012-01-30 15:07

      that means he scores against weaker nations too? lets have a full brake down. not edited version cause a person want to manipulate us ? head write ?

      jeremy.dunleavy1 - 2012-01-31 23:01

      kallis still averages about 54.7 when you take the weaker nations out of the equation. tendulkar averages about 54.20 if u do ditto. this proves kallis is the most consistent of the 4.

  • stefan.vanderspuy - 2012-01-30 14:50

    Isn't he our infamous "underarm captain?" Instructed a bowler to bowl the last ball of a test underarm?? To ignore Kallis is plainly ridiculous.

      stefan.vanderspuy - 2012-01-30 14:54

      OK, that was is brother Greg. The bowler was his brother Trevor. Nice bunch of chaps these Chappells...

  • chiepner - 2012-01-30 14:52

    I sometimes dont know whos the biggest ass between Chappel and Boycott nowadays. Maybe there should be an retirement limit set on commentators before they become to senile. I mean Bumbling Boycott had the audacity to "attack" Jacks in the recent test series over a "pink ball" and now Chappel thinks that Ponting should be bracketed in with the top three batsman in the MODERN world EVER. I dont know, maybe Chappel still feel the hurt. Sounds like old Geff when he claimed the english batman as the best in the world at the moment with glowing acolades to the spoilt child Broad and inconsistent Anderson. Senile I tell you.....they are all getting way to senile!

      Beth - 2012-01-30 15:02

      The Chappell brothers will never live down the fact that they were whitewashed 5-0 on South African soil. They will never give due credit to a South African cricketer, regardless of their stats or how great they are.

  • Beth - 2012-01-30 14:57

    Why does that surprise you? Chappell will never give any South African cricketer the credit they deserve. If Kallis was an Australian, Chappell would have named him as "The Best". Chappell only makes himself look like a bittler and twisted has been - any person, but in particular one that has represented cricket at its highest level, that understands something about the game of cricket is fully aware of what a great cricketer Jacques Kallis is. Kallis is a legend and will go down in cricketing history as one of the greatest cricketers of all time and, arguably, the finest All Rounder! You really are a mean and small minded individual Ian Chappell!

      rheinhardt.peens - 2012-01-31 10:37

      What does he know about the modern era ....He is ancient....Bet you he only listens to the the cricket on the radio...eyesight gone long time ago!!!

  • justin.pretorius - 2012-01-30 14:57

    Chappell sucks

      jeremy.dunleavy1 - 2012-01-31 23:06

      the australians have always hated us because in the 1990's and 2000's, we were really the only team capable of beating them. this rivalry is highlighted by chappell's, exclusion of kallis in his article!

  • Wimpie - 2012-01-30 14:58

    WANKER !!!

  • Bruce - 2012-01-30 15:03

    Is this not the jackass who bowled underhand in the one day final so may year ago? If it is no comment of his deserves any media attention. Once a box always a sheep. Watch out when I visit Aus in my gumboots.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:06

      " Is this not the jackass who bowled underhand in the one day final so may year ago?" Bruce . before you open that groot bek of yours ....why dont you check your facts.

      Viv - 2012-01-30 15:20

      Phil, if I read Bruce's comment correctly, he didn't state any "facts" when he opened his "groot bek", but rather asked a question, as punctuated by a question mark. In my opinion, you seem very negative toward some peoples opinions, and markedly toward SA in general (multiple reference to "third world SA", and "retards from Africa"). Are you perhaps from down-under, or do you just not like South Africa? Just asking.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:52

      Viv I am negative towards idiots and half-wits ...especially those who are too lazy to do any research...especially those retards who make silly sheep remarks. It really is a poor reflection on SA.

      Kevin - 2012-01-31 14:18

      Take a pill, Phil. Seems you prefer having a go at individuals rather than contributing to a discussion. BTW Chappell has always been biased against SA, we shouldn't worry too much about him....

  • Bruce - 2012-01-30 15:06

    Is this not the jackass who bowled underhand in the one day final so may years ago? If so no media attention desreved. Once a box always a sheep. Watch out when I visit Aus with my gumboots on!

      rmoolman - 2012-01-30 16:08

      No, it is not him. Check your facts. You obviously are no great historian, nor knowledgeable, on the great game of cricket.

      Mark - 2012-01-30 18:26

      The underarm bowling incident of 1981 took place on 1 February 1981, when Australia was playing New Zealand in a One Day International cricket match, the third of five such matches in the final of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. In order to prevent New Zealand from scoring the six they needed to tie, the Australian captain, Greg Chappell instructed his bowler (and his younger brother), Trevor Chappell to deliver the last ball underarm, along the ground. This action was technically legal, but seen as being against the spirit of cricketing fair play. So @rmoolman, you may be technically correct, but it's still the same family ... So as a family they're dimply dodgy.

  • Justin - 2012-01-30 15:08

    No Contest - Kallis is the greatest cricketer of our time. Who's Ian Chappell?

      Julian - 2012-01-31 12:20

      Are you really stupid or are you just pretending?

  • John - 2012-01-30 15:11

    Everybody Knows that Ausie commentators hate South Africans. Chappell is probably the worst.

      Julian - 2012-01-31 12:17

      WRONG..Not just aussie commentators mate...

  • Ray - 2012-01-30 15:11

    Chappell was not even a good sportsman anyway....was'nt he the one who bowled the last ball of the test( between Aus & England) underhanded to deny England victory ?

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:21

      No. Half wit.

      goyougoodthing - 2012-01-30 15:30

      No. His brother Greg asked the other brother Trevor, to bowl underarm. It was an ODI, against NZ, in 1981. NZ needed a 6 to draw if I remember. Saw it on TV in kiwiland... although the kiwis would never had hit a 6 it was poor form.

  • Bret - 2012-01-30 15:12

    Chappell, its pretty clear from the stats that Jacques Kallis is right up there with the top three batsmen and actually is ahead of all of them when it comes to an ALL ROUNDER!!!!...wake -up please

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:21

      Chappell was talkng TEST BATSMEN. ...not bowlers or wicketkeepers or fielders. Test Batsmen.

  • Gary - 2012-01-30 15:14

    Well Mr Chapel(Wanker) lets have a look Ricky has played 12 tests more than KING KALLIS who batting AVG is 57.02 x 12 tests at 2 innings a test will give 1368.48 runs which puts him a good couple runs ahead that bonehead of an Aussie Ponting proof is in the states

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:20

      Pontings strikerate is apprx 25% better than Kallis.

  • Topsy - 2012-01-30 15:20

    YAY 4 ONCE - SA CRICKET FANS IN UNISON . . . chappell u wanka !

  • Jay - 2012-01-30 15:20

    Rob, you're an illiterate KLUTZ. If you bothered to read the article properly you would have seen the following: "Ponting, Tendulkar or Lara - who among these modern batsmen was the most dominant?" Kallis, as great as he still is, has never been a dominating batsman. He collects runs yes, and I believe we are fortunate to have him around, but dominate? Nope.

      Nick - 2012-01-30 16:11

      Well said Jay - a slow accumulator - never a dominator. Only scored 2 double tons - Lara has 9; Tendulkar and Ponting 6 or 7. Lara the Test record of 400 not out too (also the his record of 375 stood for a while too).. I've even heard from abroad that many viewed Kallis as someone who batted for his averages in years gone by - hence no big, dominating, double-tons... No contest - Lara; Tendulkar and Ponting are better batsmen than Kallis - and certainly far more adept at dominating an attack.

  • Randomhero6661 - 2012-01-30 15:20


  • paul.maarman - 2012-01-30 15:20

    who the hell cares what this Chappell thinks...still has a grudge against South Africa, 1966–67 Tour was no fun...Kallis is one of the best the game has produced and only with passage of time, will we recognize how special he is, ...records speak for themselves, Aussies usually have problems with mathematics...

  • Craig - 2012-01-30 15:28

    just what you would expect from him

  • Henk - 2012-01-30 15:35

    op 68 het hy heelwaarskynlik alseimers! wat is sy opinie in elk geval werd?

  • hilary.woodcockreynolds - 2012-01-30 15:36

    Ah well, this from a guy whose brothers decided to bowl underarm.

  • Mike - 2012-01-30 15:38

    The point is that cricket is not all about averages although that is the way that Kallis has played it for most of his career. A match winning or match saving innings is what makes a "dominant" cricketer and Lara and Ponting have played many of those. In other words how do they perform when the chips are down? They are talking about batsmen and not allrounders so Kallis stats as an allrounder are not relevant. A great allrounder certainly and a fantastic batsman. Kallis has also always laboured under the prblem of being the backbone of the side and expected to bat through but I agree with Chappell that Lara and Ponting have been more dominant. I don't know how far they go back for modern but if they fit into the period then Graeme Pollock and Richards would be right up there. I doubt whether most of the people making inane comments have even heard of Pollock and Richards let alone seen them. My definition of an inane comment by the way are the comments on "sheep, chops etc". We could go onto educational standards of some of the writers of the comments but I suppose this is not the correct forum to do so.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:42

      "My definition of an inane comment by the way are the comments on "sheep, chops etc". We could go onto educational standards of some of the writers of the comments but I suppose this is not the correct forum to do so. " 100% correct Mike. It is really embarassing to see us advertising our half-wits on a forum such as this. It seems like thae people are not Cricket supporters at all ....they are just smarting at not being able to get a visa for Australia

      Burtfred - 2012-01-30 16:08

      @ Phil Why don't you just phuckoff to Australia you philistinic, phoolish old phart? You seem to suffer from a bad case of defecaloesiophilia.

      Jeffrey - 2012-01-30 16:14

      @Phil. You seem happy to call people retards, but object to harmless jokes about Australians and sheep. As a Welshman, we also get the same sheep-sh@gging jokes about us in the UK. Frankly it doesn't bother us, and I'm sure it doesn't bother the Aussies either. If you are so negative about SA, no doubt Australia would welcome you with open arms.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 16:27

      Jeffrey.....this thread should be about Cricket ..not half-wits showing off their jealousy of australia. Stupid sheep "jokes" just tend to fall flat coming from a country where baby rape is so prevalent don't you think.

      Mike - 2012-01-30 16:33

      Yes Phil The tragedy of outcomes based education.

      Bokfan - 2012-01-30 21:39

      Phil the Pill My definition of an inane comment is is one that promotes the negativity, bias and spite of a known cheat like Choppel.

      Bokfan - 2012-01-30 21:51

      Mike just because you blow harder than those around you don't make you edicated ( missed a d there did I?) There is a profound meanness of spirit in Choppels approach that offends the fair minded. Of course that wouldn't bother an Ozzielover but I am talking about civilized people here. Not many would disagree with his conclusion that Lara is the best. Lets face it its doesn't take a genius to come up with a list of the greatest modern batsmen. But it does take a complete berk to leave it incomplete. PS To see who did his research go here .

      Phil - 2012-01-31 02:03

      @Bokfan , how is Chappell a "cheat" I dont think you know anything at all about Cricket.

      Beth - 2012-01-31 10:31

      @ Phil - with all due respect and without casting aspersions on any nationality or contributor to this forum, your comments are also tainted with slurs. Your statement: "It is really....... our half-wits..." I have followed this great game for almost 40 decades, so before you make such a generalisation about half-wits and folk just smarting at not being able to ge a visa for Australia, you too should be sure of your facts. Freedom of speech and opinion is still valid in this country and, whether we agree with other people or not, it is their right to post their opinions on sites such as this. Also, it is no secret that the Chappell brothers are no fans of South African cricketers, and that they acted in an unfair manner when they played the Black Caps all those years ago. If you're accusing others about their slurs and other such comments, then you should also be man enough to admit that these are facts.

      Phil - 2012-01-31 13:34

      @Beth : " your comments are also tainted with slurs" Oh , you noticed ? It is hard NOT to insult half witted fruit loops who make comments about beastiality and talk about Bryce Lawrence instead of debating the facts about Cricket. " whether we agree with other people or not, it is their right to post their opinions on sites such as this" Of COURSE ...and hopefully you extend that courtesy to me. " it is no secret that the Chappell brothers are no fans of South African cricketers" What has that (if true) got to do with the facts? " they acted in an unfair manner when they played the Black Cap" What on earth are you blathering on about ? What did Ian Chappell have to do with that ? Try and stick to the facts of what is being discussed ...if you are capable.

      Bootman - 2012-01-31 18:27

      Jeez Beth!!!!!! You've been watching cricket for 40 decades???? How old are you? 500.......

  • Jannie - 2012-01-30 15:43

    Shame - but he is known to be short sighted and everything bad that could be contributed to those ex-cons - Ian who?

  • Bokfan - 2012-01-30 15:44

    Who gives a toss about Greg Choppel anyway?? Wow Kallis is THE SUPREME CRICKETER OF OUR TIME.

      Julian - 2012-01-31 12:26

      You must be really clever to act so stupid all the time.

  • Jay - 2012-01-30 15:48

    To prove the point that Kallis can not be mentioned in the same paragraph as the other three when it comes to DOMINANCE, here are their strike rates: Kallis 45.61 Tendulkar 54.13 Ponting 58.99 Lara 60.51

      Phil - 2012-01-30 15:54

      Puts it all into perspective Jay. Just not in the same class.

      Jeffrey - 2012-01-30 16:05

      Until the last couple of years no-one paid any attention to strike rates when rating batsmen. This has only really been a factor in one-day and especially T20 rollerbash. How many times hasn't Kallis been the man who has had to save an SA innings after the openers have failed. Many pundits also query Tendulkar's record as so many of his tons have been on batsman-friendly pitches on the sub-continent.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 16:43

      Jeffrey ...if you are going to rate DOMINANT Batsmen ...then strikerate is one of the main factors. Kallis's strikerate is pathetic compared to the others.

  • Andre - 2012-01-30 15:50

    The stats speak for itself... Chappell is an idiot!!!

  • Paul - 2012-01-30 15:53

    @ Mike I tend to agree with what you are saying, and something further to add as food for thought would be the fact that Ponting, Lara and Tendulkerar have all had long stints as captains for their country as well, which would add further pressure to their positions and performances. Kallis is no doubt the best all rounder in the game for many years, and I would say that Chappell is very baised, and I think he would rather stick pins in his eyes than acknowledge the performances of any South African, and I am not wanting to reduce this to the silly comments as above, all you have to do is listen to him on the TV. But your points are valid. To me, Tendulkar would get it, just for his style, performance and charisma that he exudes on the pitch, but who am I....definitely not in the same league as the esteemed Chappell.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 16:03

      Paul , this is nothing to do with all rounders ...or Captains. Just TEST Batsmen.

      Mike - 2012-01-30 16:31

      Hi Paul Sure Chappell still smarts at that 1971 tour where they got the whitewash. He does however havea good knowledge of the game and he rated Pollock and Richards very highly. They just didn't have the stats because of isolation. For a batting alrounder Kallis must be tops. For a bowling allrounder Botham must be right up there. If you go back further you have guys like Keith Miller etc.

  • Dirk - 2012-01-30 15:54

    A comment not worthy of cosideration,since it is blatantly biassed and not true to evidence of Stats.

  • Nishara - 2012-01-30 15:57

    Yes lets put this Chappell on barbeque. Even a blind man can see that Kallis stats tout him as the greatest all-rounder of his generation.

      Phil - 2012-01-30 16:02

      Nishira are being deliberately dumb? Chappel was talikng about TEST Batsmen ....nothing else.