Mark Nicholas is an excellent presenter. Other than Harsha Bhogale he is the only other presenter that I can tolerate!

But as a commentator I would go with Geoff Boycott!

I don’t know about Michael Holding and Michael Atherton in that top five. Just for sensational commentary I would go with Tony Greig! He is not the most insightful but when he starts screaming at sixes and fours, it creates an atmosphere at home

Nicholas doesn’t always get a great reception in Australia - we see him as someone muscling in and pushing one of our own out of a job. It’s great when a specialist comes over for the Ashes, but please, once the matches are over, go home Mr Nicholas.

As for the best, the ABC Radio Commentators win hands down (though not too familiar with the BBC lads). Terry Alderman is always a favourite, but hard to beat the likes of Kerry O’Keeffe and Jim Maxwell. On TV Harsha takes the cake.

Lets not go crazy, If anyone is the new richie its ravi shastri.

Mark is a handy middle order batsmen who plays when you have injuries. Richie is Sobers.

I think they should do it as a team thing. A lot of commentators are shocking by themselves, but put them with someone they can bounce off and all of a sudden they’re witty and insightful.

I certainly cannot agree that Mark Nicholas ranks top of the cricket commentators. His (unwarranted) arrogance is a real irritant.

However, the greatest irritant to me as a trained, qualified, umpire listening to any of the commenators mentioned - TV or radio - is their manifest ignorance of the correct interpretation and application of the proper - i.e. MCC ‘Blue Book’ - Laws of Cricket, as well as the bastardised version used by the ICC. Their comments at times are woeful and certainly misleading to the viewer or listener. As is their apparent belief that Hawk Eye can be taken seriously as a reliable or accurate indicator in LBW appeals/decisions situations!

Both Sky and the BBC should either include a trained qualified umpire as a member of the commentary team or insist that each cricket commentator ‘pundit’ attend a basic Course in Cricket Umpiring. Or go to the ‘Armchair Umpire’ page on the ICUS website - http://www.umpires.tv - to check their facts before commenting

Actually, I would apply the same stricture to ALL Cricket Coaches (only 5% of the tens of thousands of whom have bothered to learn/understand the interpretation and application of the Laws), the 15 contracted umpires on the ECB’s First Class and Reserve Lists who haven’t bothered, and the 7 on the ICC Elite Panel who haven’t either!

Which is why ALL umpires should be independent of any governing body and independently appointed based on objective field performance assessments, merit and competence only.

Instead of the media’s continual clamour for ‘more technology’ to supplant their decision-making and diminish still further respect for them and their authority, let’s hear more demands for international consistency in the training and qualification of umpires - let’s have a proper recognised grading system for starters - and that only those umpires - irrespective of nationality - who achieve the highest gradings and consistency in competence through the system and pass regular bi-annual refresher assessments, will be appointed to the highest level matches.

THEY, alone, will then be able to decide IF and WHEN they need to call upon ‘technology’ to help them!

The dream commentary duo would definitely have to be Boycott and Chappell. I think they’d spend more time at each other’s throats than on the game!

Barrie, I think that the umpiring standards do indeed need to rise. However, I do disagree with you on a couple of points. 1) that they believe that Hawkeye is the be-all and end-all. All they ever say is that “Hawkeye suggests/shows that the ball’s missing” etc. Plus some commentators are actively opposed to Hawkeye. 2) your assertion that more technology will diminish the umpire’s authority. This is wrong, in my opinion. All that having technology will do is giving the umpire the option of using an aid during the really tough decisions; they won’t be forced to use it if they don’t think it’s necessary for some situations. Some people might say that “uncertainty is part of the game” or whatever, but personally I’ve had enough of umpires’ wrong decisions having such a disproportional effect on the outcome of the game.

Actually, there are three different skills - TV, radio commentator, and radio summariser.

The radio commentator has to replace our eyes: Aggers is superb, knows the job backwards & his only fault is not getting the execrable Arlo White (who can’t tell the off from the legside) sacked.

Boycs deserves his prize as a summarizer - after all, who invented the title (as was) of this very blog? And his jokes are good (e.g “now now Jonathan, my mum’s quite a good bowler”).

Nicholas’s faux-Arlottry may be an acquired taste, but you can forgive a lot in a man whose response to a match-winning slog-sweep for six (by Tresco off Murali) is a simple “nailed it!”