Chris Rattue: The commentary hat doesn't fit everyone

One man's talk is another man's wheeze when it comes to sports commentators.

Personal taste or distaste is the rule of the airwaves.

For my money, it's hard to beat the American baseball calling team of Jon Miller and Joe Morgan - calm, insightful, knowledgeable, with brilliant banter, a sense of history, nice touches of humour and a handy collection of anecdotes.

There's hardly a player out there who seemingly hasn't chatted with Morgan, revealing everything from a childhood hero to whether they use the overhand fandangled meat cleaver batting grip or not. Monday afternoon, with Joe and Jon smooth-talking their way through a baseball game, is heaven on a stick.

But this is a meat and poison issue.

Morgan - a great all-rounder in his playing days - is especially prone to drawing venom.

"I can't stand Joe Morgan, Jon Miller, or Yankee fans. I literally put the TV on mute because I can't stand the fact that Morgan and Miller don't even know the players' names," is typical of the reaction you can find on websites. Which leaves a fully paid member of their fan club absolutely flabbergasted.

Meat and poison, as I say, and bias is often the major accusation flung commentators' way.

There is however an issue concerning commentators which should be cut and dried, and that's the matter of independence. And on this score, Sky has depressingly poor standards in this country.

I almost choked when Daryl Halligan's voice entered the living room as the Kiwis and Kangaroos prepared to do battle on Saturday night, because Halligan is also a Kiwi selector.

Outrageous. He has no place in the commentary box, simple. Test football deserves more reverence than that.

What, for instance, would be the reaction if Sir Brian Lochore called All Black tests? Should we now have John Bracewell joining the cricket commentary team?

League lets itself down by not rising above this in-house presentation. But more importantly, Sky is letting the audience down.

Halligan can pick the team or choose to commentate. But not both.

It is an issue which goes wider. What next?: Che Fu to critique his CDs or Peter Jackson to write his film reviews. Shall we get Ali Williams to write the test match reports for newspapers.

I first raised this issue when Chris Cairns (along with the only just retired Mark Richardson) commentated on test cricket this year.

Cairns was - although isn't any more - a member of the Black Caps one-day side. And as such he was still an integral part of their setup. No question about it.

No sooner had the column appeared than Cairns rang, to argue his case. There were very few players of his test experience in this country available to lend their voice to the broadcasts, he said.

Cairns showed talent for the job. He told me that should he go into fulltime commentating he would play the New Zealand backer, in the way Bill Lawry does for Australia. Fair enough maybe, if he is no longer part of the national side and it fits in with a blend of commentators.

Cairns did concede that he felt constrained as a current Black Cap, and was reconsidering his commentary role, for now.

Constrained is the least of the problems in this argument.

Halligan appeared to do his best to play it down the middle during the Kiwis' triumph, but this is irrelevant.

The conflict of interest hardly needs to be explained. Halligan's inclusion on the commentary team isn't the thin end of the wedge - it's the whole damn wedge.

The nightmare of the lunatics informing the asylum, the subjects controlling the information, of loaded commentary being unloaded on the masses, is upon us.

The viewers are at best short-changed and at worst misled by these double dealings.

Halligan has been allowed a position in which he can influence judgment on his own performance by what he says or doesn't say. He has been given a free hand to manipulate opinion on something he has a direct interest in.

The commentating team hardly flashed up the Halligan situation in neon lights either. This is the sports commentary version of insider trading.

Back to the cricket. While Cairns calmly argued his case, the criticism of his role brought the expected histrionics from Martin Crowe, Sky's cricket commentary boss.

We soon found out why he-who-must-be-obeyed may have been so upset, as Crowe then launched a bid to also become a Black Caps selector.

While Halligan may have fallen into his dual and totally unacceptable role, Crowe was actually pursuing it. He even suggested they were complementary rather than a conflict, since he'd be at all the games anyway. Horrendous.

Thankfully, New Zealand Cricket didn't even bother to give Crowe a reply he indignantly claimed to deserve.

Halligan appeared to hold back in both his criticism and praise for the Kiwis and it only served to contribute to a messy commentary performance by the Sky team.

If only we could have bypassed this horror show, and been treated to the best in the business.

There isn't a league caller to touch the Australian Ray Warren. He would have added so much class to Saturday night's match, the way Richie Benaud has enhanced so many cricket occasions.

Not that anyone can touch Benaud. In many years of commentary, the great man has never - to my knowledge - used "we" when referring to the Australian team. Once away from the middle, he has been down the middle in words and deeds.

Benaud apparently avoided the Australian dressing room down the years, so determined was he to retain independence, in both thoughts and appearances.

Halligan's case is not the only one, but is the most obvious right now. He may not have used the word, but he is 'we' - as in Kiwis.

And in what has to be an atmosphere of distrust given his dual position, we are left none the wiser by his comments, and should be deeply suspicious.

I even considered viewing the game with deaf ears, which is where complaints on the matter are likely to fall. Sadly.