IF Shadow Minister of Sports Cole Simons was trying to score political points with his attack on Randy Horton's Cup Match radio commentary, then he failed miserably.

Indeed, his attempt to discredit Horton (in a letter to Sports Mailbox on Monday of this week) with his criticism of the Minister over what he believed to be biased commentating, probably backfired.

As a former Somerset Cup Match captain and the current Minister of Sport, Horton could be taken for task for what some might perceive as a conflict of interest.

But that wasn't Simons' point.

Instead he took umbrage with the fact that the Minister berated the umpires for decisions which he felt were clearly wrong.

He claimed Horton was setting a bad example to the Island's youth by undermining those in authority and was displaying the same lack of discipline which is all too prevalent in sport in general.

And what he appeared to be suggesting was that no matter what Horton saw with his own eyes he should either refrain from comment or tell his listeners something completely different.

How ridiculous is that?

Having accepted the role as radio commentator, Horton then has a duty to call it exactly as he sees it.

The very title ‘commentator' implies that whoever's behind the microphone has a responsibility to his audience to describe the action and offer an opinion.

Former Test player Geoff Boycott has carved out a very successful career in TV and radio because of his abrasive, opinionated remarks over the air. Many don't agree with what he says, but most respect his right to say it.

That's the nature of the job, and Horton would be doing his listeners a disservice if he didn't express an opinion.

Like Boycott, his commentary isn't going to win everybody's approval and as with his English colleague, Horton has a long history of being outspoken. We almost know what to expect as soon as he takes his seat behind the microphone.

But given his experience as a Cup Match and club player, one has to think that for the most part Horton knows what he's talking about. He's familiar with the players and the officials, and he understands the game.

That doesn't mean we should accept everything he says as gospel, but he does have the right to challenge the umpires' decisions as much as he has the right to question the players' performance.

If Simons wants to attack the Minister or the Ministry, then there's plenty of sporting issues on which he might concentrate his efforts.

But Horton's role as a Cup Match commentator isn't one of them.

* * * *

STILL on Cup Match, thank goodness the MVP was finally selected this week - albeit some one and half weeks later than it should have been.

Sponsors Camel had every right to take matters into their own hands after the two clubs couldn't come to an agreement. In fact, nobody would have been too surprised if they'd simply withdrawn their sponsorship altogether.

Given the petty bickering between the two clubs, it would have been no less than they deserved.

What most observers must be asking is how on earth did the clubs get involved in the MVP award in the first place. Their officials are the last people who should have anything to do with making such a decision.

The fiasco that surrounded this year's award can't be repeated.

Unless an independent panel is chosen next year to make the choice, it would be better for all concerned that the MVP be scrapped altogether.

Meanwhile, somebody at Somerset needs to have a quiet word with president Colin Smith.

His refusal to defer to a neutral panel until so forced by the sponsors, his belief that the MVP has to come from the winning side and his general behaviour throughout the entire saga makes one wonder what business he has running a cricket club in the first place.