THE distinguished American theatre critic James Agee was once told by

playwright Tennessee Williams that he was a disgrace to the theatre

itself. ''All you can do is close a show,'' said Williams, ''but you

could never open one.''

American playwrights have ever been castigating the critics for it is

certainly true that they have suffered somewhat at the hands of these

influential boys, and girls, from the blatts. British theatre critics

once had a bit of clout themselves. Harold Hobson was certainly an

important figure, as was the late Kenneth Tynan. Yet Britain has never

quite possessed the critic journalist who could make or break a show, a

book, a musical performance. Or a sport.

There have been, over the years, major figures in sports journalism.

Until recently, however, many leading sports writers, especially those

involved in football, have been somewhat supine in their attitude to the

sports they cover. Newspapers have naturally been a touch extra

analytical than those involved in broadcasting and television.

The recent spate of stories and articles concerning the state of play

at Celtic Football Club has shown that footy writers are prepared to be

less reverential than they were reputed to be. Indeed, our own James

Traynor has been much vilified in the Celtic-orientated pubs and clubs

in the West of Scotland, though, when I have remonstrated with the

Paradise bhoys, they have eventually agreed that Traynor has been right.

But newspapers are different from the other areas of journalism. For a

start newspapers can distance themselves, indeed they must, from

whatever area in which they operate, whether it be politics, health,

education, or sport, and especially football. Broadcasting cannot and

there is a reason for that. For the truth is that radio and TV have a

relationship damn near incestuous with whatever they cover. We in the

blatts can stand aside. The other area of the media does not and they

are under no illusions that at the end of the day they are there to

provide, more than anything else, entertainment.

Thus it is that while our Mr Traynor is well respected by sports,

football, and, yes, Celtic supporters, Mr Gerry McNee is regarded as a

turncoat, a pariah. One can quite easily suspect that McNee is perhaps a

former Celtic fan himself, from the West of Scotland Irish community,

and his highly controversial reports concerning this football club, so

much, ludicrously if you think about it, a focus for

Glasgow-Irish-Catholic aspirations, have hardly endeared him to that

group. Few if any readers of The Herald know, or care, what -- let us

put it coarsely -- religion Traynor is. For the telly is different from

the newspapers.

Name any major sports presenter on television who can command the

level of profile which, say, Raymond Glendinning had. Or Kenneth

Wolstenholme. Those two used to have sports books out using their names

as imprimaturs. Dicky Davies, Desmond Lynam, the more recent Jonathan

Watson, are not seen in such exaltation at all. Instead we have sports

''personalities.'' Some are very good at it. (Some took to it: Cliff

Morgan in rugby, the late James Hunt in motorsport, Richie Benaud in

cricket come to mind immediately as major stars in their respective

sports who became superb commentators).

Today, however, we have, instead of journalists on the telly, sports

persons. Perhaps the sheer dreadfulness of a number of sports journos

who confused their role as presenters with that of sycophants has led to

the present situation, but sports fans now note the major figures in

television sports coverage are ex-sporting figures to boot.

Andy Gray and Gordon McQueen are regulars and seen as authoritative.

Derek Johnstone is seen by many as a bit of a joke but not by anybody

who knows about football, because he is very perceptive indeed and

really does know what he is talking about. More: we have Ray Wilkins on

Italian football. Trevor Brooking is sharp and articulate, too.

But am I alone in thinking that this is not necessarily good for any

sport? Those who have spent their lives, from the age of 15 or 16, in

what is after all just games, should be those who represent the critical

faculty in their own field? Surely not. Of all the ex-sportsmen I can

think of who had exactly that faculty, two were oft reviled by those in

their sport. Both were football players. Danny Blanchflower and Eamonn

Dunphy, both Irish, both internationalists, both (Danny even more than

Eamonn) world-class players. But they were often criticised because they

took no part in the cosy little world of telly-sports where bums are

licked and hotel bills are paid. They were bright, clever, highly

educated, and regarded sport as only a part of life, an enjoyable part,

but only a bit of it.

Both were -- and Dunphy remains -- astringent, difficult, socialistic,

challenging, and worrying for the Establishment. Neither of them was or

has been employed significantly in television. They might not have been

entertaining enough. Perhaps they might have said harsh things about the

sport which they criticised.

Nobody in television seems to have said anything about the disgraceful

hypocrisy of professionalism in the Olympics and in athletics, for

instance. Or the fearful nature of increasing shamateurism in Rugby

Union. Or the lack of coverage in minority sports. Or the lack of money

for women's sport unless it is tennis, in which hypocrisy, social class,

snobbery, and sheer bloody-minded false consciousness has made lots of

spondulicks for the sport, but we still don't have enough kids out there

playing a lovely game and the tennis clubs are strapped for cash. What

we need are TV sportspersons who can close a show. As well as open it.