In the July issue of Wisden Cricket Monthly, Michael Atherton looked back on his first Test behind the microphone There are two meetings to attend to before I start my life as a commentator – and, by natural progression, become a great player who never made a mistake. One is with Channel 4 and the other with their production company Sunset+Vine. Both meetings are eye-openers – all my cynicism blown away in a matter of hours (honestly) as I see a group of people who are as committed and determined to succeed as any team I played in. Dr Paul Hawkins tells me about the benefits of Hawkeye and, since it shows that I suffered a couple of stinkers last year, I'm well and truly convinced.

Richie Benaud arrives from the south of France and spends 40 minutes on the minutiae of Sri Lankan pronunciation. "Is it Tillekeratne or Tillekeratna?" he asks time and again, raising a quizzical eyebrow at Barry Richards, Sri Lanka's batting coach and our man in their camp. Complete confusion over Charitha Buddika Fernando. It seems any permutation of the three names will do. Mark Nicholas arrives, tanned, fit and looking remarkably free from mosquito bites having "survived" Panama. There is some back-slapping about Channel 4 winning the Bafta. Mark talks about the awards dinner. He sat next to a producer from Match of the Day, which he praised. Then he listened as the producer of MOTD told him that C4 Cricket is the best sports programme on the box. So that's how to succeed in television.

My first morning at Lord's gets off to an unpredictable start. At 8.20 I'm supposed to do a live link to Channel 4's breakfast programme RI:SE. At 8.23 they still haven't come to me. Confusion reigns. Eventually I learn that one of the presenters has let off a foul-mouthed tirade not realising that he was still on air. It's an early lesson to leave dressing room vocabulary behind. After the unfortunate young presenter is virtually sacked on air, they come to me. I must have been insufferably dull by comparison.

For the first time in 13 years I am able to get a feeling of what a Lord's Test is like off the pitch. It makes you realise how special the place is and how important the Lord's Test is to the spectators. This is all too easily forgotten in the dressing room where your head is filled with thoughts of how to escape a Chaminda Vaas inswinger. It's good to re-engage with the cricketing public, if you like. The first day passes. I'm lucky to be working with some good people – Benaud and Nicholas are both quick to help me and pass on some useful tips.

On Saturday it is clear that an issue is developing. It's Ruchira Perera's bowling action. Eyebrows have already been raised in our box, while Jonathan Agnew has been outspoken on TMS. We receive about 80 emails throughout the afternoon and, when Perera comes back for his second spell, Dermot Reeve and myself are on air. Clearly we cannot sweep the problem under the carpet but I do feel it has to be handled sensitively – after all, a player's livelihood, career and reputation are at stake. I ask Jo King, our scorer, for the Laws of cricket and read out 24.3 – "Definition of a Fair Delivery – the arm" – at the same time as we show slow-motion pictures of his action. The pictures speak for themselves. Dermot reiterates that, in his opinion, it is an unfair delivery. There is genuine sympathy for the player. My view is that Perera has not started bowling like this suddenly in the middle of a Lord's Test. It is up to the coaches and administrators in Sri Lanka to prevent his action going wrong before he gets to international cricket. It is unfair to ask the umpires to make an on-the-spot judgement. It is also unfair to the player who, having bowled in what he must have thought was a legitimate way for years, finds a whole lot of opprobrium heaped on him in the middle of what is for him and Sri Lanka a successful Test match.

I have to be really critical of England's performance for the first time on Saturday when they are bowled out on a flat pitch by a moderate Sri Lankan attack and made to follow on. The question I have been asked most since retiring is: since you were so prickly about criticism yourself, how will you feel about criticising former colleagues? Firstly, I was never troubled by criticism that was fair. I was only troubled by unfair criticism and by the stories that gathered momentum and were way out of proportion to their real importance. But it is something I have had to think carefully about because, clearly, I have friends in the dressing room and I don't see why that should necessarily change. However, it is important for me in the commentary box to be an objective observer and analyst of the game, rather than an England supporter.

I also remember how I hated anyone being in the dressing room who shouldn't have been there. I need to realise that it is no longer my domain and I have absolutely no right to be anywhere near it. I will try to be fair and objective: if criticisms have to be made I will make them. But I am not prepared to "grandstand" or be outspoken for the sake of it, just to make a name for myself on TV.

My first game ends. In cricket, runs and wickets give you a fair idea of how things have gone but in this new career there is no such indication. Still, I've enjoyed it and that's a good start. I've also heard a whisper that I might have been too well dressed, too smart. There's a first.

Click here to subscribe to Wisden Cricket Monthly

The July 2002 edition of Wisden Cricket Monthly is on sale at all good newsagents in the UK and Ireland from Friday, June 21, priced £3.25

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd