Claire Balding's good but Hazel Irvine is the gold standard in sports broadcasting. What a phenomenal broadcaster - she could and should host everything. Sue Barker likewise. Two absolute pros who command such great respect and chemistry with their pundits. Encyclopaedic knowledge and professional without going overboard into 'chummy bantz'.
It's the thing that's missing across all modern broadcasters today. Along with Hazel and Sue, the likes of Motty, Barry Davies, Murray Walker - we all loved them because we trusted them. Their knowledge was so immense and authoritative that you didn't think twice to question it. Nowadays, your Darren Fletchers and David Crofts fill the air with try hard bantz to cover for their lack of professionalism and knowledge.
We had a very similar conversation after the Snooker World Championships back in May where we agreed Hazel was head and shoulders above anything else in terms of sport presenting.
I would say though Hazel is helped by some top pundits as well. As much as Parrott can be your stereotypical Scouser thinking everything he says is hilarious, he is actually good at his job as are Davis & Hendry (probably my favourite pundit across any sport). Whereas Eurosport and ITV suffer from having McManus and Foulds as their mainstay pundits. My thoughts on Ken Doherty are well documented on here.
I don't know if the presenter makes the pundits or if the pundits make the presenter.
My second favourite presenter (after Hazel) right now is Ian Ward, who has made Sky's cricket his own. He had a difficult task of replacing Gower, who himself was brilliant, but has done a fantastic job. He's very much a modern presenter with the "chummy bantz" as you call it but not to nauseousating level that others are. Again, he's assisted by some great pundits in Hussein and Atherton.