ONE: ELEPHANTS

This picture was taken before the World Cup had even begun when the England players spent a day on safari. I was lucky enough to be one of the reporters covering the trip. Personally, of course, it was wonderful to be able to see so many animals close up but I believe the day symbolised so much about the England team. As I followed the players around Pilanesberg Game Reserve, I couldn't help but draw comparisons between the players and the animals. The players felt that they were being hunted, trapped for long periods within the confines of their hotel. They rarely looked happy. While other teams mixed freely with supporters after training and in the days between matches, the England players came across as aloof. Wayne Rooney revealed what he thought of the fans when his frustration was caught on camera after the draw against Algeria. Perhaps England's chances of mounting a serious challenge at a major tournament would increase if the players could find a way to relax and smile a bit more.

TWO: VUVUZELAS AND EMPTY SEATS

No summary of South Africa 2010 would be complete without a mention of the vuvuzelas. But this photo also shows something else that was seen too frequently - empty seats. Whatever the reason for so many missing spectators, Fifa must make sure it never happens again.

THREE: WING MIRROR COVERS

These wing mirror covers were the must-have accessory of the World Cup. The South African people could not have done more to get behind their team. Yes, South Africa became the first host nation to fail to progress beyond the group stage but the legacy of the way that Bafana Bafana pulled the population behind the South African flag will live on.

FOUR: BUS BREAKDOWN

I took this photo when the minibus taking the BBC News team to Bloemfontein broke down. You'll note that I was happy to take the pictures while others pushed! There's a serious point, though, behind my decision to include this. I, like everybody else, had heard all the scare stories about security in South Africa. I'd been told about all the terrible things that could happen if you were stuck in a broken-down vehicle at the side of the road. Well, they didn't happen to me. That's not to say that South Africa is totally safe - I have friends and colleagues who had problems here - but I do believe that some of the warnings about safety were too severe. The vast majority of the South African people are warm and welcoming. I would like to thank them for giving me such an enjoyable World Cup.

FIVE: PATIENT FANS

I took this picture a few hours before the semi-final between Spain and Germany in Durban. A Spanish and German fan were waiting for the turnstiles to open. In six weeks in South Africa, I have not seen a single act of hooliganism. Supporters from all over the world came together for a festival of football.

I didn't know it at the time but my life was about to change forever - well, actually that's a slight exaggeration but I'm trying to build up some drama here!

My colleague told me that he was going to a BBC seminar about Twitter but didn't want to go alone. "Come along," he said "Twitter is the future."

I'm sure that I just stared back at him blankly. I hardly knew what Twitter was - it is a social networking site - and a sandwich would have been a much more appealing prospect at the time. Anyway, we reached a compromise. I would go to the Twitter seminar as long as we could stop off for a sandwich on the way..

Rescue boats float next to a US Airways plane after it crashed into the Hudson River. Photo: Getty

The seminar was intriguing. It was clear that here was a form of communication that was completely different to anything I'd used before. That afternoon I opened a Twittter account. The rest, as they say, is history.

I was initially cautious. As a broadcaster who is used to rabbiting on for ages, I was always going to find it difficult to condense my thoughts into 140 characters. But my appreciation for what Twitter can provide has grown to such an extent over the past 15 months that I now class it as an essential tool of my trade.

In my view, the list of stars at this World Cup - which already boasts Mesut Ozil, Ghana, vuvuzelas etc - should also include Twitter. This has in many ways been the Twitter World Cup. Let me explain why.

I arrived in South Africa on 1 June - the day of the England squad announcement. I'd been sent ahead to report on the team's arrival at their Rustenburg base, while some of my colleagues remained in London to cover Capello's 23-man selection.

Once I touched down in Johannesburg, I was, like so many other people, eager to find out who was in and who was out. The problem was that Capello had told his players but the Football Association had decided to delay any announcement until later in the day.

That's when Twitter came into play. When the players found out, they naturally told family and friends, who started tweeting.

In the end, the FA's announcement was almost irrelevant because anybody using Twitter had known the names of everybody in the squad at least an hour earlier. The England squad announcement was basically made via Twitter.

Time and time again over the past few weeks I've relied on Twitter for information. Those of you who use Twitter will know that the England team was revealed by footballer-turned-radio presenter Stan Collymore before every match.

The former England striker had an indiscreet contact in the England camp. Within minutes of the players being told who had been picked, Collymore was announcing Capello's selection to the world.

Of course, there are downsides to Twitter, too. You have to be careful with the source of information. Rumours can spread quickly. On the day of France's first match, Twitter was full of false gossip about Thierry Henry.

One of the problems with Twitter is that information spreads so fast that inaccuracies can soon spread out of control.

The England players were banned from tweeting during the tournament but once Rio Ferdinand had returned home after his World Cup was ended before it began by injury he was soon on Twitter.

It did not take long for England team news to leak out via Tweitter. Photo: Reuters

It will be interesting to see what Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has to say about Twitter when the Premier League season begins but currently anybody who wants to interact with the England captain can.

It's the interactivity that, for me, has made Twitter so useful. Yes, it's great to be able to find out information so quickly - and to pass it on as well - but it's also such a good barometer of public opinion.

When you're reporting on a World Cup as a journalist, it's actually very easy to misread the mood of the public back home. We are very cut off out here. We go to the team press conferences every day but that is a controlled environment. We don't have the chance to sit in a pub and chew the fat with fans.

Twitter has given me a far better ability to gauge what people have been thinking back home. Before Capello's final press conference in South Africa, I tweeted a message asking England fans to tell me what they'd like the journalists to ask the coach. Within minutes I'd had about a hundred replies.

Twitter has given you, the viewer or reader, the opportunity to tell me, the journalist, what you're thinking. Now, that doesn't mean that I have to listen to everything that I'm told - I do have my own mind as well - but it has to be healthy for that dialogue to exist.

I know from many of the messages that I've received that Twitter has given some of you who aren't in South Africa the opportunity to feel far more closely connected with this tournament than previous ones.

Whether you're following Ferdinand, or Kaka or maybe Motty, you're able to monitor their movements and their opinions. If you don't like what they say then you can message them directly.

Reporting on a World Cup is a privilege. Those lucky enough to be sent to South Africa have been on a fascinating journey. We've all had experiences that we'd like to share.

If Twitter helps you feel more involved, gives you the sense that we're taking you with us on that journey, then, in my view, it has to be an asset for any major sporting event

There is, though, one other pattern that has emerged over the past two weeks. Former England captain David Beckham is usually one of the first out of the changing rooms, striding purposefully on to the pitch, where he chats with manager Fabio Capello and warms up with the rest of the players. He then takes his leave, watching the training session a few yards back from the England coaching team.

I must confess that when I was reporting live from outside the team hotel when the England squad arrived in South Africa, I did wonder what on earth was going on when Beckham was one of the first to emerge from the bus. I just had not expected him to be so prominent, considering that he is only here as a non-playing member of the squad.

I was not alone in wondering what Beckham's role would be but the reason for writing this blog is to tell you all how impressed I have been by the former England captain over the past days.

Beckham does not need to be in South Africa. He could be recovering from his injury wherever he wanted. Let's face it, there is hardly a place on this planet where Beckham could not afford to go.

Ever since he resigned as England skipper in an emotional address the day after the country was knocked out of the 2006 World Cup, he must have dreamed of coming to South Africa as part of the squad. That, of course, was denied him when he snapped his Achilles tendon back in March but Capello's decision to invite him along regardless is a sign of just how much he is respected.

I have become 100% convinced that Beckham is in South Africa for all the right reasons. I am absolutely sure that he is here because he believes his presence can assist his country's World Cup campaign.

Let me tell you why. If he was here on some publicity-generating mission, then he would have tried to generate publicity. Instead, he has kept a very low profile and has not given any interviews.

Even when he went to Johannesburg to support England's 2018 World Cup bid, he refused to speak to a single journalist. He was there on a private lobbying mission (by the way, you only have to see how positively the Fifa voters react when they are in his company to realise how important he is to that campaign).

Beckham meets Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed Bin Hammam at the 2018 bidders' conference

And when a couple of England players went to an orphanage in Rustenburg, Beckham could easily have tagged along and stolen all the headlines. He decided to keep away.

Capello has been very vague when discussing Beckham's precise role with the England squad but I understand that the former Manchester United and Real Madrid midfielder has spent much of his time mentoring some of the younger players, as well as acting as an intermediary between the players and the coaching staff. He was also used as a scout before the match with the United States.

I can also tell you that Beckham has turned down all commercial work during the tournament. For example, both the BBC and ITV tried to sign him as a pundit but he chose to commit his time to the England squad instead. Beckham is not being paid a penny for being in South Africa, so you can only imagine how much more he could have earned during June and July.

I could go on but I won't, as I'm sure that some people will be quick to accuse me of being gullible and losing all journalistic sense. What I would say to them, and everybody else as well, is this: Put any cynicism and jealousy aside for a few minutes and you will probably see that Beckham is a man who is proud to be English and a man determined to do what he can to help his country. There is no evidence at all to the contrary.

Beckham's presence in South Africa might end up making little difference to England's World Cup chances but at least he is here trying to help. He is a rare breed. A sportsman who is happy to put his country first.

Everybody on board was fine, but I was bombarded with messages from people asking if I thought that this was an omen for England's World Cup hopes also "going up in flames".

It's easy to see why Capello was keen to stay in Rustenburg. First, of course, it's the venue for his team's first match, against the United States, so travelling is reduced.

There's also the advantage of being able to stay at the Royal Bafokeng Sports Campus, which has accomodation and training facilities on the same site.

Add in to all that the benefits of training at altitude, as well as the lack of WAG-friendly hotels and shopping nearby, and you can see why there was a compelling argument for the Football Association to choose Rustenburg.

I'm going to be following the England team in South Africa for as long as they remain in the tournament. That means that when I checked into my hotel I did so for 42 nights.

I've rarely checked into a hotel for five nights, let alone 42, so you'll understand why I have more than a passing interest in Rustenburg and its environs. It could be my home for six weeks. So far I'm happy to report that I've liked what I've seen.

I hope that the locals here, my new neighbours, won't be too offended if I say that Rustenburg isn't one of the first places to which a tourist to South Africa is likely to head.

The Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenburg hosts England's opening match against the US

The truth is that there isn't much here. The area is best known for platinum mining - 76% of the world's platinum is mined here. Interesting, yes, but not quite Table Mountain or the Kruger National Park.

But that's not to say that the area doesn't have character. It does. Some of the scenery is stunning and the welcome that I've been given could hardly have been more friendly.

All in all, it's perfect for a team trying to win the World Cup. A pleasant place to stay that doesn't have many distractions.

The distractions that do exist are not necessarily those to which the England players will be accustomed. For example, the first night at my hotel I was fast asleep when I was woken by a loud noise at 2am.

We've all read the scare stories about security in South Africa, so I quickly decided somebody was trying to break into my room.

I sat up in bed, trying to remain as calm as I could, but deep down beginning to panic a little. Then it suddenly dawned on me what was happening. Nobody was trying to break into my room. It was the monkeys that I'd seen earlier in the evening.

They were jumping over the roof and next to one of my windows. This was the best of South African wildlife making itself known, not the worst of its society.

The incident reminded me not to jump to conclusions too quickly, advice I would pass on to all those lucky enough to be coming here for the World Cup.

Travel here with an open mind. The South Africans are determined to put on a show to remember. I'm confident that they'll succeed.

Finally, while we're on the subject of advice, here's something that the hundreds of thousands of tourists heading this way would do well not to ignore. Don't travel light!

Bring your T-shirts and sun cream, but also bring a thick coat. I've never been anywhere with such contrasting temperatures.

In the daytime, the sun is so strong you'll find yourself seeking shelter. But once it starts to go down, so does the thermometer - quickly and dramatically. It seems temperatures can plummet around 20 degrees in the space of an hour. You've been warned.

Let's hope that the players have as well. If one of them catches a cold we'll no doubt be told that that's yet another bad omen!

When you travel to the village of Irdning in Austria, as I did last week, stress is not a word that immediately springs to mind.

Nestled high up in the Alps, it is a spectacular setting. The team's hotel is a converted castle which is more than a thousand years old. When you stand on the hotel's patio you look out over a landscape dominated by snow-capped mountains. A little lower down in the valley is Irdning, a village with a population of just 2,600.

A two-week training trip to the Alps is seen by Capello as perfect preparation. It's not the first time that he's been there. Capello used to take his Real Madrid team to Irdning for pre-season training.

I was only in Austria for 24 hours, but it was hard to escape the excitement that some of the world's best-known players are coming to town. The locals talked excitedly about David Beckham's visit with Real Madrid four years ago. One woman told me how she'd been walking down the High Street when Beckham jogged past her. Apparently that brought the village to a standstill, although that would hardly have been difficult in a part of the world where life doesn't seem to move much faster than a snail's pace anyway.

Beckham certainly left his mark in 2006. A number of people proudly show off their photos with him. One, David Gabriel, was a teenager at the time. He got chatting to Beckham in the local nightclub (more about that later), and told me that once he'd persuaded him to pose for a picture, he cheekily asked the player if he could have a pair of his boots.

"Beckham was really friendly. He told me to come down to the training ground the next day. After training he came over to me and gave me his football boots. They had his initials on them, and the names of his sons."

Many people would have kept the boots as a memento that would last a lifetime. David Gabriel had a different idea. "I decided to put them on eBay" he said. "They were sold for 3,000 euros. Somebody in Switzerland I think. I spent the money on new football clothes and going out."

Anyway, back to the nightclub. I'm sure that Fabio Capello will keep his players on a tight rein in Austria, and I can safely predict that he wouldn't be overly impressed if he glanced at one of the nightclub's flyers.

The England squad arrive in Austria on Tuesday en route to the Alps

Friday night's entertainment is highlighted as 'Millions of Dreads'. The flyer promises "hot go-go girls" and half-price whisky and Bacardi. Don't expect to hear about any England players roaming the streets of Irdning on Friday if their coach has anything to do with it.

Above all, though, I can say with some certainty after my trip to Irdning (I wasn't there on a Friday night by the way!) that the England squad is guaranteed a very warm welcome in this small Austrian village.

It's beautiful, the training pitch looks to be in excellent condition and the hotel is first class. England's journey to South Africa begins here, and the people of Irdning are determined to give the squad the perfect World Cup send-off.

England are one of only six teams to have attended every Commonwealth Games and rank second, behind Australia, in the overall medal tally.

Commonwealth Games England have always insisted that they'll attend the Games if at all possible, and the decision to inform their sports governing bodies that the go-ahead has been given reflects confidence in the latest security advice.

That doesn't mean, though, that the security situation is not complex. Fourteen people were injured in bomb blasts in Bangalore before an Indian Premier League cricket match as recently as 17 April. If you look at the latest advice on the Foreign Office website then you might well think twice before travelling to Delhi.

The Foreign Office says that "there is a high threat of terrorism throughout India. Recent attacks have targeted public places including those frequented by foreigners. There are increased indications that terrorists are planning attacks in New Delhi.

"You should be particularly conscious of security considerations in the vicinity of key government installations and tourist sites, when attending public events (including religious events); and in public places, including hotels, airports, shopping malls and markets."

Work is continuing on venues in and around Delhi

Any athlete reading that could be forgiven for wondering if it really is worth the journey to India, even if a gold medal is at stake. So why is the English team going?

Well first it's important to make clear that security advice is being received all the time. At the moment the advice is that athletes will be safe in India. If that were to change then of course the England team would still have the opportunity to withdraw from the Games.

But the reality is that the advice given to an elite competitor at the Games is always going to be different from advice given to a general tourist.

All the athletes will be given special protection in Delhi. The theory is that after they touch down in India they'll be taken safely to the athletes' village. Both the village and all competition venues will be guarded by a so-called ring of steel. Organisers are adamant that they can keep these areas secure - one even recently called the plans "foolproof".

It goes without saying that those running the Delhi Commonwealth Games simply have to get this right. The consequences of something going wrong don't even bear thinking about. A successful Games could set Delhi on the way to a future Olympic bid.

The challenge, though, is so much bigger than just a security one. The construction project has hardly gone according to plan, a number of venues fell far behind schedule, and there are still major issues involved in getting everything ready in time. For example one recent visitor to the swimming pool described it as a "mud bath".

That might be a story for another day. The good news today for the Delhi organisers is that at least the England team is coming. There's no point in working hard for a party only to find that the guests don't turn up.

The world number one's "indiscretions" have caused enormous damage to him and his family, but his loss has been other people's gain. I'm just one of many beneficiaries of the resulting storm that's engulfed him since the end of November.

Take CBS, one of the broadcasters here. They can expect record golf audiences for this year's Masters. CBS president Sean McManus has described this as the second biggest media event in the past 10 years after the Barack Obama inauguration.

The truth is that Tiger hasn't actually missed that much over the past few months. It's the quietest time of the golfing year, with no majors taking place. Not that that will stop everybody from hyping up his return.

It's not just those journalists who have always dreamt of going to the Masters - and those broadcasters who can now dream of sky high ratings - who are gaining here.

Add in the town of Augusta, where business this week is booming, and golf's sponsors, who can lick their lips at the coverage the sport is going to get over the coming days.

Despite his problems, Tiger Woods is still a massive draw

But all this leads me on to some interesting questions.

Does golf really need Tiger? Can he take the credit for the sport's boom years? What would happen if the 34-year-old American quit golf? All golf fans will have their views. I look forward to reading yours.

These are particularly sensitive issues for Tiger's fellow players. It's hard not to feel sympathy for players who are amongst the best in the world, yet have to field more questions about an opponent than their own game.

On Monday, Tiger tried to build some bridges by apologising to his fellow professionals at his news conference. On Tuesday, some of those players were just as diplomatic.

Phil Mickelson, who's hardly known as one of Tiger's closest mates on tour, said that: "In the last 12 years, he's done remarkable things for the game of golf. Everybody's benefited. We've had more notoriety, need for stories and interest by readers. TV ratings have been higher because of it... I think we are all appreciative."

These are generous comments by Mickelson towards his greatest rival, but the statistics appear to back them up.

In 1996, before Tiger's first major victory, nine players on the PGA Tour had earned a million dollars in prize money. Last year, that figure was up to 91.

But is this really due to Tiger?

In English football's Premier League, salaries have rocketed, too. There are plenty of sexual "indiscretions" there, but no Tiger Woods.

Could it not be argued that Tiger's arrival on the golfing scene simply coincided with a massive rise in the value of sports rights and sports salaries?

Some golf followers talk about a doomsday scenario if Tiger were to walk away.

At times, there is so much discussion about him that you could be forgiven for wondering if he's the only person on the planet capable of holding a golf club.

However, others in the past talked about the difficulties of following in the footsteps of Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Seve Ballesteros etc.

Many tennis fans believed that they'd never see a rivalry that could come close to Borg and McEnroe. Then along came Federer and Nadal.

The truth is that, whatever our role in life, we all like to think that we're indispensable. The uncomfortable reality for most of us is that we aren't.

Is Tiger Woods really an exception to that rule? I look forward to reading your views.

I'm currently on a train heading to Manchester for an evening that will play an important role in shaping Manchester United's season, but could also provide us with a much better idea of the direction in which the club's long-term future is heading.

David Beckham is far too diplomatic to tell us his thoughts about the ruling Glazer family, but how fascinating it would be to know what's going through his mind tonight. A return to a club that in many ways hasn't changed at all - it's still as successful as ever, but yet once again is witnessing an acrimonious scuffle for control.

I use the word 'scuffle' because so far the current campaign to oust the Glazers has been relatively unthreatening. There's been a great deal of talk but, bar the green and gold scarf campaign, we haven't seen much action.

So on Wednesday night both the Red Knights and other Manchester United supporters face a dilemma. There's no doubt that the Red Knights have the backing of much of the United fanbase - 125,000 people have signed up to join the Manchester United Supporters Trust - but signatures alone are unlikely to persuade the Glazers to sell.

The Glazer family's spokesman has insisted time and time again that the club is not for sale. Manchester United is a money-making machine. Right now there's little reason for the Glazers to walk away.

The Red Knights, then, need to decide what to do next. Let's assume for now they can raise the kind of sums of money that they're looking for - maybe even as much as £1.5bn. Would that be enough to persuade the Glazer family to hand over the keys to Old Trafford?

The green and gold scarf campaign has taken off at Old Trafford

The general theory in life is that everything has its price. In that case, it's simple. The Red Knights just need to work out the Glazers' selling price and raise enough cash to meet it.

Of course, it's unlikely to be that simple. Few things are. There's also the matter of pride. The Glazers will not want to be seen to be being pushed into doing anything. If they do sell - and that's a very big IF - they will want to do so on their own terms.

That's why this evening is going to be so interesting. If supporters don't like something then the natural instinct is to protest. The green and gold campaign has been a very effective and good-natured campaign.

Tonight, though, there's been talk of going further - boycotting the first 10 minutes of the match, allowing the TV cameras to show rows of empty seats to the watching millions around the world. That would certainly send out a very powerful message.

But what would be the reaction of the Glazers? They would be frustrated, maybe angry, but would it make them more likely to sell or would it just persuade them to dig in and vow to ignore the protest? There has to be a real chance that the latter would be the case, and that's why MUST (Manchester United Supporters Trust) is trying to distance itself from talk of any boycott.

There's also the not insignificant matter of the actual match itself. Manager Sir Alex Ferguson has said that he's sure that fans wouldn't do anything that could harm the team's chances of reaching the Champions League quarter-finals. The protestors are protesting because they have strong feelings for the club. Would those same people really be happy not giving their players vocal support throughout the whole 90 minutes?

So maybe this evening we won't see as big a protest as we'd once expected. But then if there isn't a boycott, would the Glazers be able to use that as evidence that the fans feelings against them aren't as strong as some might claim?

It's a big night for Manchester United, but it's also an important night for those attempting to oust the Glazers. Tactics, on and off the pitch, are going to be fascinating to watch.

UPDATE 1700 GMT:

I'm now at Old Trafford. I've just interviewed Duncan Drasdo, who's the chief executive of MUST. I'm now fairly certain that there will not be a 10-minute boycott - or at least not one that's effective enough to be noticeable on TV. MUST are not doing anything to encourage a boycott, and realistically you'd need around 20% of fans to stay out of their seats for it to be clearly visible.

MUST are definitely going for the cautious approach at the moment. It's a waiting game for them while the Red Knights continue to try to raise the money. Interestingly, though, Drasdo did tell me that he thought that MUST could well support stronger protests once (or if) that money is raised. So there is a bit of a veiled threat towards the Glazers at the moment.

The message from MUST appears to be "We're going to support the Red Knights, but we're not going to make life difficult for you, the Glazers, YET. If however, you refuse any financial offer from the Red Knights, then we (MUST) could start trying to hit you where it hurts - in your pockets."

UPDATE 2300 GMT:

I said that Beckham's too diplomatic to tell us what he thinks about the Glazers. Well we saw again on Wednesday night that he's also astute enough to let us know his thoughts without opening his mouth.

The enduring image from the game will be Beckham leaving the pitch with a green and gold scarf round his neck. There's no doubt that Beckham's gesture is a boost to the anti-Glazer campaign.

There was no mass walkout, but United's commanding performance enabled the fans to chant their protests without doing anything to damage their team's chances of victory. It was a fantastic night for the team and a good one for the protestors.

Now I'm ready to pose another question, which will probably provoke just as much debate. Have these actually been the best Winter Olympics ever?

Let me clarify that question a little. In many ways there are always two parallel Olympics which take place - the one that viewers around the world watch on TV, and the one that spectators come to a city to enjoy in person.

For example, the Beijing Olympics were considered to be a great success by the international television audience, whereas many people who witnessed the Games at first hand complained about the lack of atmosphere in the Chinese capital.

In Beijing there was little buzz around the city. Yes, they were a fantastic Games in terms of quality of venues and competition, but not in terms of the amount of fun that people were having. Here the street party began on the opening night and it shows no signs of coming to an end just yet.

One senior official from London 2012, who's been in Vancouver, told me that she's learned more from five days in Canada than she had from three weeks in China. That's because, in terms of spectator experience, London will be looking to follow the Vancouver model.

I haven't seen much of the TV coverage, so it's hard for me to judge what your personal opinions of these Olympics will be, but I hope that many of you will write your views here.

In the meantime I'll focus on my experience of the Games, having now spent nearly three weeks in Vancouver and Whistler. So, I should probably refine my opening question just a little: Are these Winter Olympics, in terms of spectator experience, the best ever?

On Friday I was outside the Broadcast Centre grabbing some fresh air when I saw a large crowd heading down the street towards me. At the centre of the throng was a big Canadian flag being waved proudly in the air. As the people moved closer I could see that the man carrying that flag was Jon Montgomery, a Canadian gold medallist last weekend in the skeleton.

Around him, an impromptu procession had formed - a celebration of home-grown success. The further down the road that Montgomery went, the more people tagged on behind. If this had been a scene in some other countries maybe there would have been accusations of over-hyped nationalism, but this felt spontaneous, natural and very good natured.

I had witnessed just one of hundreds of events that have been taking place on the streets here every day, but for me it summed up one of the successes of these Games.

When I interviewed John Furlong, the chief executive of the Vancouver Olympics, last week, he said that he wanted the Games to help unite Canadians. Few would argue that hasn't happened over the past two weeks.

These have not, though, just been a Games for Canadians, they've been an all-embracing Games. The Canadian people could not have been more welcoming. All the athletes I've spoken to have said exactly the same.

Foreigners have been welcomed with open arms. It's almost impossible to travel on public transport here without a local coming over to speak to you (admittedly the BBC accreditation around my neck is a bit of a giveaway) and ask how you're enjoying the Olympics. There's a real pride here in Vancouver, as we saw from the strong response to the original articles which were so critical of the Games.

It's going to be interesting in London in 2012 to see if the British people get behind their Olympic team in quite the same way as the Canadians have here. Flags fly in every shop window, and are displayed on hundreds of thousands of shirts and jackets.

My producer, Jon, noticed early in the Olympics that a number of people were wearing red Canadian mittens. He decided that he'd buy a pair to take home for his wife. Two weeks later he's still looking! Every shop has sold out. They've become the must-have fashion accessory of the Games - millions have been bought.

It's just another illustration of how Canadians have united behind their country's flag. Even Oprah Winfrey was excited to be able to give some away on her show the other day.

I can only write about my personal experience in Vancouver, and, as you can see, I have little but praise for the way that this city has handled the Olympics. These are only my second Winter Olympics, so I'm in no position to say that they're the best ever, but in terms of spectator experience they definitely compare favourably with Turin four years ago.

And how about this for a compliment from a man who really should know what he's talking about? The IOC president Jacques Rogge told me in an interview (which you can watch here) that the people of Vancouver had "embraced the Olympic Games like no other city in the world before".

Many other seasoned Winter Olympic observers are also putting Vancouver right at the top of their list. Are they at the top of yours?

I'm not going to deny that during my career I have, maybe once or twice, blagged my way into places where I probably shouldn't have been - a 2002 World Cup semi-final springs to mind - but I'm happy to say that in Vancouver I'm a fully accredited journalist.

The broadcasting centre is my base during the Games. So you can imagine my surprise when she stopped me in my tracks.

I looked at the lady and I could see that she was smiling. "You're British," she said. "You lot have all been rude about our Olympics, I'm not going to let you in." Luckily, I could see that she was joking, I gave her a slightly nervous chuckle, and then continued on my merry way. Behind her jovial comment, though, lay a serious point. Many Canadians have been really hurt by some of the criticisms in the British media.

For the past few days, I've been trying to persuade the Vancouver Organising Committee (Vanoc) to offer me a senior figure to interview. I wanted to give them the chance to stick up for themselves.

The list of complaints is quite a long one: The problems with the lighting of the Olympic flame at the opening ceremony, the criticism that members of the public were only able to see the cauldron through a fence, the weather, the cancellation of 28,000 tickets to events on Cypress Mountain, the breakdown of the ice-surfacing machine at the speed skating venue. The list goes on.

There is, of course, also the issue of the death of an athlete, which has cast a huge shadow over the Games, but it feels totally inappropriate for me to add that to a list of other criticisms, as it makes everything else seem insignificant.

For the past couple of days. it's seemed that the Vanoc was happy to let all the criticism go unchallenged. That all changed this morning. My producer received a phone call telling him that John Furlong, the man in charge, the CEO of the Games, would be happy to speak to us in half an hour.

I'd never met him before, but from seeing him on television I'd always thought of him as fairly relaxed. He wasn't when he arrived this morning. Here was a man who'd clearly decided that enough was enough. He'd come to the conclusion that it was time to defend his reputation, to defend his Olympics.

In his hand, he carried a piece of paper with a few notes. He knew what he wanted to say and made his point very eloquently. He described some people in the press as "caustic" and "angry". You can see the interview on this page and judge for yourself, but it was his passion which made the greatest impression on me.

After the interview, once the camera was switched off, it was as though I was speaking to a completely different man to the one who'd arrived a little earlier. Furlong had got everything off his chest and he clearly felt a lot better for having done so.

I'll be interested to see your comments on the interview. It's hard not to feel some sympathy for him, in particular regarding the weather. It's hardly his fault that Vancouver is in the middle of its mildest winter for a century. But what about the other issues? Have the British press been too hard on Vanoc?

I think that it's only fair that I make one point in defence of these Games before I sign off. Furlong talks at length in the interview about the atmosphere in Vancouver. There's a lot of truth in the saying "seeing is believing". Anybody who's walked through the city centre during some of the events, or managed to get up to Whistler, couldn't fail to get caught up in the excitement of the Canadian people.

Some of those who've written articles criticising these Olympics have done so from thousands of miles away. If those same people had been on Cypress Mountain when Canada won their first ever gold medal on home soil, they might have written a rather different story.

Often that story can be an uplifting one, but tragically on Friday it was quite the reverse. Vancouver had spent seven years getting ready to host the world's best winter athletes, yet just hours before the Opening Ceremony one of them died.

As John Furlong, the chief executive of the Games said, "It's not something I prepared for, or ever thought I would have to be prepared for."

The Vancouver organisers put out a statement that same evening implying it was the Georgian's fault, claiming that he "came late out of curve 15 and did not compensate properly to make correct entrance into curve 16".
Nodar Kumaritashvili had taken part in five World Cup races this season. Photograph: Getty

The conclusion was that the track was safe and that the competition could continue.

In many ways, though, the most pertinent comment has come from the Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is in Vancouver. He argued that no human error should lead to the death of an athlete.

That's a sentiment with which many will agree. Yes, of course some winter sports are dangerous, but does that mean that athletes should have to risk their lives to fulfil their dreams of competing at an Olympics?

There's been much talk in Vancouver about the Canadians' campaign to 'Own the Podium'. That has been the name of their attempt to do everything in their power (legally it must be said) to win their first ever Olympic gold medal on home soil.

They've limited the amount of practice time for foreign athletes at many of the venues. It seems harsh, though, to blame that policy for what happened at the luge track. The Georgian had had 26 previous runs on it.

The difficulty for those organising an Olympics is this: They're determined to build facilities that test the best in the world, yet at the same time they need to be aware that the IOC doesn't want the Games to be elitist, so there can be a large variable in standard between the best and worst in any event.

If that balance goes wrong then a track that is testing for the very best in the world could end up being dangerous for others.

I put that point to the IOC President Jacques Rogge at his press conference after the accident on Friday. I asked him if he believed that a track at an Olympics should actually be easier than those at other major events, so that less experienced athletes could compete.

Rogge batted my question away, saying that it was too early to discuss such things, and he was probably right to do so. It's an issue, though, that will have to be debated once these Games are over.

Nodar Kumaritashvili was no novice. He had taken part in five World Cup races this season. He was, though, still far less experienced than many of his fellow competitors.

It's a sad fact of life that accidents happen, but if this man's death is not to be in vain, then the IOC must determine if it could have been avoided.

I'm currently travelling at 30,000 feet somewhere over the east of Canada, and am already discovering that blogging is a great way to kill time during a 10-hour flight.

I should probably confess right at the beginning that this isn't actually my first foray into the world of blogging, although my previous attempt was rather short-lived.

Keen readers of the Daily Mail might recall that my blogging debut generated rather more publicity than I'd intended. Having been sent to Beijing in 2008 to cover the Olympics I had determined to give readers as honest an insight into life behind the scenes with the BBC team as possible.

Well I definitely did that, but I hadn't really bargained for the impact of my revelation that I'd had to miss an outside broadcast because I had been struggling so much to keep dry in the intense heat there. Let's just say that I'd had a few issues keeping my shirt dry!

What I'd thought was just going to be a light-hearted story on a blog ended up with my face being splattered all over the tabloids.

People say that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Well I'm still to be convinced that I gained much from the next day's headline "Welcome to the 'Sweat' at Ten". At least the heat won't be a problem in Vancouver!

If nothing else, I suppose, it did provide my colleagues with a week's worth of amusement, and no doubt some will be surprised that I'm returning to the blogging hemisphere for possible further punishment, but I'm made of tougher stuff than that - or at least I think I am! We'll soon find out. (That, by the way, is a hint for you all to be gentle on me for the first few weeks!)

Either way, I'm hoping that I can continue with my initial aim of being as informative as possible, giving you a feel for what's happening behind the scenes, although perhaps without creating quite so much controversy - initially at least anyway.

My job as a sports news correspondent is one of the most unpredictable in the whole of the BBC. I honestly don't know where I'm going to be from one day to the next, and that's what I love about it.

One minute I can be sitting in the office making routine phone calls, and the next I can be racing across the country trying to get to the location of a major breaking sports story in time for the Six o' Clock News. Cars run on petrol, I run on adrenalin.

My intention is to guide you with me over the next few months on this voyage into the unknown. It's going to be a busy year, with the highlight, of course, being the World Cup in South Africa.

So what about the Winter Olympics in Vancouver? In 'news' terms there's no doubt that there's going to be plenty for me to get my teeth into.

These are the final Olympics before London and there are a number of similarities between the two Games (hopefully snow not being one of them, although I'm sure that you've already read about the problems with the weather being too warm in Vancouver).

Vancouver and London have both been badly hit by the global economic crisis. In fact the IOC has already had to offer to bail out these Canadian Olympics if necessary. The London organisers won't be looking for bail-outs, but they will be looking for lessons on how to put on an affordable Games.

Elsewhere I expect to be watching the IOC's drug-testing programme with interest. Four years ago in Turin we saw police raids on some of the Austrian competitors. Will the dopers have been scared off by the IOC's get tough approach or will doping scandals once again dominate a Games?

And then of course there's the sport. Hopefully I'll be reporting on some British medal successes. Eight years ago we had Rhona Martin's 'stone of destiny' as the curling team won gold, four years ago there was a silver medal for Shelley Rudman in the skeleton. Who will be the British hero this time?

I've posed a few questions here, there are plenty more. It's going to be fascinating (and hopefully a lot of fun) watching them being answered over the next few weeks. As I look out of the aeroplane window I can see some mountains in the distance. Vancouver here I come!