The Dropkicks: A sports blog and pocast

Bam!

Thanks Rugby Dump.

­Much has been written about South Africa's fall from grace in recent weeks.  They have gone from a team that could do no wrong to a team that just can't get it right.  In particular, the South African media is falling over itself about the sudden plummet.  While one can certainly see a big difference between last years Tri-­Nations and this year's, the suggestion that the difference is only the law application is wrong minded.  South Africa is not suddenly suffering a down turn.  Instead, last year was an aberration.  The whinging coming from Africa, both in the form of the media and SARU executives, should stop.  One gets the impression that refereeing decisions are subverting rugby's world order.  South Africa is not being robbed of their rightful place.  They are performing to their usual standard.

A quick look at the history of the Boks will show that in recent times they are less impressive than one might think.  In order to demonstrate the lack of form in recent times, one should look at the Sprinboks since the end of the competition ban, viewing their record in various increments.

Since 1992-The Springboks have won about 63% of their games.  To put that in perspective, in the same period New Zealand have won about 80%, England 65%, France 64%, and Austraila 67%.  In other words, of the five main powerhouses in rugby over the last 20 years, South Africa has underperformed everyone else.  The margin may be small, but the numbers hardly show South Africa in the same stratosphere with New Zealand, miles beyond everyone else.  Some will point to the 1995 World Cup, and that win certainly was impressive.  It also happened 15 years ago.

Last 10 years-The win rate over this period dips slightly, to 62%, basically remaining steady.  The 2003 World Cup was a total failure, with the Boks easily handled by the All Blacks in the Quarterfinals.

Last 5 years-The Boks won 64% in the last five years.  Of course another RWC victory came in this period.  The difficulty of this victory is often overrated.  The '07 Boks are the only team to make a RWC final and not play one team from the Tri-Nations or Six Nations in the knock out stages.  In fact, only three other teams ('87 France, '95 South Africa, '99 France) ever made the final playing a tier two nation or Argentina in the knock out stages.  South Africa were not truly tested until the Final, beating up on the USA, Samoa, Tonga, and a hapless England side in the pool stage.  The Boks won the '07 RWC fair and square, but they had the easiest path to the title of any RWC champion.

Last 2 years-During the '08 Tri-Nations South Africa finally won in New Zealand.  They then lost to Australia in Perth, got shut out at home by the All Blacks, and let Australia win its first road Tri-Nations game in seven years.  That fall they came perilously close to losing to both Wales and Scotland.  The '09 Lions (whose quality one could question based on the abysmal form of Northern Hemisphere teams in recent years) would have drawn their series with South Africa if Ronan O'Gara didn't suffer from the same malady as Dorthy's friend the Scarecrow.  The '09 Tri-Nations was an obvious high for the Boks.  It was followed by a disastrous tour where South Africa lost to Ireland, France, Saracens, and Leicester.  This June, France and Italy were weak opposition, and South Africa has been incapable of winning in the Tri-Nations.  In 2007-2010, South Africa is still only 70% in tests.

Are South Africa the second best team in world rugby, more often than not?  Yes.  The idea that they are a team on par with New Zealand, however, is ridiculous.  When one only counts success in World Cups, then yes South Africa has the edge.  This "golden age" of Springbok rugby is, in fact, only two good runs during the '07 RWC and summer of '09.  Since the end of the competition ban, South Africa has consistently been a team that loses every third game.  Their performance this year is below average for them, but not by much.  In their last 20 tests they have won 12, 60%.  We shouldn't expect much else.

The building up of the Boks seems to be more about New Zealand then about South Africa.  In the Henry era the All Blacks have won a whopping 86% of the time.  The most likely team to topple such a juggernaut will obviously get the media hype.  When the Boks are playing like the Boks and the All Blacks play like the All Blacks, the whining and shock should not happen.  The results lately are par for the course in the world of international rugby.  According to the numbers, South Africa in the last 20 years are nothing more than one other team struggling to match the standards of the men in black.

Man these guys run fast. David Rudisha breaks the 800m world record with a time of 1:41:09 -- with lap times of 49secs and 52secs. That is so fast. To put in perspective, the 400m sprint record is 43:18, so the 800m guys aren't that much slower, even though they're going twice as far. Awesome...

On September 11, 2011 the United States national rugby team will play Ireland in their first Rugby World Cup match in New Plymouth. Meanwhile in America 24hrs later there will be commemorations for the 10th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center.

For the past year focus has been given to 'party central' and the delay in finalising a venue and building it. I ask, what plans are there in New Plymouth for the US team? Sure it's not something we have to do, but surely someone will eventually connect the dots. Was this match scheduled intentionally to allow some kind of ceremony or was this an oversite by the IRB?

Do you think that NZ, as a country - bearing in mind we're pursuing a free-trade agreement with the US - is obligated to remember the events of that day and provide some sort of service for the team and its supporters on that day, or is this an international tournament and that should be all it remains?

In 2009 we got used to seeing a Springboks side that seemed almost unstoppable. They could retain possession until they decided to kick it down your throat and force you to make a mistake. They had a tight 5 that could hold up - or collapse - any scrum they wanted to, flankers that could bully you at the ruck if you were behind the 8 ball and a halfback-first 5 combo that worked effectively to distribute the ball and kick for territory. Arguably their weak links were in the midfield and at fullback.

In contrast the Wallabies side of 2009 was a little bit disjointed. A forward pack which could work together if it had to, too many cooks in the kitchen at halfback and first/second five, but from there on out it was all positives. Personally I think James O'Connor at fullback was their weak link - they worked better with Adam Ashley-Cooper at the back - but the whole team had a disjointed feel to it with occasional flashes of brilliance bringing it all together. Like the Waratahs, Hurricanes or Chiefs.

One year has been enough to change those perceptions.

Make no mistake, the Springboks were outplayed in tonight's match. In the first half they did well to keep up - and throughout the whole game they outplayed the Wallabies at the ruck and the scrum. But as the game wore on it became increasingly obvious this was a South African team without a game plan. Last year everything seemed so structured, so clinical, so formulaic. Tonight every ruck was different. Clearing kicks were made without chasers - in one case Danie Roussow was the only Springbok sprinting after the ball - forwards were caught in midfield, backs were made to pick-and-go from 60m out... The only two players who seemed to have any idea what they were doing were Ruan Pienaar, Morne Steyn and Jacque Fourie, barring his yellow card.

It's already become a Tri Nations campaign of desperation for the South Africans. Schalk Burger will most likely lose a couple of weeks to ruminate on his discipline after getting caught on camera doing something dodgy to Pocock's eye socket in one of their many scuffles. Their carbon credit bill will be enormous with the cost of replacing all these players getting bans.

There's also the issue of the particularly dodgy but seemingly legal tactic bokke was using when chasing kicks, where the chaser would go up with arms and legs akimbo clearly not pursuing the ball but aiming to put off the opposition.

I'm beginning to ask some serious questions of the Boks' plans for this season and why after four games have they still failed to correctly deploy their wingers and fullback on attack. The ball either gets to Fourie too late to pass it, or he holds it, breaks the line and there's no runners there in support.

The Wallabies side wasn't perfect either. They played like the All Blacks last week but in reverse. They started off not looking too flash but ended strongly after getting a bit of confidence.

One thing they definitely need to focus on over the next week is their scrum. The flankers were slipping and sliding and the front rowers were getting pounded almost every time, which led them to resort to some pretty obvious flouting of the laws in an effort to just keep the thing up long enough that they wouldn't be penalised.

There's also the issue of James O'Connor. I've not been a fan of him at fullback and his problems were exacerbated on the wing. I believe he was very lucky that Habana didn't get a chance to run at him with the ball in hand because his defence is poor and his ability under the high ball is limited. Yet when you watch him at a Super 14 level it's like chalk and cheese. Dingo Deans needs to find a way to get that confidence and ability to show on the field.

Personally I'd support giving Kurtley Beale the start at fullback against the blackness and putting Adam Ashley-Cooper on the wing, because O'Connor's struggles against the Boks tonight will be nothing compared to facing a resurgent Mils Muliaina in New Zealand in two weeks - or even in Australia next weekend.

A hat-tip has to go to Pocock and Rocky Elsom for their work around the field tonight. They put the bokke loosies back in their cage in emphatic style and it looks like the Australians have finally realised that when you're first to the ruck you can get away with a lot of rule-bending. All in all it will be interesting to see how Australia's "give it some air, show the crowd some flair" tactics shape up against New Zealand's "let's give it to Dan/Ma'a and see what he does". Ah, who am I kidding. We'll pump the criminals.

Final score:
Australia 31 - South Africa 13.
Australia: Tries to Drew Mitchell and Will Genia. Matt Giteau 5 penalties, James O'Connor 1 penalty, 1 conversion.
South Africa: Tries to Jacque Fourie and Guthro Steenkamp. Morne Steyn 1 penalty.

By the numbers:

Score: All Blacks 31, Springboks 17
Possession: All Blacks 53%, Springboks 47%

Lineouts: All Blacks won 6, lost 4, Springboks won 12, lost 0
Scrums: All Blacks won 5, lost 0 with 4 resets, Springboks won 10, lost 0 with 2 resets
Rucks: All Blacks 84, Springboks 70
Mauls: All Blacks 0, Springboks 1
Linebreaks: All Blacks 7, Springboks 4

Tackles made: All Blacks 77, Springboks 90
Tackles missed: All Blacks 9, Springboks 16

Turnovers: All Blacks lost 8, 2 from ruck/maul, 4 from lineout/scrum, 2 from other. Springboks lost 11, 5 from ruck/maul, 0 from lineout/scrum, 6 from other

Errors: All Blacks 10 - 10 handling, 0 kicking, 0 other. Springboks 10 - 9 handling, 0 kicking, 1 other
Infringements: All Blacks 10 penalties, Springboks 8, 1 Free Kick.

Sport is always about bringing performances week in and week out. For the two teams involved in the second Tri Nations game tonight, South Africa and New Zealand, one kept the same level as last week and another stepped up marginally.

South Africa were totally outplayed last week. This week they performed at a good standard at points in this game - 10 min after half-time, a few patches in the second half - which may be enough to get them over Australia, but not this current All Blacks side.

The story for NZ was the opposite. For the majority of the game we played an outstanding, exciting kind of rugby, but something which has cropped up over the 5 tests we've had this season is that there's been a consistent teething period of 5 - 10 minutes when the bench has rolled on where everything turns a little Yakety Sax.

Passes that are more like 20/80 than 50/50 get thrown, forwards get left to chase down stab-through kicks and players are caught out of position on returns. It's a lucky thing that the All Blacks' coaches have such emphasis on defence or this period of games could have proven costly at this point in the season.

On the whole though, this team is peaking. It's still early in the campaign and I'm reluctant to say it until we play Australia but I really don't see them offering anything in the way of a challenge, so I'll throw it out there.

This is a 2005 standard All Blacks unit. We pantsed the Lions that year and aside from South Africa nobody even looked like touching us. This season it appears that it'll be the same story, except not even SA is near us. Yes, you can feel free to come back here and point out how I was wrong if we lose one.

It's a tough thing to go undefeated - in fact, we haven't done it since 1997 when we won 11 and drew with England - but this is an All Blacks side which isn't demolishing teams in a dominant fashion, it's subtly and slowly piling on pressure and leaving other sides to play catchup.

In terms of tonight's performances, there are a couple of standouts and a couple who deserve a bit of a seeing to. First up is Dan Carter. Much is always made of his 'form slumps' and how he has purple patches but this is a two-way street. He was given a lot of space and time last week as the Boks appeared to focus on Cowan and Nonu, whereas this week he was almost completely nullifed. Even when he managed to get a kick off it was pretty touch-and-go. His goalkicking wasn't up to par but it's something commented on every time he plays in Wellington.

Next was Rene Ranger. He's had to slot in to a semi-established combo, but I'm left to wonder why Zac Guilford didn't get the call up. Ranger's a good player, but he's one of those young Carlos Spencer hit-or-miss players, even on defence. Whenever he has the ball in his hands he's looking to spark something - usually for himself - and when he's tackling he goes in 100% and either knocks someone for 6 or gets beaten. I just think somebody needs to sit him down and remind him he's in a team of outstanding players, not the Blues or Northland.

In terms or praises, I'm gonna wax lyrical about the loose forwards. We've finally got a trio to replace the effectiveness of the So'oialo/Collins/Masoe relationship. One of the massive benefits of musketeers McCaw/Read/Kaino is that all of them can play for 80 minutes, and all of them can play at each position. In a discussion during tonight's game the question 'who is the best player in international rugby at the moment' came up - the usual suspects, McCaw, Bryan Habana, Dan Carter were thrown up but I think Kieran Read is getting near that mix. He's everywhere on defence, he clears the ruck and fetches, he can link with backs and how many times have we seen him throw that last offload 5m from the line to a back to storm over? Mainstream pundits, you can go on and on about Pierre Spies but this year Read is better. And that's coming from a reformed Read hater.

I didn't want to write anything throughout the week in case I jinxed the team again, but here's a bit of a milestone that was missed by those in the media. Remember all those weeks ago when I wrote that the last time the All Blacks didn't score a try was in 2004? [Here it is if you missed it] Well tonight's game was the 75th consecutive game that the ABs have managed to cross the white line.

So from here we turn the evil eye of Mordor to Brisbane for next week's tussle between the under-performing Boks and the baby Wallabies. Can either side step up and offer something that will put a stick in the front wheel of the Kawasaki that is the 2010 All Blacks?

Final score: All Blacks 31, South Africa 17.

All Blacks;
Tries to Ma'a Nonu, Mils Muliana, Rene Ranger, Israel Dagg. Dan Carter 2 penalties, 1 conversion, Piri Weepu 1 penalty.

South Africa;
Tries to Danie Rossouw and Schalk Burger.
Morne Steyn 1 penalty, 2 conversions.

­­

­It is tough to offer to much as a blogger with the level of media saturation that goes along with these big test matches.  Still, I have a couple of thoughts about last week's game and the build up to this week.

Lucky All Blacks:  Make no mistake, the All Blacks deserved this victory.  To deny them the satisfaction of well beating the old enemy would be a total misreading of the game.  Nothing about last week suggested the Boks had any right to win.  I would suggest, however, that the margin was due in part to the bounce of the rugby ball.  In particular I think about Nonu's try.  In the lead up, he tried a sorry little chip that ricocheted off a defender and ended up right back in Ma'a's hands.  In the second half there was a quick throw in the New Zealand 22 that was almost picked off, Carter barely missed a defender, and the kick was hastily made.  Somehow each bullet was missed, the Africans let the ball bounce twenty meters, and a strong defensive line came forward.  The All Blacks made a good bit of their own luck, but they still enjoyed the rub of the green.

Injuries Make a Difference:  South Africa was without Fourie du Preez and Heinrich Brussow for this match.  Given the inefficiency of the kicking and the quality of the Kiwi ball, both were missed.  Again, I don't think those two would have meant a different outcome, but I think the margin and tenor of the game would have been much different.  Injuries happen and depth is imperative, so no free passes to South Africa.  Still, between the Boks this year and the All Blacks last year, when is the last time we have seen a South Africa/New Zealand clash where both teams were not missing a vital cog?  It may have been in Hamilton last year, but McCaw and Carter were just getting back into fitness.  It is a shame we can't see how the two stack up with du Preez in the mix.

Arm Chair Selectors Look Foolish:  About a week ago voices were coming from everywhere that it was time for the future.  In particular, many wanted to see the back three fully participate in a youth movement.  Roks and Mils are over the hill, throw 'em out!  Those folks look a little silly now.  The most interesting insight into the difficulty of fans selecting a team from their living rooms came from Muliaina.  Asked about the break that led to the Conrad Smith try he said, "I got a really good call from Joe Roks to come back in, as I was
planning to go down the sideline."  Now sitting in a recliner screaming at the TV that play looked like pure brilliance by Mils.  In fact, the media has done much to declare him one of the men of the match.  When you talk to the fullback, however, he makes it clear that a call from his teammate changed his decision making.  That is the sort of thing you just can't see on a TV screen or sitting in a production booth.  Those calling for Rokocoko, Muliaina, or any other player to be dropped should remember that the coaches select based on a lot more information than we can.  Combinations and communication are important.  Selecting a team is not selecting a fantasy rugby squad, blinding filling spots based on tries scored or line breaks.

World's Best Domestic Competition:  I am tired of hearing about the Currie Cup.  We hear that it is the "preeminent provencial competition" in the world, but I don't buy it.  First, the standard of rugby is much lower than the Air New Zealand/ITM/Do-you-have-money-because-we-will-rename-this-sucker-anything/no longer NPC Cup.  That is if you are looking for skill.  If you want to watch massive kicks and endless pick and drives the Currie Cup is for you.  The ITM Cup is much faster and the players are more skilled.  New Zealand also fields 14 teams, a good 10 which are competitive.  The Currie Cup has only 8, and the bottom three are generally pathetic.  South Africa may be having a golden age right now, but their depth is not as good as New Zealand's.  The ITM Cup is at the very least far more interesting to watch. 

The Boks' Strength:  Combining the Currie Cup and this last test, we can see that the Africans still have a limited repertoire.  While the backs have improved, South African rugby still depends on naked aggression and the kicking game (which typically includes the entire forward pack playing miles offsides).  Botha's head butting is hardly surprising for a country that plays with such physicality.  The line between physicality and thuggery is often thin, and the Boks love to walk it.  If you celebrate players like Botha and Steyn, it says a lot about your approach to rugby.  Even the talented Habana is often only involved in a boring game of fetch with the first five-eigths.  If rugby keeps the laws in a place where the advantage goes to fast, skilled players, New Zealand will be dominant.  If, like last year, they allow the game to become more stagnant and physical, we will see a strong South African side. 

Changing the Laws:  On a related note, often the Northern Hemisphere teams complain that changes to the laws are pushed by New Zealand and Australia just so that they will have an advantage.  That would be half right.  Laws that encourage counter attack and ball-in-hand play do work well traditionally for All Black and Wallaby sides.  The only problem is the world "just" or "only."  The NZRU believes that a faster game is better for the game and John O'Neill believes it is better for his pocketbook.  The All Blacks' push for a faster game is not a mere cynical ploy for dominance, but such a game sure does help.  As fans watching last weeks game, I think we all can agree its best for us too.

Picture the following scenario:

A large company launches a new product. All goes well until a few months later when technical complications prevent customers from being able to use said product. People from all walks of life are cut off from the service you provide. Some of them made major investments to be early adopters. They get upset and leave your company for a competitor.

But as fate would have it, you're a major sponsor of your country's largest national sport team. That same team has lost a lot of the support it previously almost unquestioningly had due to its apparent 'failure' to be successful.

How can you combine these two negatives to come up with a positive?

Some bright spark at Telecom had the idea of creating BackingBlack, kind of an All Black street team. I'm all for it, great to see someone getting out there and giving some positive energy to the All Blacks after the amount of flack they cop.

But - and I know it's early days - having followed their progress for a wee bit, I'm wondering where it's heading. At the moment it's just a group of people going to matches, giving stuff away and chanting - there are some mid-week activities to be sure - but isn't this just preaching to the converted?

When I heard about the campaign I thought it'd be using social media to connect with the Gen Yers. Instead, it's more of a disconnect. There's a Twitter account that doesn't seem to take any steps to interact with people, a Facebook page with a different name and of course, their own website.

Now, Scott [I thought] did a great job on his Northern Hemisphere tour last year with the insight and footage he was sending back. But do the others behind the social media drive realise that social media is about engagement? Nobody wants to watch you talk amongst yourselves and film yourselves hanging out. Where are the visits to the 80-year-old widow in Cromwell who has a signed jersey from the 1974 team?

A few friends of mine went to the game in Hamilton - and I know others who were at Carisbrook. The running theme seems to be much the same as I feel; it's a great idea with a lot of potential but at the moment that potential isn't being realised. Why are we having marches to the game to amp people up? They will do that themselves. Why are we forcing other fans to chant during the game? The drunken student mob already have that one covered.

Also, is it even needed? The All Blacks get a rough time in the papers and on talkback, there's no mistaking that. But when they get out on Eden Park, Rugby Park or any of the other venues in NZ they look around and see a capacity crowd. Rugby passion isn't dying at the top level, it's dying at the regional level.

The stuff they're doing for the All Blacks is meaningless. New Zealanders are always going to be able to support their rugby team, just like their football, cricket and netball teams. They get the exposure.

What should be the focus is the local base.

How many people, upon hearing Adam Thomson or Jerome Kaino's name in the All Blacks' squad three years ago said "who?" - I did - and on a regional level there are loads of these players who don't get exposure other than among their team base and if they score a try or become a phenom. The disconnection between the punter and the All Blacks starts at a regional level.

It used to be easy to follow a player and their rise through the ranks. You'd go to the games, your mates would talk about them, you'd read the match reports. The MY SKY generation have it even easier. Too easy. The fall in viewership may not be so much in a growing boredom with rugby as an ability to choose. You may not want to watch Wellington play Northland, so you'll record it - or skip it altogether. Then before you've watched it, you might hear the score - rendering the match useless unless you really wanna see it.

It's all well and good to give each other back slaps and feel good after you've gotten to go along and have select seats and camera time but ask yourself, BackingBlack, are you growing rugby support or are you just maintaining it? Get your same network together and put your weight behind some ITM Cup teams instead of wasting energy trying to get people excited about a game they're already willingly shelling out for and while you're at it, re-assess the way you're doing things. Are you going to focus on one age group or all? If you're gonna focus on Gen Y get into high schools, get along to local rugby matches, take some injured ABs or local players with you. Do some skill sessions, go go-karting or something similar. Just because we don't chant doesn't mean we don't have passion.

Disclaimer: I'm not a part of BackingBlack, so I don't know what their plans are. If you've already planned to do something special for the ITM Cup, good on ya. While this may come across as a bitter, jealous post, I genuinely wish the BB crew all the best.

A wise man [I think it was Hadyn] once told me something along the lines of

I support sport teams instead of individual players because players will always eventually let you down.

We all support sport teams for a variety of reasons. I first started supporting the Cleveland Cavaliers in the mid '90s as all of my friends were into Basketball and I was on a post-Space Jam basketball buzz and wanted to be able to talk to them. I lucked into seeing the Cavs play in 1997 with Shawn Kemp and managed to catch a few of the wins and I was hooked.

Pretty much that was it. The internet was in its infancy and I was 9. My support extended to knowing one of their players and being able to talk about them.

As the internet has taken off it's been easier to follow US sports and I've put more effort into the Cavs - it helps that they play at a time when there's nothing else on.

Then in 2003, the team managed to get one of the best players currently in the NBA straight out of high school. More than that though, he was a home-town hero.

LeBron James had grown up in Akron, about 60 kilometres from Cleveland. We managed to secure one of the most promising players, after being one of the worst teams the previous season. Things were looking up.

Over the next two seasons LeBron proved all the cynics wrong. He could live up to the hype, he could perform on the national stage. There was just one problem: One player cannot win you a championship. A great player can carry a good team, even an average team. But not a mediocre team.

In 2007 we managed to re-sign 'The King' when he came off contract. The next year he'd go to Beijing to win the Olympic gold medal, the first international tournament win for the US since 2000.

LeBron came back to Cleveland and it was business as usual. The Cavaliers cruised through the 2008/2009 season and looked on track to make it through to the final. Not so. Vince Carter and [should probably check these things before posting] Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic pretty much shredded the Cavs and advanced to take on the LA Lakers before getting absolutely annihilated.

If anything, that series started to open people's eyes to the Cavs front office. Serious concerns started to be raised within the online Cavs fan base about the effectiveness of coach Mike Brown - who appeared to make no changes to the gameplan during that Magic series - and the inability to get players who could take the heat off LeBron in big game situations. We had gone from only losing 16 games throughout the regular season to losing to a side which got trounced in the finals.

For many years LeBron 'carried' the Cavaliers. Whether it was expected of him or he he felt that had to do it, it happened. After the 08/09 finals we were promised things would change. Owner Dan Gilbert said the team was 'committed' to bringing an NBA title to Ohio.

He appeared to be backing up these words with the signing of Shaquille O'Neal. Shaq was expected to bring a prescence to the team which would allow LeBron to stay outside and put up shots to relieve the defensive pressure. The only problem was that this didn't happen. Shaq, due to his height, weight and probably age, draws the attention of the referees and gets fouls called against him on a very regular basis.

He was a great addition to the team, don't get me wrong, but what we needed with him was a guy who could shoot from the perimeter.

The reason the current Lakers squad enjoys their success is that they're unpredictable. They can shoot from the perimeter, they can shoot from mid-range, or they can drive and dunk on you.

The 2009/2010 Cavs had one thing: highlight reels. We could dunk. We could run the fastbreak. That's it. Once Shaq went off we had an undersized unit in Anderson Varejao - for whatever reason Brown lost faith in 700-game veteran Žydrūnas Ilgauskas, who had been a major part of the gameplan in the regular season. And an clear problem in previous seasons which had been brought up in many different circles was the bench.

Players coming off the bench in an NBA game, if they can keep the scoreboard ticking over, are a huge asset. LeBron would play almost an entire game - so surely you can focus on getting a guard to help him?

We had Mo Williams who has his flaws but can be relied on for three-pointers when it matters. But for shooting guard there was nobody. Delonte West had been picked up in 2008 and performed adequately. But not good enough for a starter. He had a mindset of 'drive for the layup' it seemed, and on a team where you're looking for someone to bail you out when the opposition tighten up in the lane, you want a SG who can punish from outside.

But enough of that. LeBron came to the end of his contract and became a Free Agent this off-season. As a Cavaliers fan I hoped that he would stay. I thought it was pretty unrealistic but what sort of follower would I be if I didn't think there was a chance he could stay?

For the last two seasons there'd been a strong undercurrent of expectation that he would pack up and move to play for the New York Knicks, partly because of a comment made years ago that he wanted to become the first black billionaire athlete, partly because he loves the New York Yankees, partly because people thought he was arrogant and wanted the media exposure.

The NBA passed a rule stipulating that Free Agents could not announce their signings until July 8th, probably hoping to get a massive amount of exposure and take over the headlines from the FIFA World Cup for a couple of days. LeBron's camp announced that they would hold an hour-long television special on ESPN that day.

Once that special was announced I knew he was leaving. Again, I hoped he was staying, but you don't take over an entire channel for an hour to explain your reasons for staying in a city. You do that to announce your departure and talk about how great the time has been. But I still hoped. I had to. And then this happened;

At first I was angry. So were a lot of people on Twitter and in Cleveland.

But I thought about it a wee bit. There are two things here: LeBron wants to win, and he's always said that while he's been with the Cavs. I hate that he's gone but if it gets him a championship, go right ahead. Secondly, it may be a blessing in disguise for the Cavaliers. As you may have guessed I've been really unimpressed with the way the team has treated its players and signed new talent over the past few seasons. All that culminated with this letter Cavs owner Dan Gilbert posted about LeBron's decision.

We won't be an instantly competitive team, but if we can make some smart moves we can still make next season's playoffs. The last 7 years have been about LeBron James, the next 3 are about the team and its ability.

And I'll still have memories like this that without LBJ would never have happened.

So I wish LeBron all the best in Miami, but I'm not gonna support him when it comes to the playoffs, and I hope the Cavaliers bounce back from this and don't become a team that used to be great.