I WAS watching the men's triathlon, buoyed by the success of Australian women the day before (yet again), when a young British athlete swept by two Aussies and took the lead. My heart sank. Oh, no, not another Pommy medal. Then I thought, "Wait a minute, I like Britain. I've been there many times. I have many British friends. Our countries are close. We have the same sense of humour." Why was I experiencing a dread that would not have happened had a Portuguese, or Japanese, or most other athletes, beaten the Aussies?

I blame Fleet Street, which stokes an unhealthy fire of Aussie-bashing at any given opportunity. To be fair, the Australian media is not blameless, either. I'm not sure if the Brits are good winners, but I do find it nauseating when Aussies, from John Coates down, gloat about sport and beating the English.

What is different about this time around is that the old rivalry, kept warm for a century by cricket and rugby, is being fought with both Britain and Australia among the Olympic heavyweights. This is a first.

Since the modern Olympics began in Helsinki in 1952, Australia has dominated this rivalry as much as it has dominated the Ashes and rugby codes. (I say the modern Olympics, as distinct from the colonial Olympics. The 10 Games held between 1896 and 1936 were much smaller, predominantly a European men's club. Even the 1948 Games did not have Russia, Germany, Japan, China or any black African nation.)

For those who like to take a long view, Australia finished ahead of Britain on the medals table for six consecutive Olympics: 1952 (Helsinki), 1956 (Melbourne), 1960 (Rome), 1964 (Tokyo), 1968 (Mexico City) and 1972 (Munich). Then Britain finished convincingly ahead of Australia in 1976 (Montreal), 1980 (Moscow), 1984 (Los Angeles) and 1988 (Seoul).

The balance shifted again after Australian government intervention, with Australia well ahead of Britain in 1992 (Barcelona), 1996 (Atlanta), 2000 (Sydney) and 2004 (Athens), finishing ninth, seventh, fourth and fourth overall, winning 175 medals to Britain's 93. It meant Australia had finished ahead of Britain on the medals table in 10 of 14 Olympics.

This was too much for Britain. Not only did the Government carefully replicate the state-funded Australian sporting model, but Australian coaches were hired and Australian sporting strongholds targeted. With a population and an economy more than twice the size of Australia's, it was inevitable Britain would bridge the gap. The results can be seen in Beijing, with Britain ranked third overall, but the Aussies ahead on medals and among the top five.

We'd better get used to the new order. With the next Olympics in London in 2012, the old rivalry won't be this close.