This Olympic Games featured nothing as dramatically political as the boycott of the 1980 Games in Moscow that split the Australian community and its team. But the Olympics were still closely linked to the big themes of nationalism, race, gender and religion. That's inevitable in a flagship international event with nations, not just individuals, on display.

There was still a touch of Cold War attitudes in the rather grudging appreciation of the outstanding performances of some Chinese athletes. Past drug offences shouldn't be forgotten, but they shouldn't burden present generations either.

Christianity had a good Games, though untangling religion from culture is hard. Many athletes quietly made the sign of the cross before or after events. Even Usain Bolt asked God's help before his 100 metres and thanked Him after less than 10 seconds. But most striking was the popularity of the cross after the 50 kilometre walk. Perhaps just finishing that gruelling four-hour event was reason enough to thank God.

Race entered proceedings over a young Australian boxer wearing an Aboriginal flag T-shirt instead of the official team uniform and in claims of racism by runner John Steffensen. In an Olympics celebrating women's widest ever representation, the Australian media commentary had a severe attack of ''ladies and girls'' instead of women, and there was internal lobbying before Lauren Jackson was chosen to carry our flag in the Opening Ceremony.

Nevertheless the hyped-up contest within a contest between Britain and Australia was most notable. For the host country the Games are always an opportunity to show the world their economic and sporting performance as well as their culture and society. Britain had a wonderful Games, a positive advertisement for the attractions of London, for the ability of the British to build attractive facilities and to host the Games and for the creativity and warmth of its people. Its athletes showed off a new face of Britain and their success gave short-term respite from economic crisis.

Australia is proud of our ability to host successful Games, in Melbourne (1956) and Sydney (2000), and of our athletes' capacity to shine. We think we punch above our weight and trumpet our undeniable sporting achievements. In order to achieve success we invest in the Australian Institute of Sport and in direct funding of elite athletic programs. We package it as part of our national identity as a country of sea, sun and surf. Some of this is done by the media and some by the Australian Olympic Committee unashamedly seeking more government funding.

We were on a hiding to nothing this time because our biggest sporting rival, Great Britain, was hosting the Games and had given every indication for some time that it was going to do very well. Despite this we framed the Games as a contest between the two countries (see Fairfax Press for the Oz v them-0-meter). Britain also framed the Games disproportionately this way. We were always going to lose this contest, to the delight of the Brits and to our own dismay.

The Australian team actually did quite well after a slow start, finishing among a group of major countries including Germany, France and Japan, all G-8 nations. A top-10 finish in the Games for a middle-size nation should be above expectations, despite the AOC aiming to be top five. With a smidgen of luck we could have been in the top eight in gold medals, which we achieved in total medals won. In the sports where we were most directly pitted against Team GB we were outclassed in athletics, soundly beaten in cycling and rowing, though still doing quite well, were disappointing in our pet event, swimming, though Britain were too, and won the sailing regatta ahead of all comers.

That was not good enough for many critics, both among the media in London and at home. The media and the AOC must be singled out for behaving badly, making the athletes feel personally guilty for winning silver not gold, and blaming everyone but themselves. Many critics even lacked the grace to adjust their sad-sack demeanour when the Australian team did well in the second week. Some called for greater investment to ensure greater success, while others reckoned that existing funding was too generous. The money should be redirected away from elite sport to community participation according to some, while others wanted more compulsory sport in schools in order to produce generations of more successful athletes. The benchmark was always Britain.

The Queen and the royal family had a good Games, demonstrating good humour and an enthusiastic appetite for spectating. To the world they were undoubtedly the British royal family and the British Queen not Australian, just as they undoubtedly were to the Australian media. They left no doubt about their own British loyalties by their enthusiastic barracking. That's as it should be for any national monarchy but it makes Australian nationalism derivative and very much hostage to our constitutional arrangements.

Our own nationalism was on display in our usual messy way. We can't make up our mind between the green and gold and the red, white and blue. So our flag and our uniforms are often out of kilter.

These reflections are not just navel-gazing of the sort decried by John Howard and, anyway, Britain as much as Australia is wrapped in this uncertainty about their place in the modern world. We are both locked in a weird competitive embrace that distorts reasonable measures of our achievements.

John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University. His daughter was an official with the Australian Olympic team.

John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au