Twenty-two gold medals. And possibly more to come. I feel as if I'm in one of those rom-coms where, despite all the indications to the contrary, and a series of implausible plot twists, everyone lives happily ever after.

In normal GB land, Andy Murray would have lost to Roger Federer on Sunday. Nick Skelton would have knocked down a fence in the jump-off against the Netherlands. Jason Kenny would have fouled up the sprint cycling and Alistair Brownlee wouldn't even have had a brother, let alone won the triathlon gold medal.

But in Team GB land, all our dreams seem to come true, and we are left feebly bleating: "Amazing! Unbelievable!" at the television. Why the success? Money helps, of course – it helps enormously – as does attitude and natural ability.

There is a debate in Australia as to why so few gold medals have been coming their way. (Last night they had 25 medals, but only four gold). Some have blamed lack of investment, others blame the lack of opportunity.

Does it depend on the size of the pool of potential talent on which you can draw? Obviously not, otherwise India, which for decades has produced world-class cricketers and hockey players, would have more than three medals, none of which is gold. Even the once-mighty Russia, who are due to host the next Winter Olympics, in Sochi in 2014, have only managed 10 golds so far at London 2012.

It could be as simple as home advantage, and the terrific support being shown by the crowds. I'd be interested to hear your theories. In the meantime, it's back to the telly, and repeating: "Amazing! Unbelievable!"

Stefano Hatfield is away