I'm hardly the first person to note that there's something kind of nutty about rooting for a team (as opposed to rooting for a person). Today this guy is your star player and you love him, you cheer every time he touches the ball, you buy a shirt with his name on it. Next month he plays for another team and you hate him, you boo every time he touches the ball, he's a goddamn traitor. So in a sense you are rooting for clothing. That's crazy.

And that whole notion that the guy who leaves your team to go get more money or playing time or better coaching somewhere else is doing something wrong: in no other sphere of life would we look askance at someone who took a better job when one was offered. Would you hate a banker who left Citigroup for a bigger paycheck at Goldman Sachs? The correct answer is yes. But that's because bankers are awful people; the job change is immaterial. Sports stars don't bring down entire economies and throw millions of people out of work when they fuck up, but from the way we act when they put on a different team's shirt, you'd think it was the other way around.

Now, of course I recognize that rooting for your team is more complicated than what I just said. The shirts are symbols, obviously, and the whole "us vs. them" thing is essentially tribal and (ask me on a day when I'm feeling optimistic about humankind) maybe even atavistic. But when you are truly a fan, who you root for speaks to issues of identity and self-narrative. Do you root for a team because they play where you live? Because the team stands for a certain philosophy of play (e.g. in American football, how the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens are known for their defenses)? Maybe your fandom started because you just like their uniforms. Whatever it is: all these things do say something about you.

Now, the place where the crazy really starts to shine is when you start to use tribal memory to filter events in the real world. But I also propose that this behavior is at the heart of true fandom. If your team is seen as constantly embattled (e.g. the Chicago Cubs), you will see events through that filter. "Of course Steve Bartman interfered with the ball and ruined everything. Of course he did."

So it is with me and Tottenham Hotspur. It started my first year rooting for the club, 2005-06. Going into the final game of the season, sitting in fourth place, one point above archrival Arsenal, ten Spurs players came down with what was believed to be food poisoning. They lost to not-very-good West Ham and ended up fifth and outside the Champions League.

(Indeed, I'd initially suspected that the food poisoning was intentional, a clever-yet-hideous ploy by some die-hard Arsenal fan. I never heard anything confirming my suspicions. I figured that sort of thing would be talked about a great deal if, you know, it had actually happened, so I decided the incident was just freak bad luck--but why did so many players have to eat the same food? But to give you an idea how deep the cultural narrative can run, it wasn't until just now when I did a little research on the incident that I learned that it wasn't food poisoning at all but a norovirus. That part of the story doesn't fit the narrative, so it isn't mentioned.)

With all that in mind, here's how I felt about this weekend's salient matches:
1) After getting a gift goal off a horrible mistake by the defense and goalkeeper, of course Spurs immediately gave the goal back.

2) Of course they found themselves down 2-1.

3) Of course the guy who scored Wigan's second goal, Callum McManaman, scored his first ever Premier League goal, after having failed to score in 22 prior appearances. Of course his first goal came against Spurs.

4) Of course Spurs can only get the equalizer off what had to be the scrappiest own-goal of all time.

5) Of course Arsenal take the lead off a Theo Walcott goal in which he was clearly offside.
(I'd like to thank Robin van Persie for taking advantage of a Bacary Sagna mistake and forcing the penalty kick. I'd like to thank ManU for at least getting a draw. But of course I'm mostly ignoring this aspect of the match. It doesn't fit the narrative.)

6) Of course Chelsea comfortably handle their business with a 2-0 win over Swansea.

7) Of course Spurs collapse again at the end of the season and look like they're gonna fail to make the Champions League. Of course this is what's happening.

All of this is crazy. But of course I think this way. I'm a fan.

Let me first of all be very clear about something: when it comes to Tottenham Hotspur, I am the furthest thing from objective. I discovered, sometime in the latter part of the '05-'06 season, that I had fallen in love with the club; I have enjoyed and suffered, in relatively equal portions, ever since.

So you'll please forgive that I can only talk about the Prem from the perspective of a totally besotted fan. I can speak objectively about the other leagues, but my main perspective on the Prem is, "How are Tottenham doing?"

So when I look ahead to this weekend's fixtures, I see only three matches that matter: Spurs @ Wigan, ManU @ Arsenal, and Swansea @ Chelsea. Yes, I understand that I'm supposed to care about Aston Villa vs. Sunderland, as a win for Villa would really help move them away from the drop zone, but really, for me, it's all about the battle for third and fourth place and those coveted Champions League spots.

Arsenal-ManU on Sunday would normally be the weekend's glamour fixture, but after ManU's demolishing of Villa on Monday to claim the Prem title with four games to spare, I have to assume that ManU will field a side composed of 16-year-olds from the reserve squad and players still hungover from Monday's celebrations. Assuming Spurs manage to win at 18th-place Wigan, which they must, the edge has to go to a desperately-needing-the-win Arsenal over a ManU with literally nothing to play for. It's likely to be worth watching for entertainment purposes, as a ManU with nothing to either win or lose will (I hope) go out and play their best attacking football, at least within the limitations I mentioned above.

Wigan-Spurs will be interesting, if only because there's so much at stake. Of the three teams in the bottom three (Wigan, QPR and Reading), only Wigan realistically have a chance of escaping, and so for them a home win is crucial. Spurs currently sit 5th in the table, and if they fail to get to a Champions League spot this season, we'll almost certainly see Gareth Bale follow in Luka Modric's footsteps and head out the door.

Of course the question regarding Spurs is: Which team will show up, the one we've mostly seen since they threw away a lead at Liverpool on March 10th, or the team that played the last half-hour against Manchester City last weekend? As a Spurs fan who's been burned many times before, I'm reluctant to take too much away from last weekend's final half-hour. Spurs looked dreadful for the first hour, and while it's true that they certainly shifted up a couple of gears, they did so against a team with little left to play for in the Prem: City sit five points clear of Arsenal (with a game in hand), six ahead of Chelsea and seven ahead of Spurs. Barring a complete collapse--and they have too much talent on hand for that to happen, don't they?--they'll be in the Champions League again next year.

I'm certainly not gonna watch Chelsea-Swansea--two matches per weekend is usually my limit--but I'll sure be rooting hard for 9th-place Swansea to steal at least a point from the match. Chelsea currently sit one point ahead of Spurs in the table, and every slip-up they make brings me joy.