At 3 o'clock this morning, waiting an hour for the delayed start of a cricket match, I took to pondering what the fuck makes me get up at 3'oclock in the morning to watch a cricket match. I had difficulty separating my desire to watch a good game of cricket from my desire for England (at any sport) to do well. What is more important to me? Supporting my team or enjoying my sport? Hoping it was the latter, I decided I would simply support the batsman, irrespective of what team he was playing for. Eight hours later, I realised this was a complete waste of time. There's no room in cricket for bicameral loyalty.

But could this work in, say, football? Could you get pleasure from only ever supporting the team playing, say, left to right? Or the team at the 'Kop' end? For example, in the first half you would support team x (tallying the score at half time) and then in the second half (minutes 45-90) you would support team y (tallying their score for goals scored minutes 45-90). So, a 4-0 win to Manchester United against Colchester – with two goals in each of the halves – would be only a satisfying win to Man U, but it would be a thrilling 2-2 draw to me. What pleasure could I get from this? And for what other sports would this be applicable? If I kept my own tally of a darts match where I switched allegiance leg to leg and then set to set, would that make me happier? Or what if I only supported the coloured balls in snooker?

I have a feeling, as I can't imagine any outcome where I would experience any joy for the winner (being as I would be totally confused by the end of any match), the only way you would 'win' as a supporter under this system would be when the two sides draw. Is this not, in fact, a more philosophically satisfying approach to sport?