That article was the equivalent of chucking together a bunch of post-loss ranting and speculation from match/player performance threads. It's completely incoherent, Luckhurst seems to change his mind about who or what is then problem depending on what 'source' he's quoting in that paragraph.
Which isn't surprising, at best "sources close to a player" are going to be parroting the player in question's views, which may or may not be reasonable or well-thought out. Equally, it could be someone reasonably close to the player's interpretation of whatever snippets of gossip have reached them, filtered through their own biases. Or of course the "sources" could know feck all and just be throwing their two cents in to appear ITK/make some cash, or they could be entirely fabricated. Quoting multiple "sources" is inevitably going to lead to a merry-go-round of finger pointing.
The willingness of journalists to print articles entirely based on anonymous shite is part of the problem. We'd be better off not engaging with it. If people are leaking, they're doing so because it gets people talking about a narrative which favours them. It no-one listened, there'd be no benefit to leaking.
