Get off that high horse, you journalists

Whenever an issue arises in cricket, we often read about how someone failed to see the bigger picture and put personal interest above the team interest. And this goes down well with the reader since we are all happy to discuss the morals of others' actions.

When it comes to the Ganguly soap, every single writer seems to have the good of Indian cricket at heart. And hence, feels the need to devote the title of the article and 75% of the content to Ganguly related speculations.....what does Dravid and Ganguly sitting at different tables during breakfast REALLY mean, what does the INSIDE SOURCE say about the discussion between the trio on the morning of the test match blah blah....

Why doesnt a single writer take it upon himself to help the situation by NOT IMAGINING undertones to every word uttered by the concerned folk? Mind you, they do not have to conceal the truth. But how about not reporting rumours and speculations without basis. Is that too much to ask?

If someone is wondering why I am rambling on about this topic, here it is. This one is as ridiculous as it gets. And all it is meant to do is provide some fodder for the Ganguly bashers. IMHO, the content seems to be trash and nothing else. And this, to an audience that has thrown stones at THE SAINT's (seems to be a more appropriate name for a man who is a better human than a batsman...and that takes some doing in his case) house (who btw, is showing the way to the team by opening the innings). So, why not avoid inciting our volatile supporters, by putting cricket over web hits.

Next time, when someone takes the high pedestal and writes that Ganguly or whoever put personal interest over the team, consider the facts, but also remember the following:
1) Most humans would do so - particularly when it involves a position in the Indian team. And in case you are wondering, Sachin is as human as they come.
2) The author would have done exactly the same that he was prophesizing against in that same article or maybe his previous one.