Special Correspondent
Indian cricket’s greatest enemy has never been lacking of talent. It has always been the small, suffocating cabals that fear talent. The Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) seems determined to prove that this disease is alive, thriving, and once again ruining the career of a promising young cricketer—not because he failed, but because he succeeded too loudly.
The latest victim is Thanmai Krishna, a Hyderabad U-19 bowler who picked up 13 wickets in just three matches, making him the second-highest wicket-taker for the state, behind only Rahul Karthikeya (16 wickets). In a system that values merit, such numbers would guarantee continuity, confidence, and backing. In Hyderabad’s system, they guarantee something else: a sudden, inexplicable axe.
Thanmai has now been dropped. No injury. No loss of form. No disciplinary issue. No official explanation. Just silence—and that silence is louder than any denial.
This is not an isolated act. It is a familiar pattern. The selectors and team management appear less interested in strengthening the team and more focused on protecting certain “influential” players whose inclusion would be seriously threatened if genuine performers are allowed to flourish. When talent becomes a challenger, it must be neutralised. The easiest way? Drop him. Starve him of overs. Kill momentum. Break confidence.
Consider the warning signs. In the previous match, Thanmai was given just seven overs, while other bowlers bowled close to 20 overs each. This wasn’t tactical rotation; it was calculated marginalisation. Despite that, his overall tally remained among the best. And still, he was shown the door.
Another casualty is Urvesh Kakkad. Urvesh was not consistently in the team as written. He was in the squad given only one limited chance to perform or not perform, and dropped. Then, suddenly, in the last match, he was given only eight overs before being dropped altogether. Perform first, vanish later—this seems to be the new HCA doctrine.
The obvious question: why weaken the team by dropping performers? The less comfortable answer: to enhance the chances of favourites.
There have been no fresh selection matches, no transparent trials, no competitive benchmarks. So, on what basis are new players being parachuted into the U-19 setup? Who is issuing these invisible tickets? Is there a “tatkal” quota operating quietly—fast-tracking names not on performance but proximity?
Even more disturbing is the allegation that one of the fast bowlers being “protected” is mentored by a former coach closely linked to the selection process. Mentoring, once meant to nurture talent, has quietly turned into a flourishing business—where selectors and coaches blur lines, manufacture preferences, and monetise influence. When selectors become stakeholders, merit becomes collateral damage.
Indian cricket has seen this insecurity before. Sanju Samson’s stop-start international career is a modern example of how management discomfort can stunt brilliance. Even legends were not immune. Sunil Gavaskar, driven by envy and insecurity within the establishment, ensured Kapil Dev did not get the uninterrupted run his greatness deserved—famously dropping him in the Calcutta Test. Talent has always scared those who benefit from control.
So why is no one asking questions now? Why is there no player-wise performance review before tournaments? Why is accountability absent even when statistics scream injustice?
Rahul Karthikeya (16 wickets) and Thanmai Krishna (13 wickets) are the top two wicket-takers for Hyderabad. One stays. The other is dropped. If that is not malice, what is?
This e-paper has no hidden agenda. It is not playing favourites. It is simply stating an uncomfortable truth: when merit is punished and mediocrity is protected, cricket loses—and so do young careers that may never recover from such calculated cruelty.
HCA can continue pretending this is “rotation” or “team balance.” But numbers don’t lie. Only selectors do.
And history will remember who destroyed talent—not who discovered it.
