What an Administrative Misjudgement, Selection Bias, and Ethical Blind Spots Are Undermining the Game?
By Vinay Rao
Hyderabad, after setting a target of 269 and reducing Jammu & Kashmir to 99/7, appeared to be heading towards a regulation win. What followed was unthinkable. An eighth-wicket partnership turned the match on its head and carried J&K to a comfortable victory. Auqib Nabi struck a match-defining 114, while Vanshraj contributed 69, the partnership yielding a staggering 17 fours and 13 sixes.
The collapse was not merely about execution; it exposed a deeper structural flaw. Apart from Siraj, Rakshna Reddy, and C. V. Milind, Hyderabad’s bowling resources looked alarmingly thin. The attack comprised one left-arm seamer and two left-arm spinners, offering little variation. The lack of depth was laid bare when Hyderabad were forced to rely on Nitish, a part-time off-spinner, and Varun, a part-time leg-spinner. The lower-order batsmen carted the bowling all over the park, while the fielding side looked increasingly clueless.
A Systemic Breakdown, Not a Seasonal Slump
This collapse was not an isolated failure, nor an aberration. Hyderabad cricket’s struggles this season are neither accidental nor cyclical. They are not the result of a poor batch of players or a temporary dip in form. They stem from a fundamental administrative blunder—one decision that triggered a chain reaction of failures across age groups and formats.
That decision was to place the Under-23 team under junior selectors—an approach justified through the bye-laws, but one that has since proven deeply flawed.
Everything that has gone wrong since flows directly from this misjudged move.
What would have been unthinkable even a few weeks ago is now being spoken aloud—and for understandable reasons. There may be deeper issues at play, not immediately visible to the common eye. In any well-run organisation, even a minor performance dip or the raising of an integrity concern would trigger an immediate review. Such accountability has long been alien to Hyderabad cricket. This season, however, there was genuine hope that things might finally change. That hope is now steadily fading.
With the exception of the Vinoo Mankad Trophy and the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy, Hyderabad’s teams have performed poorly across formats. Yet there is no sign of review, no visible corrective action, and no acknowledgement of failure. Persistent conversations around corruption have only deepened unease, but even these have failed to stir the administration out of inertia.
Junior cricket now stands on the brink of yet another controversy—one that threatens to further erode trust in an already fragile selection ecosystem. Nearly 3,000 Under-14 players reportedly attended selection trials, with around 150 shortlisted for matches. Parents are openly discussing the possible monetary churn such an exercise enables. As always, concrete proof is difficult to place on record. That very difficulty has become the defining frustration of parents caught in the junior selection radar this season.
The real casualty in all of this is hope.
A Genuine Intent Gone Wrong: Handing Under-23 Cricket to Junior Selectors
The Under-23 level is not junior cricket.
It is senior cricket in preparation.
It represents the final bridge between age-group promise and first-class responsibility.
Junior selectors are entrusted with identifying early talent—not with succession planning for the Ranji side. The consequences were inevitable:
- Selections influenced by factors other than sustained performance
- Constant chopping and changing of players and roles
- Absence of continuity and structured feedback
- No clear accountability
- A visible erosion of confidence within the squad
The disappointing Under-23 campaign was not a failure of talent.
It was a failure of process and credibility.
When Junior Selection Loses Its Moral Compass
Persistent murmurs surrounding procedural lapses and ethical concerns may not yet have reached formal adjudication, but they cannot be casually dismissed—particularly when viewed alongside the consistently poor results of several junior-selected teams.
When outcomes repeatedly fail, scrutiny of the process becomes unavoidable.
This raises a difficult but legitimate question:
Was the success of the Vinoo Mankad team the product of sound selection—or has that lone success been selectively showcased to borrow credibility and justify questionable decisions across other age groups, including the Under-23 side?
One successful campaign cannot serve as moral cover for systemic inconsistency.
How a Broken Feeder System Crippled the Senior Team
Senior selectors neither tracked the Under-23 season closely nor received structured performance reports. When injuries, workload concerns, or form slumps emerged, replacements were chosen without conviction or clarity.
Familiar names were recycled. Team balance suffered. Bench strength eroded.
This is not a failure of players.
It is a failure of planning.
Favouritism Masquerading as Development
Left-arm spinners have been fast-tracked in succession—Tanay Thyagarajan, Aniketh Reddy, Nitin Yadav, and now Pranav Varma—each afforded patience, projection, and continuity rarely extended to others.
Shashank Mehrotra, a former India Under-19 representative with performances to support his case, has been sidelined. Abhishek Murugan, another former India Under-19 player, has disappeared from selection discussions, reportedly due to poor performances in probables—without clarity or consistency in evaluation benchmarks.
This is not development.
It is selective indulgence.
The Numbers That Were Ignored
Spinners
- Ashish Srivastava (Leg-spin): 47 wickets
- Shaunak Kulkarni (Leg-spin): 28 wickets
- G. Arjun (Leg-spin): 32 wickets
- Ruthik Yadav (Off-spin): 23 wickets
Fast-Bowling All-Rounders
- N. Rishith Reddy: 388 runs, 17 wickets
- Jawad Khan: 382 runs, 19 wickets
- Aarya Udupa: 300 runs, 22 wickets
- Krithin Kothapalli: 330 runs, 14 wickets
Batsmen
- Mickhil Jaiswal: 886 runs, 18 wickets
- Rishikesh Sisodia: 736 runs
- Chandan Sahani: 770 runs
- Pranav Suryadevara: 630 runs
- Sai Purnanand Rao: 616 runs
These are not fringe contributions. They represent consistency, durability, and impact. Ignoring such performances sends a dangerous message—that excellence alone does not guarantee progression.
A League Format That Prepares Players for Failure
The A-Division league was reduced to two-day matches, followed by a four-day championship round with 90 overs per innings. This format aligns neither with domestic competitions elsewhere nor with the demands of Ranji cricket. It has no clear precedent.
Hyderabad teams have historically struggled against quality spin over four days—the very skill set that demands sustained, gruelling match exposure. Compressing league cricket and then abruptly shifting formats does little to prepare players for first-class challenges. Once again, preparation has been compromised by an isolated administrative decision.
Why a Review Is No Longer Optional
With crucial Under-23 fixtures ahead and the Ranji team still in contention, this is not the time for silence or inertia.
A strong finish remains possible—but only if selection decisions are corrected immediately.
A formal, transparent review of:
- Selection practices, especially at the junior level
- The decision to place Under-23 cricket under junior selectors
- Performance-based progression mechanisms
is no longer optional.
It is essential.
In cricket, silence after failure is not neutrality.
It is an endorsement.
Hyderabad cricket can still recover—but only if those entrusted with its future are finally held to account.
