Fresh coaching controversy raises questions over governance, transparency and institutional reforms
Special Correspondent
The cracks within the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) are widening. What began as criticism from the Telangana Cricket Association (TCA) over alleged violations of the HCA and BCCI rule books has now found resonance from within the HCA itself. The latest controversy centres around the appointment of a coach whose selection has triggered serious concerns over transparency, conflict of interest and, more importantly, the welfare of young cricketers.
Ironically, the controversy comes at a time when there was considerable goodwill for former international cricketer Ambati Rayudu after he was entrusted with handling Hyderabad’s cricketing affairs. Many had sympathised with Rayudu during his own difficult days in Hyderabad cricket when he was dropped from the Hyderabad Ranji Trophy team allegedly during the tenure of a former HCA Secretary in what was widely perceived to be an attempt to promote his own brother. Having himself been at the receiving end of cricketing politics, there was a widespread expectation that Rayudu would usher in meritocracy and professionalism into Hyderabad cricket.
It was perhaps with that background that newly elected HCA Secretary Jeevan Reddy took what many considered a bold decision by giving Rayudu a free hand in matters relating to cricket administration. The expectation was simple: a former international cricketer would put merit, professionalism and transparency above everything else.
However, that goodwill appears to be steadily eroding.
Questions are now being raised not merely by the TCA but by several insiders within the HCA over the constitution of selection committees and appointments of coaches, which critics allege violate both the BCCI guidelines and HCA’s own rule book.
The latest flashpoint is the appointment of coach Kiran, against whom complaints have reportedly been made in the past. An aggrieved cricketer has now submitted a detailed representation to Justice (Retd.) P. Naveen Rao, Chairman of the Single Member Committee overseeing HCA affairs, and to Secretary Jeevan Reddy, questioning the wisdom behind the appointment.
The complainant has referred to an earlier complaint allegedly filed by Shazia, mother of cricketer Aryan Cariappa, accusing the coach of using abusive language and showing favouritism towards certain players. According to the representation, despite such complaints, no visible action appears to have been taken before his reappointment.
The complainant has further alleged that another complaint involving allegations of corruption was recently made against the coach. If such complaints are indeed pending, the obvious question is whether due diligence was undertaken before offering him another assignment. Does Hyderabad cricket really not have other capable coaches, or are appointments being made without proper verification of credentials and antecedents?
The controversy does not end there.
The coach’s performance record has also come under scrutiny. Under his coaching, Hyderabad’s Under-19 team reportedly finished at the bottom of the Cooch Behar Trophy table. In contrast, Hyderabad’s Vinoo Mankad Trophy team under another coach reached the semi-finals during the same season. The Under-23 team too is stated to have performed below expectations in both multi-day and one-day formats.
Performance alone may not always determine a coach’s competence. However, when performance-related concerns are coupled with complaints relating to conduct and disciplinary issues, questions over fresh appointments become unavoidable.
Perhaps the most serious allegation relates to conflict of interest. The complainant has alleged that the coach is a registered voter in the Apex Council elections. If true, legitimate questions arise over whether individuals participating in HCA’s electoral processes should simultaneously benefit from coaching appointments, particularly when elections are not too far away.
Equally disturbing are allegations regarding his behaviour with young players. The complaint alleges that players are subjected to harsh treatment and, on occasions, expected to remain without food following poor performances or defeats. If established, such practices have absolutely no place in modern cricket coaching, especially when dealing with Under-16 and other junior cricketers whose mental and emotional well-being must remain paramount.
Young cricketers require mentorship, encouragement and professional guidance—not fear or humiliation.
The controversy also assumes significance in the backdrop of another development that is being quietly discussed within HCA circles. According to insiders, Secretary Jeevan Reddy is reportedly not entirely receptive to some of the institutional reforms that Justice (Retd.) Naveen Rao would like to see implemented in Hyderabad cricket. While these claims remain to be independently verified, they have contributed to growing unease among several stakeholders who had hoped the new administration would mark a decisive break from the troubled past.
Nobody is suggesting that complaints should automatically become convictions. Equally, however, complaints cannot simply be ignored. Institutions derive their credibility not from denying allegations but from transparently investigating them.
The complainant has therefore sought three specific remedies: a proper inquiry into all complaints against the coach with written findings; keeping his appointment in abeyance pending such inquiry; and evolving a transparent mechanism for appointing coaches based on merit, performance, disciplinary records and conflict-of-interest considerations.
For Ambati Rayudu and the HCA’s new leadership, this controversy presents an opportunity rather than merely a challenge. Hyderabad cricket has suffered enough because of administrative controversies over the years. The new dispensation was expected to usher in professionalism and accountability.
Cricketing legends are not judged merely by the runs they score or the wickets they take. They are equally remembered for the institutions they help build.
If Hyderabad cricket is to regain its lost glory, transparency cannot become optional, and the welfare of young cricketers cannot become negotiable. The High Court’s intervention was intended to facilitate reforms, not merely supervise the status quo. Whether the present leadership rises to that challenge may well determine whether Hyderabad cricket finally leaves its turbulent past behind—or simply learns to live with it.
