HCA’s court-appointed administrator has more authority than any predecessor in years, yet familiar faces continue to dominate selections, outsiders struggle for recognition, and the Ranji pipeline faces a generational cliff. The power to operate is there. Where is the surgery?
Special Correspondent
Why this part comes first
At the end of Part 1, we promised to examine the mandates entrusted to HCA’s administrators. That analysis will follow in Part 3. But cricket does not wait for administrative reviews. Hyderabad’s U-19 side has exited the Vinoo Mankad Trophy in the quarter-finals, the U-23 selections have raised serious questions, and the Ranji Trophy team is approaching a generational crossroads.
Part 2 comes in two halves. Part 2A examines what is going wrong on the field. Part 2B will investigate why, and what must change.
Imagine a boy from a small club or a district town. He tops his league’s run charts, attends open trials, performs everything asked of him and waits for the selectors. The squad is announced. His name is missing. Instead, familiar names appear yet again—the same boys who have travelled through the age groups from U-14 onwards.
No explanation. No feedback. No accountability.
That boy is not an isolated case. He represents the frustration of hundreds of young cricketers across Hyderabad and Telangana who wonder whether performance matters more than connections, reputation or the badge of a well-known private academy.
The real test of reform is not how many trials are held, but how many deserving players get a fair chance.
Credit first. Then the uncomfortable questions.
Credit where it is due. Court supervision has produced moments of genuine progress in Hyderabad cricket. The TG20 league was a success. Last season’s Vinoo Mankad Trophy triumph and another all-India title lifted spirits. The High Court itself recorded that supervision had “paid dividends”. Competitions have been conducted on schedule, and open trials have replaced at least some of the old closed-door practices.
But early gains cannot become an excuse for prolonged complacency.
The Single Member Committee (SMC) has powers few HCA administrators have enjoyed: its decisions are final and binding, the obstructive Apex Council is no longer in place, and the Court has given it considerable freedom to act. Yet, more than a year into this phase of supervision, members are still asking where the comprehensive, long-term cricketing plan is—and who has been entrusted with delivering it.
What they see instead is a league here, a trial there, and squads announced without convincing answers to the questions surrounding selection.
Band-aids may stop the bleeding temporarily. They cannot repair a broken system.
Members may respect the intent, but intent alone cannot deliver results. Time is running out, and the question is unavoidable: what lasting difference is court supervision making to the cricketing system itself?
Who is actually running the cricket?
The appointment of a Head of Cricket Operations for the men’s game is a welcome step. But where is the equivalent clarity for women’s cricket?
Members complain that decision-making remains difficult to access, that no comprehensive plan has been published, and that communication appears to pass through a small, informal circle. These perceptions may be disputed, but an institution seeking credibility cannot afford to leave such concerns unanswered.
Who is responsible for selections? Who monitors performance? Who checks fitness and eligibility? Who evaluates the coaches? Who answers when a decision goes wrong?
A functioning cricket administration needs more than appointments. It needs defined responsibilities, measurable targets, transparent procedures and an identifiable chain of accountability for both the men’s and women’s games.
Without these, reform risks becoming a change of administrators without a change in administration.
The familiar ceiling
Last season’s title generated hope. This season’s quarter-final exit has brought Hyderabad back to a familiar reality: respectable age-group performances that do not always translate into sustained senior-level success.
Hyderabad has regularly reached the knockout stages of the U-19 competition. That reflects genuine talent and deserves recognition. But concerns have also persisted in cricketing circles about age verification and whether every player’s eligibility has been adequately scrutinised. These concerns warrant proper examination, not assumptions or blanket accusations.
The bigger question comes later. Why do some boys who excel at U-19 level struggle to establish themselves at U-23 and senior level, where competition becomes tougher and opponents are physically mature and professionally prepared?
If the answer is inadequate development, inconsistent coaching, questionable selections or age-related advantages, the system must identify and address those weaknesses. Early trophies are valuable, but they cannot substitute for a dependable conveyor belt of first-class cricketers.
The ultimate measure of an age-group programme is not how many boys win a junior trophy, but how many graduate into the Ranji team.
Shuffling the same pack of cards
Members describe a pattern that demands scrutiny. A familiar group of players moves from U-16 to U-19 and then U-23, seemingly enjoying continuity that others must fight to earn. Each season, the pack is shuffled, but the same cards repeatedly emerge on top.
Meanwhile, players from smaller clubs and district centres who score runs and take wickets in league cricket struggle to get a look-in.
The problem is not that established players receive opportunities. They should, if they continue to perform. The problem arises when reputation becomes a permanent passport and current performance a secondary consideration.
A player who acquires a name at a prominent private academy should not carry that brand as an invisible advantage into every selection meeting. Nor should a less celebrated player have to produce extraordinary numbers merely to receive the same consideration.
In a merit-based system, reputation may earn a look. Only performance should earn a place.
Three selections. Three uncomfortable questions.
The U-23 selections this season have prompted members to raise three specific concerns.
- Reputation over recent form. A player reportedly selected despite modest recent form was dropped after two poor performances. The question is not why he was dropped, but why he was selected in the first place—and which deserving player missed out.
- Fitness without adequate scrutiny? An injured player was reportedly fielded, could not complete his bowling spell and was subsequently dropped. Who certified him fit, and was an appropriate medical assessment conducted before selection?
- Clearance before selection? A player whose bowling action was reportedly questioned by the BCCI last season was included in the squad, according to information available to this publication, without members being aware of any subsequent clearance. He has since been dropped. Was his status verified before he was selected?
These are questions, not verdicts. The players concerned should not be blamed for decisions made by those responsible for selection, fitness assessment and eligibility checks.
To be fair, the outgoing Apex Council appears to have played a limited role in this season’s day-to-day cricketing decisions. Much of that responsibility has rested with the HCA Secretary and the new cricket operations set-up under the SMC’s supervision.
That makes accountability even more important. The relevant officials must explain the decisions promptly, preferably in writing, and establish whether the prescribed procedures were followed.
Every selection involves a choice. When a player is included without adequate justification, another player may lose an opportunity he has earned.
Who will explain to the boy left out? Who will examine the decision? And who will ensure that the same mistake is not repeated?
Silence cannot be the answer.
Why U-23 is the danger zone
U-23 cricket is not merely another age-group tournament. It is the final bridge between junior promise and the demands of the Ranji Trophy.
This is where promising players must learn to compete consistently, improve their technique, develop physical endurance and prepare for first-class cricket. If selection at this critical stage rewards familiarity over form, the damage may not become obvious immediately. It surfaces two or three seasons later, when the Ranji team discovers that its supposed next generation is not ready.
By then, the opportunity to correct the pipeline has already been lost.
And what about the women’s game?
If the men’s development pipeline is leaking, the women’s structure appears even less developed.
There is no regular women’s league or meaningful, structured programme of selection matches, despite the High Court’s mandate expressly covering “men’s and women’s league matches for all divisions and categories”.
Without regular competition, there is no dependable performance record. Without that record, selection risks becoming a matter of opinion rather than demonstrable merit.
The women’s U-19 side has won two matches and lost two. The U-23 and senior teams are yet to play, while questions have already emerged over squad selection and, particularly, the senior captaincy. Parents have also sought answers about trials, selection benchmarks and the criteria applied.
The women’s game cannot be developed through occasional tournaments and squad announcements. It needs a proper league structure, organised selection matches, a published selection policy, qualified women coaches and support staff, and effective safeguards to ensure every girl can play in a safe environment.
That last responsibility is non-negotiable. We return to it in Part 4.
The Ranji cliff is approaching
Hyderabad’s Ranji team is doing well this season, and the players deserve applause. But present form should not distract administrators from the succession question staring them in the face.
The side relies heavily on experienced senior players, several of whom may have to make way in the coming seasons. Who is being prepared to replace them?
If the U-23 pipeline is clogged by repetitive selections and inadequate transition planning, the answer is worrying. Hyderabad cannot assume that tomorrow’s first-class players will emerge simply because today’s team is winning.
Nor can recent results erase years of mediocre or worse Ranji performances, during which continuity of personnel did not consistently produce the required results.
A State team must be built through healthy competition for places, sustained performance and deliberate succession planning—not the automatic continuation of familiar names.
When the seniors retire, Hyderabad must have replacements ready—not excuses waiting to be written.
Put the numbers on the table
There is a straightforward way to settle many of these concerns: publish the evidence.
HCA should release a season-wise selection and performance statement for every age-group squad, showing:
- How many players were retained from the previous age group and how many new players were selected.
- How many players came from Telangana’s districts and smaller clubs, compared with established city academies.
- The league performances of selected players alongside those of leading performers who were left out.
- The fitness certifications and eligibility or bowling-action clearance status, where applicable, of players at the time of selection.
- The criteria applied in disputed selections and the process available to players seeking clarification.
Publishing such information need not compromise confidential medical details or legitimate privacy requirements. HCA can disclose compliance and selection outcomes without exposing sensitive personal records.
If the system is fair, transparent evidence will strengthen its credibility. If the evidence reveals shortcomings, it will show administrators where corrective action is needed.
Transparency is not a favour to disgruntled members. It is the minimum requirement of a cricketing institution entrusted with the ambitions of an entire generation.
The surgeon must operate
The SMC has an opportunity that previous HCA administrations could only wish for: judicial backing, substantial authority and the freedom to tackle entrenched problems.
The question is whether that opportunity will be used to transform the system or merely keep it functioning from season to season.
Hyderabad does not lack talent. It lacks a sufficiently convincing, transparent and accountable pathway that converts talent into sustained success. That pathway must begin with fair selections, reliable age and fitness verification, stronger coaching, genuine district representation, structured women’s cricket and a credible succession plan for the Ranji team.
The best surgeon is not judged by the number of bandages applied, but by whether the patient recovers.
HCA’s cricketing patient needs more than first aid. The authority to operate is in place. The diagnosis is becoming clearer. What remains is the courage to perform the surgery—and the urgency to do it before another generation of talent is lost.
Coming in Part 2B: From Brand to Merit
Why does the same pack keep getting shuffled? Part 2B will examine the selection room’s black box, potential conflicts of interest and the influence of private-academy brands; the districts left waiting at the gate; concerns over age verification; and the training gap between junior promise and senior performance. It will also propose a practical blueprint to rebuild Hyderabad’s cricketing pipeline for the next decade.
