Three defeats, a 262-run hammering by Delhi and mounting questions over selection. How much longer must Hyderabad’s women cricketers wait for accountability?
Special Correspondent
Hyderabad women’s cricket is in free fall. Three matches, three defeats, and a reported 262-run assault by Delhi in 20 overs have raised serious questions about the team’s competitiveness, selection practices and the accountability of those entrusted with safeguarding the game. Beyond the disappointing scorecards, a larger question looms: who is answerable for the continuing decline, and why is there no visible urgency to address it?
Delhi’s extraordinary scoring effort demands a searching technical review of Hyderabad’s bowling, fielding, tactics and preparation. Were the bowlers disciplined? Were field placements appropriate? Did the team adapt to the match situation? These are not questions intended to scapegoat individual players but to establish what went wrong and identify corrective measures. At this level, a humiliating defeat cannot simply be dismissed as a bad day.
Two bright spots, but where is the team?
Pranavi Chandra and Trisha have provided some relief amid Hyderabad’s disappointing performances, and their contributions deserve recognition. However, no two batters can carry an entire team. Partnerships, middle-order stability, lower-order contributions and collective resilience are essential to competitiveness.
The performances of Niteesha Kunchala, Sandhya Gora, Srujna, Kranthi, Yashasri and Drithi also warrant objective assessment against the expectations attached to their respective roles. This is not a demand to condemn players for individual failures. Every cricketer deserves a fair evaluation based on a reasonable body of evidence.
But selection cannot become a permanent entitlement. Fitness, consistency, recent performances, specialist skills and suitability for the team’s requirements must count. If players continue receiving opportunities despite underwhelming contributions, selectors should be prepared to explain their rationale. Equally, players must not be judged solely by scorecards when their assigned roles or performances in other competitions provide relevant context.
Are selections above scrutiny?
Orangenews9 has received calls from aggrieved parents and other stakeholders alleging unfair selection practices and inadequate opportunities for deserving cricketers. Some have raised concerns that considerations other than merit may be influencing decisions, including allegations of improper inducements. Such claims are serious, but they cannot be treated as facts without supporting evidence.
Neither, however, should complaints be dismissed merely because they are inconvenient.
HCA must demonstrate that selection criteria are clearly defined, consistently applied and supported by documented assessments. Were trials and practice matches conducted fairly? Were the strongest available candidates chosen for the roles required? Is there a credible grievance mechanism for overlooked players? Are potential conflicts of interest examined, and is there an independent process for investigating credible evidence of improper influence?
If the system is fair, transparency should help establish that. If wrongdoing is substantiated, appropriate action must follow due process.
Behind every selection list are aspiring cricketers who have invested years in training, competition and personal sacrifice. Repeated disappointment is part of sport, but unexplained decisions can erode confidence and discourage talent. Hyderabad cannot afford to lose promising players because the selection process is perceived as opaque.
The answer is not to change the squad merely to satisfy public anger. Existing players who justify their places must retain them; those who have performed better and deserve opportunities must not be overlooked without defensible reasons. Merit must work both ways.
Where is the Single Member Committee?
The spotlight also falls on the Single Member Committee (SMC) headed by Justice P. Naveen Rao, appointed by the High Court amid continuing concerns about HCA’s functioning. Its mandate to prevent mismanagement and address structural shortcomings raised expectations that governance concerns would receive serious attention.
Yet questions surrounding selection and opportunities for aspiring players continue to surface. Orangenews9 has reported representations from aggrieved parents and other stakeholders. What steps, if any, are being taken to examine these concerns? Have the relevant officials been asked for explanations? Is the committee satisfied with the existing procedures, and on what basis?
These questions do not prejudge the committee’s work. Representations may be under examination through channels that are not publicly visible, and the committee may have constraints or competing priorities. But without an official response, stakeholders are left to speculate.
A watchdog’s credibility rests not merely on the authority vested in it but also on whether legitimate concerns receive attention and whether a credible path to resolution exists. The SMC need not accept every allegation at face value, but credible complaints cannot be allowed to disappear into administrative corridors without explanation.
Nor should the committee dictate every cricketing decision. Selectors need professional independence, but autonomy cannot become immunity from scrutiny. A defeat does not prove wrongdoing, just as a victory cannot automatically validate every administrative decision. Performance and process must be assessed separately.
From assurances to action
HCA should undertake a comprehensive technical review of the three defeats, examining batting, bowling, fielding and tactical decisions. The selection committee should assess every player against consistent, evidence-based standards while ensuring that the wider pool of eligible cricketers receives a fair opportunity.
The association must communicate its selection framework and grievance procedures clearly. The SMC, meanwhile, should clarify the process available for examining representations. Any credible evidence of inducements, favouritism or conflicts of interest must be investigated independently, with fairness and due process for everyone concerned.
Hyderabad has a proud cricketing tradition. Its women cricketers deserve the same institutional seriousness, support and opportunities as their counterparts in the men’s game. Players deserve objective assessments, selectors deserve the opportunity to explain their decisions, and parents deserve a credible mechanism to raise concerns.
Delhi’s reported 262-run total should trigger immediate introspection. Three consecutive defeats demand a serious review. Complaints warrant examination, not automatic acceptance or casual dismissal.
The choice before HCA and the SMC is clear: allow confidence to erode further or rebuild it through transparent procedures and demonstrable action.
The Hyderabad jersey must be earned on the field, and the authority to select those who wear it must be exercised with integrity.
The game deserves better. The players deserve better. Hyderabad deserves answers.
HCA politics is in a bad shape. everyone wants to make money, it’s gone down the drain, At one time Hyderabad had seven test stars and all were dedicated to the game. We used to watch League matches with interest. Now though so much us written still good sense doesn’t prevail.