Hyderabad Cricket’s Crisis of Trust: A Quiet SOS to Justice Naveen Rao

There was genuine hope when Justice Naveen Rao was appointed court-appointed administrator of Hyderabad cricket. For a brief moment, that hope seemed justified. Promotion matches concluded without chaos. League cricket began on schedule. After years of turbulence, the system appeared to be finding its balance again.

But that confidence is now visibly fraying.

The decision to move the U23 team away from the senior selection framework marked a troubling shift. Concerns were raised early, some backed by material already in the public domain. Yet no correction followed.

 When decisions that shape young careers go unreviewed, trust doesn’t merely weaken—it begins to erode.

This phase was meant to restore credibility, not deepen uncertainty. Instead, fresh controversy has emerged, including attempts to roll out a Telangana Premier League amid alleged byelaw violations. The growing perception is that administrative energy is drifting toward expansion and optics, while urgent cricketing issues on the field and in selection rooms remain unresolved.

What deepens the discomfort is that the integrity and professional conduct of the Junior Selectors are already under serious public scrutiny. A police complaint (FIR No. 1199/2025) filed by a parent is not routine; it reflects the depth of mistrust that has entered the system.

In such circumstances, continued silence is difficult to justify. For young players watching closely, the absence of decisive action risks being interpreted as acceptance. Over time, this corrodes faith in trials, probables, and the fundamental belief that performance will be protected by process.

Oversight is not merely about intervention—it is about reassurance. When that reassurance is missing, even legitimate decisions begin to look suspect.

In the Ranji Trophy match against Mumbai, Hyderabad fielded a thin bowling attack and elected to bowl first. Mumbai piled up 560 runs, powered by a double century from Sarfaraz Khan and a century from S. D. Lad. Hyderabad was forced to follow on.

• Nithish Reddy, a natural opener, was pushed into the middle order

• H. K. Simha, a specialist middle-order batter with consistent league form, was omitted

Individually, these calls may appear minor. Collectively, they shaped the balance of the side—and the outcome.

Results, after all, rarely speak in isolation. They speak in patterns.

The U23 campaign reflected a similar drift.

After a stable first leg of the Col. C. K. Nayudu Trophy, wholesale changes disrupted continuity. Rithish Reddy, who had contributed in a winning match, was dropped. A second wicketkeeper, Dheeraj Goud, was introduced, unsettling the team’s balance.

A Ranji-experienced player remained on standby, with no explanation offered.

Despite a wide pool of available talent, two U19 players were drafted into the U23 side, even as physically stronger and in-form options were overlooked. Eligibility is not the issue. Readiness is.

Such overlaps inevitably raise questions of conflict of interest. Even when intentions are clean, perception alone is enough to place both the process and the players under a cloud of suspicion.

These decisions appear even harder to defend when viewed alongside the selectors’ earlier oversight of a disappointing Cooch Behar Trophy campaign.

Against Vidarbha, those concerns sharpened further.

At 88 for 4, Vidarbha were under pressure. Yet:

• Mohd. Adnan, despite taking wickets, was not persisted with

• Ruthik Yadav, a frontline off-spinner, was introduced late and bowled sparingly

• Another bowler, closely mentored by the Junior Selectors’ leadership, was handed the first over and extended spells, particularly against the tailenders

Vidarbha recovered to post 420. The scorecard records the sequence. The questions arise from the pattern.

When roles on the field mirror decisions off it, scrutiny becomes unavoidable.

At this point, the issue is no longer theoretical. It is about resetting trust.

When outcomes continue to disappoint, and selection patterns remain unchanged, it is reasonable to ask whether fresh oversight is needed—not later, but now.

Why should the same selection group continue unchanged for upcoming matches when confidence in its judgment is visibly strained?

A temporary step—relieving the Junior Selectors of responsibility for the next three matches and appointing an alternate or interim panel—would not be punitive. It would be corrective. It would create breathing space for players and restore credibility to the process.

Such a pause would send a clear message:

• That current performance matters

• That opportunity is not fixed

• That players who have delivered, yet been overlooked, will be given a fair chance

Teams improve by widening opportunity, not narrowing it. Persisting with the same combinations after repeated setbacks does not create stability. It entrenches stagnation.

This season is not over. That fact still matters.

Even now, a few clear decisions—broadening the selection lens, widening opportunity, and stepping aside conflicted oversight—could begin to change the direction. Not dramatically. Just decisively enough to restore belief.

Because seasons pass quickly.

But confidence, once lost, is far harder to recover.