By A Parent
I write this not as a critic with an agenda, not as a rival parent nursing personal disappointment, but as someone who has invested years — emotionally, financially, and morally — in Hyderabad cricket. What we are witnessing today is not an isolated controversy. It is a deepening crisis of credibility that now spans both men’s junior cricket and women’s selections.
And it is impossible to ignore any longer.
The recent announcement of the Women’s Under-23 squad for the BCCI One Day Trophy in Dehradun should have been routine. Instead, it has triggered anger, disbelief, and painful déjà vu across cricketing circles.
Because the questions being asked today are the same ones we asked during the men’s junior selection controversy not long ago.
Different teams. Same allegations. No meaningful reform.
A Pattern That Can No Longer Be Dismissed
Hyderabad’s teams — both men’s junior and women’s — have struggled competitively in recent seasons. In professional sporting ecosystems, sustained underperformance typically results in a reset: new selections, performance audits, accountability reviews.
Here, however, many of us see the same core names recurring season after season.
Parents and coaches openly discuss players like:
- E. Srujana, retained repeatedly despite what critics describe as modest statistical returns.
- E. Darshini, whose wicket-keeping impact and batting output are questioned in private conversations.
- P. Sri Chendhanaa, where observers point to the absence of standout performances.
- Akanksha Semwal is viewed by some as not matching the competitive benchmark expected at this level.
Let me be clear: this is not an attack on the players. Children do not select themselves. They work with the opportunities given to them.
The scrutiny must fall where it belongs — on selectors and administrators who control access to opportunity.
The Men’s Junior Warning That Went Unanswered
When the men’s junior selection controversy erupted earlier, many believed it would be a turning point.
The grievances then were serious:
- Performances in trials and probables’ matches allegedly not translating into final selection.
- No clarity on what benchmarks were being applied.
- A growing perception that informal influence overshadowed objective evaluation.
- Little visible administrative oversight over the selection panel.
That episode faded without transparent closure. No detailed explanation. No documented reforms. No visible corrective measures.
Now, the women’s U-23 controversy mirrors those same complaints.
As a parent, that is what frightens me the most. This does not feel incidental. It feels structural.
The Mystery of “Invisible Criteria”
The most corrosive aspect of this situation is the growing belief that selections are based on criteria unknown to players, coaches, and even district associations.
If performance metrics exist, why are they not published?
If retention policies are based on measurable benchmarks, why are they not documented?
Sarcastically, many of us now joke that selectors possess “talent X-ray vision” — the ability to see qualities invisible to scorecards, match footage, or trial performances.
But beneath the sarcasm lies genuine despair.
Because when criteria are invisible, accountability disappears.
And when accountability disappears, trust collapses.
Governance Under Question
The issue has now moved beyond individual selections. It is about governance integrity.
We are asking basic questions:
- Who evaluates selectors when teams consistently underperform?
- Are annual performance audits conducted?
- What weightage is assigned to trial matches versus past reputation?
- Is there any independent oversight mechanism?
Silence only fuels suspicion.
In public institutions, perception matters as much as reality. When opacity persists, confidence erodes — even if no wrongdoing is proven.
The Real Victims: Young Cricketers
The most painful consequence is not a tournament loss. It is the quiet damage being done to belief.
Young cricketers train before sunrise. Families sacrifice savings. Academies promise that merit will open doors.
When that belief weakens, participation suffers. Motivation declines. Talented players look elsewhere.
Cricketing ecosystems survive on trust.
Without it, even historically strong centres can decay.
A Reputation at Risk
Hyderabad cricket once commanded respect for its competitive pathways and disciplined structure. Today, recurring controversies across departments threaten to overshadow that legacy.
The convergence of the men’s junior episode and the women’s U-23 uproar has created a defining moment.
This is no longer about one team or one tournament.
It is about whether the system remains merit-driven.
What Must Change
Rebuilding faith will require visible, structural reform:
- Clearly published selection criteria.
- Transparent scoring sheets for trials and probables.
- Annual performance reviews of selectors.
- Independent oversight mechanisms.
- Open communication with stakeholders.
Silence is not neutrality. Silence is erosion.
As an aggrieved parent, I do not seek favours. I seek fairness.
Because if merit truly governs selection, transparency will only strengthen the system.
But if opacity continues, every future squad announcement will ignite the same outrage.
Hyderabad cricket stands at a crossroads.
The administrators can either restore faith — or watch a generation quietly lose it.
And once belief disappears, rebuilding it is far harder than winning any trophy. (In keeping with our commitment to responsible journalism, we provide space for individuals to express their perspectives. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.)
