By Vinay Rao
Hyderabad U23 has slipped to the bottom of the table — a position that reflects not just on-field struggles but deeper structural flaws in how the squad is being selected. Performers have been overlooked, assumptions have replaced evidence, and accountability has steadily eroded. Unless the selection process is rebuilt on clarity, consistency, and fairness, a turnaround will remain distant.
The concerns began even before the One-Day season started. The captain and several top performers from the win against Haryana were abruptly dropped, without any transparent explanation. With no Probables conducted for the One-Day format, the basis of these sweeping changes remains unclear. Players with concrete performances were left out in favour of selections made on perceived potential — a move that disrupts team balance and demoralises those who had earned their place.
Adding to the unease is the widening perception that certain academies and specific A-division clubs enjoy disproportionate influence in the selection process. Whether intentional or not, the pattern has become too consistent to dismiss. Someone in authority within the association must examine whether such bias — or even the perception of it — is shaping decisions and contributing to the team’s decline. When inputs from limited pockets overshadow open competition, the entire structure suffers.
The match against Tripura — a bottom-table clash — laid bare the familiar vulnerabilities. Batting first, Hyderabad slipped early, losing Vignesh Reddy for 7 and stumbling to 51/4. Starts from Aman Rao (28) and Avanish (19) went unconverted, while Dheeraj fell for a duck. At 118/6 after 32 overs, another collapse loomed. Only Nithin (44) and Pranav (53) showed resilience, dragging the total to 215 — a score well short of what the pitch demanded. Once again, the lower order was left to perform rescue work.
Tripura’s bowlers — Roy, Biswas, and Ker — maintained relentless discipline, exposing Hyderabad’s recurring lack of composure and technique in the top order.
In the chase, Rathod provided an early breakthrough, and Hyderabad stayed in the contest in short bursts. But crucial moments were repeatedly squandered, and Durlab Roy’s unbeaten 52 in the final over sealed the result. Rathod’s four-wicket haul stood out, but isolated brilliance cannot compensate for systemic shortcomings.
After three matches, the message is clear:
– uncertain selection criteria,
– perceived external influence,
– a narrowing pool of favoured players, and
– the continued sidelining of proven performers.
The scorecards and Probables records speak for themselves.
Hyderabad cricket deserves a selection system grounded in merit, transparency, and genuine opportunity — not familiarity, assumptions, or selective pipelines. Until on-field performance becomes the unquestioned basis for every decision, the team will continue to struggle. And the players, parents, and supporters will continue to bear the cost of a decline that was avoidable — and should never have begun.
