Another match, another humiliating performance. Yet, the selectors remain untouched. Is the SMC waiting for Hyderabad cricket to hit rock bottom before acting?
Special Correspondent
Another dismal performance by Hyderabad’s Senior Women’s team. Another season of unfulfilled promises. And, predictably, not a word of accountability from those responsible for assembling the side. How long will the High Court-appointed Single Member Committee (SMC), headed by Justice P. Naveen Rao, continue to look the other way while Hyderabad women’s cricket slides from one embarrassment to another?
The numbers do not lie
Last season (2025–26): the senior side won one match out of seven in the T20 Trophy, finished eighth in its group and faced demotion to the Plate group. In the one-day competition it won two out of seven.
This season (2026–27): the team has been beaten by Uttar Pradesh, by Mumbai by eight wickets with 29 balls to spare after managing just 114/9, by Delhi by 108 runs after conceding 262/6, the highest total ever recorded in women’s domestic T20 cricket, by Andhra by 26 runs while chasing a modest 131, and well beaten by Uttarakhand. The lone win came against Jharkhand, by six wickets.
One win in six matches this season. The margins in the defeats tell their own story: this is not a team narrowly missing out. It is a team that has been outclassed.
The anger among aggrieved parents is palpable. Their daughters have consistently performed in competitive tournaments, only to find themselves overlooked while certain underperforming players enjoy seemingly uninterrupted opportunities. The recurring allegation that merit has been sacrificed at the altar of money, influence and proximity to power cannot be brushed under the carpet. These are serious concerns demanding an independent examination, not administrative indifference.
Parents claim that repeated representations have flooded the SMC’s mailbox. Have these complaints reached Justice Naveen Rao? If so, what action has followed? If they have not, is someone in the administrative machinery sitting on them? Either possibility demands an explanation. An SMC entrusted with extraordinary powers cannot afford the luxury of a ‘chalta hai’ approach.
Naveen Rao must crack the whip
What exactly is preventing the SMC from showing the selectors the door? His mandate is not to preside over the continuation of a dysfunctional system but to restore credibility, discipline and accountability. If selectors repeatedly fail to identify the best available talent, they have no business occupying those chairs. Enough of protecting positions. Send the present selection panel packing and bring in people who understand that selection is about cricket, not connections.
Consider the questions surrounding individual selections. What precisely is Niteesha Kunchala’s role in the team? Batter, bowler or all-rounder? What measurable contribution justifies her continued presence in the playing XI? Kranti, too, cannot be allowed to trade indefinitely on the memory of one impressive performance in four years of state representation. State cricket is not a rehabilitation centre for players unable to deliver consistently.
Srujana’s reported record of just two wickets across four seasons also warrants serious scrutiny. What performance benchmarks are being applied? Are statistics, consistency and match impact even being considered? The inclusion of Under-19 players in the senior setup raises similar questions. Youth deserves encouragement, certainly, but senior selection must be earned through demonstrated readiness, not handed out as an experiment.
These are not personal attacks. They are legitimate questions about selection standards and accountability. A Hyderabad cap is earned, not inherited or permanently retained.
Why the team keeps losing
The pattern behind the defeats is clear. There is no regular women’s league in Hyderabad, even though the High Court’s mandate to the SMC expressly covers “men’s and women’s league matches for all divisions and categories”. Without a league there is no performance record, and without a record selection becomes guesswork, or worse.
The same names return season after season regardless of results. The batting leans almost entirely on one player: Gongadi Trisha, the India U-19 World Cup winner, scored 80 off 52 balls against Delhi and 56 not out against Andhra, with little support from the rest. The bowling has been taken apart, with Vanka Pooja’s 4 for 32 against Delhi a lone exception on the day 262 runs were conceded. A side picked on habit, not form, cannot compete at this level.
The captaincy question
Then there is the captaincy. After a season away as a guest player for Kerala, Pranavi Chandra Velagapudi returned and was handed the Hyderabad captaincy straight away, ahead of players who had stayed and served the State. Members question how that decision was made, and say influence rather than form settled it. This is not about one young cricketer; it is about a process that hands the top job to a returning player without any visible basis, while the team wins one match in six.
And who is the influential figure members point to? Someone who holds no formal role in team selection, yet whose wishes appear to carry more weight than the selectors’ own judgement. Members also recall that when this same figure had a say in women’s cricket before, the results were no better and the controversies no fewer. If his past involvement did not lift Hyderabad’s women’s team, why is he being allowed to shape it again? The best help he can give now is to step back and let cricket decide.
Why was Vanka Pooja not made captain? A senior, home-grown player who stayed with Hyderabad, she has been the side’s most consistent performer this season: 4 for 32 against Delhi on a day when every other bowler was punished, and 4 for 33 plus an unbeaten 32 against Jharkhand, in the only match Hyderabad have won. Choosing her would have rewarded loyalty and performance, and sent a clear message to every young girl in Hyderabad that the captaincy is earned on the field. Instead, the message has been that it can be decided elsewhere.
Who answers for this?
In any professional set-up, a run like this would have consequences. One win in six, a record total conceded, and a captaincy that members say was decided by influence rather than form: why should the selectors and the team manager not be shown the door for this mess? The selectors picked the squad and the captain. The manager is responsible for preparation, discipline and the conduct of the team on tour. If neither is accountable when results collapse, then no one is.
Safety first: the POSH Committee cannot wait
Selection is not the only concern. Hyderabad’s women cricketers, many of them still in their teens, deserve to know they are safe. HCA’s first POSH Committee was announced months ago, but players and parents still see no written policy, no published complaint channel and no sign that it has met or acted. A working POSH mechanism is not optional; it is a legal requirement, and it is already overdue. The SMC must make it functional now, with an independent member, a confidential way for any player or parent to raise a concern, and the assurance that those who speak up will be protected.
Where are the accountability mechanisms?
More disturbing are persistent allegations circulating in cricket circles about expensive gifts, iPhones, cars and monetary considerations influencing selections. These remain allegations and must be independently investigated rather than treated as established facts. If there is substance, those responsible must face consequences. If not, HCA must establish the truth and clear the air. Silence only deepens suspicion.
Justice Naveen Rao must answer: What mechanism holds selectors accountable? Why are repeated failures not followed by reviews? Who evaluates their decisions? And how long must talented players remain casualties of a selection process that parents increasingly distrust?
Ambati Rayudu, too, cannot remain a spectator to the larger crisis. What is his vision for women’s cricket? What selection philosophy is being followed? Who monitors performances and demands explanations when the same shortcomings recur?
Perhaps it is time HCA recalled those who actually protected the interests of women’s cricket. Ask the parents who have witnessed the system over the years, and one name repeatedly emerges: Purnima Madam. Parents recall that she never allowed power brokers to meddle in the selection process. That is the kind of independence and firmness the present system desperately needs.
No more cosmetic changes
Hyderabad cannot continue recycling familiar names while genuinely deserving talent waits outside the door. Publish transparent selection criteria. Introduce independent performance audits. Evaluate players across tournaments. Demand written explanations from selectors for questionable choices. Most importantly, replace a selection panel that has repeatedly failed to inspire confidence.
The SMC was appointed to clean up HCA, not merely keep its machinery running. If it cannot enforce accountability in something as fundamental as team selection, its sweeping authority becomes little more than a paper tiger.
Justice Naveen Rao must understand that every season wasted is another opportunity denied to deserving cricketers. Hyderabad’s women’s cricket cannot be sacrificed to administrative inertia, selection politics or vested interests.
SEND THE SELECTORS PACKING. RESTORE MERIT. GIVE HYDERABAD WOMEN’S CRICKET A FRESH START.
