Hyderabad’s Daughters Deserve Fair Play

Formal Complaint to Justice Rao: Immediate Review of U-23 Women’s Selection

By Yet Another Aggrieved Girl’s Parent

I write this not as a statistic, not as a disgruntled voice in the crowd, but as a mother watching her daughter’s dreams being quietly dismantled. I write with anguish, not anger. And I write with hope — hope that someone, somewhere, still believes that cricket in Hyderabad should be about merit, not proximity; performance, not patronage.

The recent Under-23 Women’s team selection conducted by the Hyderabad Cricket Association has left many of us parents stunned. What unfolded was not merely a selection; it felt like a verdict delivered without evidence.

At the centre of the storm is the inclusion of B. Keerthana in the U-23 main team. Let me be clear — this is not personal. Every young girl deserves opportunity. But opportunity must be earned, not engineered.

No Participation in Open Selections

Several parents, players, and even officials confirm that the player in question did not attend open selection trials. These trials are meant to provide equal opportunity — a transparent pathway for talent to be evaluated. If one player can bypass that gateway, what message does that send to hundreds who stood under the sun, bowled their overs, faced their balls, and waited anxiously for results?

Are open trials now symbolic exercises?

Performance Without Proof

We searched. We checked scorecards. We scrutinized statistics from probable matches and U-23 B team games. No documented performance justifies an elevation straight into the main squad.

Without notable match-winning contributions, how does one move from obscurity to the main team? On what cricketing logic?

Other girls delivered runs under pressure. Others took crucial wickets. Others fielded like their futures depended on it — because they believed it did.

Yet they remain outside.

No Junior Main Team Experience

The player has not represented any junior main team previously. No sustained competitive exposure. No long-format consistency. No visible growth trajectory.

Compare that with several overlooked players who have carried Hyderabad’s colours in multiple age groups, who have travelled, competed, failed, risen, and proven themselves again.

Is experience now a disadvantage?

The Role Nobody Can Define

What is the selected player’s role?

Is she a specialist batter? A strike bowler? An all-rounder? The association has offered no clarity.

Meanwhile, multiple players in the probables and B-team matches statistically outperformed her in every department. The numbers are public. The records are visible. The disparity is glaring.

We are not asking for favours. We are asking for parameters. What were the benchmarks? What weightage was given to performance? Who evaluated and on what basis?

Silence cannot be the answer.

Overlooking Proven State and National Exposure

Some of the excluded players have represented the state across formats. Some have attended camps at the National Cricket Academy under the aegis of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. They have trained with the best. They have been assessed at the national level.

Yet they were ignored.

If exposure, achievement, and measurable performance do not matter, then what does?

Conflict of Interest Questions

Concerns deepen further.

The current Hyderabad coach, Mamatha Kanojia, is known to personally train the selected player. This relationship, in isolation, may not be problematic. But given reported disputes during the T20 season and the opaque nature of this selection, it raises uncomfortable questions.

Was there a declaration of conflict of interest?

Was there a recusal?

Was there independent oversight?

Or are we expected to accept that everything is a coincidence?

Proven Performers Sidelined

Consider the players who were overlooked:

* Katta Tejaswini – Highest performer in probables selection matches.

* Tanya Arvind – Consistent contributions in probables and U-23 B matches.

* N. Kranti Reddy – Represented the Mumbai Indians in the Women’s Premier League this season, yet named only as standby.

* K. Nidhi – Outstanding performance in recent Senior Women’s ODI.

* Trisha Poojitha – Represented the Gujarat Titans and was eligible for U-23, yet was excluded.

These are not speculative talents. These are proven performers. Their achievements are documented, visible on official portals, and acknowledged by cricketing circles.

When players with verified records are sidelined while others without comparable credentials are elevated, meritocracy stands compromised.

A Disturbing Question: Development or Enrichment?

This controversy also forces us to confront a far more uncomfortable question — one that many parents whisper but fear to voice openly.

Is the Association meant for the development of players, or for the enrichment of selectors and coaches through so-called “mentoring programs”?

Across the circuit, parents speak of private training arrangements whose fees range from ₹1 lakh to ₹40,000. Access, it is implied, brings visibility. Visibility brings opportunity. Opportunity brings selection.

If this perception is even partially true, then what we are witnessing is not merely favoritism — it is the institutionalisation of pay-to-play.

This malaise did not begin with men’s cricket. It took root in the system years ago. Now it appears to have spread unchecked into the women’s game, threatening to corrupt a space that was once seen as purer and more merit-driven.

Unchecked, it will only grow.

Unchecked, it will silence honest coaches and discourage genuine talent.

Unchecked, it risks normalising what is effectively bribery disguised as mentorship.

Parents are left asking: must a girl earn runs — or purchase relevance?

If the pathway to selection runs through private paywalls rather than public performance, then fairness is no longer compromised — it is extinguished.

The Cost of Opaque Selections

This is bigger than one squad announcement.

Young girls sacrifice school events, family occasions, and personal comforts to chase cricket. Parents rearrange finances, careers, and lives around practice sessions and tournaments. Coaches preach discipline and fairness.

But what lesson are we teaching them now?

That performance is secondary?

That connections matter more than consistency?

That silence is safer than questioning?

Is it any surprise that Hyderabad struggles to consistently qualify in major women’s tournaments? When selection itself becomes controversial, team morale fractures before the first ball is bowled.

A Call for Review and Transparency

We request an immediate independent review under the supervision of Justice Rao.

Let the selection criteria be published.

Let performance metrics be disclosed.

Let conflicts of interest, if any, be transparently addressed.

Let accountability replace ambiguity.

This is not a campaign against an individual player. No child should carry the burden of administrative decisions. The responsibility lies with selectors and administrators entrusted with fairness.

We want our daughters to believe that hard work still matters. That scorecards still speak. That the pitch is level.

Women’s cricket in Hyderabad is at a crossroads. Either it recommits to transparency and merit, or it risks losing an entire generation’s faith.

As parents, we can accept defeat on the field. What we cannot accept is defeat in the selection room.

Justice is not too much to ask.

Fair play should not be negotiable.