By Vinay Rao
Time for a Wake-Up Call
Why is it acceptable to lose—repeatedly—while continuing to rely on the same small pool of players?
The latest example is the loss against Mumbai by eight wickets. Hyderabad had ideal conditions: batting first and then bowling on a wearing wicket. If ever there was a match to assert control, this was it. Instead, familiar selection blunders, questionable bowling choices, and predictable favourites once again stood out.
This defeat was not an accident. It was the outcome of a broken selection process.
I am certain the decision to shift the U-23 team to Junior Selectors weighs heavily on Justice Naveen Rao, especially in light of the results that have followed and the glaring lack of depth now visible in the senior squad. That pain would be deeper knowing this move was part of a larger design—engineered by a private academy and facilitated by a senior member of the system.
There have been widespread complaints and persistent rumours of wrongdoing, favours, and benefits exchanged at a cost. These are not isolated whispers; they align disturbingly well with team composition and on-field outcomes.
That the Junior Selection Committee is headed by an international cricketer only makes the situation more disheartening, given the expectations of professionalism and fairness that come with such a background.
Selectors Deliver the Knockout Punch
The Hyderabad U-23 team entered this phase of the season with genuine hopes of qualifying for the knockouts. What they did not anticipate was that the decisive blow would come not from the opposition, but from their own selectors.
Performances in probables were ignored. Poor returns in completed state matches were overlooked. Selection slots were repeatedly handed out to players based on liking, proximity, and private mentoring rather than merit. Players nurtured in private academies were eased into the state setup, while others—despite stronger and more consistent performances—were left watching.
Performances in leagues and probables have been reduced to irrelevance, as selections are driven by considerations far removed from form, fitness, or match impact.
Talent identification, it appears, is no longer a cricketing exercise—it is a negotiated outcome.
Passengers Despite the Numbers
Certain players have continued to feature despite statistics that would ordinarily demand exclusion.
In the U-23 ODI competition, a batter scored 5 off 18 balls against UP and 45 off 71 balls against Tamil Nadu in a high-scoring chase—an approach that directly harmed the team’s chances. Slow scoring rates, missed opportunities, and fielding lapses failed to influence selection continuity in any meaningful way.
In red-ball cricket, Hyderabad fielded a second wicketkeeper, sacrificing the option of an additional batter or all-rounder. Returns across matches were modest at best: 25 & 0, 27 & 18, followed by inconsistent one-day scores—49, 0, 74, 0, and 25. The tactical imbalance this caused far outweighed any perceived benefit.
Another batter delivered occasional scores in the 40s, surrounded by repeated single-digit failures, yet remained part of the setup across formats before being selectively dropped—without any transparent, performance-based reasoning.
Similarly, another middle-order player produced sporadic contributions followed by repeated failures across both red-ball and one-day matches. Still, these patterns did not translate into accountability at the selection table.
The concern is not individual form—it is why such form did not matter.
The Left-Arm Spin Obsession
One of the most damaging structural flaws in Hyderabad cricket is its rigid and outdated obsession with left-arm spinners.
Almost every team fields at least two, while leg-spinners and off-spinners are treated as afterthoughts—if considered at all. Left-arm spinners are handed bulk overs, inevitably collecting wickets that look impressive on paper but often come at the cost of match control and results.
This philosophy has created individual beneficiaries but very few team victories. It raises a fundamental question:
Are selections being made to win matches—or to protect a predetermined narrative of “identified talent”?
Fast Bowling: Flux Without Fairness
The fast-bowling group has been subjected to constant churn. Players are added and dropped at will, while others—despite only average performances in leagues and probables—continue to be retained using vague justifications.
The most common excuse offered is “raw pace” or the promise of bowling at 140 kmph. At the same time, players from the U-19 group are fast-tracked into the U-23 setup, bypassing established performers in the same age bracket. One more such player has now been added to the standby list and may be drafted into the playing eleven.
The message is unmistakable: U-23 performance is no longer a pathway—it is an inconvenience.
Multiple complaints and supporting documents have reportedly been submitted. Yet enforcement appears selective. Rules exist, but only in books—not in practice.
Private Academies and Institutional Capture
The apparent association between selectors and private academy owner Apnan Danana is playing havoc with junior cricket.
Parents and players are compelled to attend “counselling sessions” at private academies as an informal gateway to state selection. Certificates of “talent” are issued, doors are opened, and opportunities follow. The number of chances a player receives appears to correlate directly with the perceived weight of such certification.
This is not player development.
This is institutional capture.
A Warning That Cannot Be Ignored
The court-appointed administrator must take serious note of these developments.
With the Telangana Premier League on the horizon—and operating under the BCCI’s Anti-Corruption Unit—any continuation of these practices risks severe reputational damage to both the league and the state association. What is quietly tolerated today could explode into a full-blown scandal tomorrow.
Hyderabad cricket does not lack talent.
It lacks integrity, transparency, and accountability at the selection table.
Until that changes, defeats will continue—and the real victims will remain honest players, disillusioned parents, and a once-proud cricketing legacy in steady decline.
