Hope readers remember this headline—the very one with which your e-paper launched an exposure series against what had become one of the most compromised and corroded state cricket bodies in the country. The tragedy was not merely administrative rot, but the painful irony that many of the destroyers were once national representatives themselves. Exposing this decline from Hyderabad’s glorious past was never comfortable, but it was necessary. As responsible media, your e-paper simultaneously chose a constructive path by running a parallel series—How to Revive Hyderabad Cricket? – because criticism without solutions serves no purpose. Together, these two series ran close to 30 episodes and drew unprecedented response. A senior cricket enthusiast—one who later gained proximity to the High Court-appointed Supervisory Committee headed by Justice Naveen Rao—not only lauded Orangenews9 Network’s work but suggested the entire body of writing be preserved in book form as a guide for future generations of cricketers and administrators. Ironically, despite his later access to the corridors of authority, even he could not help bring meaningful change. That failure, more than anything else, compels this article today. — Editor
By Vinay Rao
For a fleeting moment, Hyderabad cricket dared to believe it was witnessing a reset.
Judicial intervention raised genuine hope—hope that governance would finally be professionalised, accountability would replace impunity, and decades of institutional drift would be arrested. Early signs fed that optimism. The league season ran with relative order. The Vinoo Mankad Trophy triumph briefly rekindled memories of a system that once produced giants of Indian cricket.
That optimism, however, has evaporated—slowly, unmistakably, and painfully.
What was intended as a structural correction now risks becoming a cosmetic exercise. Authority exists, but resolve does not. Reform is endlessly discussed, yet entrenched practices continue undisturbed. Oversight, instead of acting as a scalpel, increasingly resembles a veil.
Authority Without Direction
The most disturbing feature of the current phase is not lack of power, but lack of intent.
Complaints accumulate, but decisive action rarely follows. Decisions are delayed, diluted, or quietly buried. Authority appears centralised, yet outcomes suggest paralysis rather than leadership. The system looks active on paper, but inert in practice.
More troubling is the rise of informal advisory coteries—individuals wielding influence without accountability. Decisions increasingly emerge from private conversations rather than documented deliberations. Parallel power structures have taken root, eroding institutional credibility and hollowing out the very purpose of judicial supervision.
It is often argued that complaints are received and discussed. That may be technically correct. The deeper problem lies in what follows. Complaints are frequently routed back to individuals close to—or part of—the very point of concern. Predictably, consensus is manufactured to override rather than resolve. Over time, this creates a façade of due process while preserving the status quo. The recurring casualty of this approach is the complainant, who, instead of protectio,n faces isolation, subtle targeting, and reputational pressure. When grievance mechanisms discourage whistleblowing rather than correct wrongdoing, the system stops self-correcting and starts self-preserving.
Behind Closed Doors
Nothing exposes this drift more starkly than the ongoing bye-law amendment exercise.
To date, there is no public clarity on:
* Who constitutes the amendment committee
* What qualifications do they possess
* Under whose mandate do they operate
* Which governance failures do the amendments seek to address
Reform conducted in secrecy breeds suspicion. Governance reform, by definition, must be transparent, consultative, and defensible. Anything less invites the perception that procedures are being adjusted not to fix the system, but to protect it.
Performance Numbers That Refuse to Lie
Administrative decay inevitably surfaces on the field—and Hyderabad’s recent results tell a sobering story.
Ranji Trophy: 5th of 8
Col. C. K. Nayudu: 5th of 7
Cooch Behar Trophy: Bottom of the table
Vijay Merchant Trophy: 4th of 6
Vijay Hazare Trophy: 7th of 8
Women’s U-15: 3rd of 6
Women’s U-19: 2nd of 6
Men’s U-23: Bottom, narrowly escaping relegation to the Plate division
The few bright spots—the Syed Mushtaq Ali group-topping run and the Vinoo Mankad title—stand out precisely because they are exceptions, not indicators of systemic health.
When underperformance spans juniors and seniors, men and women, formats and age groups, the issue is not talent. It is philosophy—of selection, preparation, and governance.
Privately, many within the cricketing fraternity admit something once unthinkable: that this phase feels worse than the darkest period under a former international cricketer’s presidency. That comparison alone should serve as a warning.
Administration: Where the System Chokes
If selections reveal symptoms, the administration explains the disease.
The association continues to be effectively run by the same entrenched faces, exercising informal authority without defined responsibility. The only significant fresh induction—a new CEO—appears constrained by a lack of institutional backing, constant leaks, and relentless office politics.
Confidentiality is illusory. Processes are compromised before they mature. Those attempting professionalism face obstruction, intimidation, or quiet isolation. Reform cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear, sabotage, and selective silence.
Telangana Premier League: Opportunity or Another Capture?
The proposed Telangana Premier League could be transformative—a rare opportunity to modernise Hyderabad cricket competitively, commercially, and structurally.
Yet, despite urgency and hype, nothing concrete has been placed in the public domain. The anxiety is familiar: that control may again vest with a select few whose only qualification is proximity to power.
Handled professionally, the league could redefine the ecosystem. Mishandled, it will merely magnify existing dysfunction. This moment demands expertise—not inherited influence.
Rules Cannot Be Bent Mid-Season
As the league season reaches its decisive phase, promotions and demotions are at stake. The circular clearly outlines qualification criteria.
Any attempt to alter rules mid-season—particularly to accommodate teams linked to influential members—would amount to institutional dishonesty. Equally important is the strict enforcement of relegation from the A Division. Whether rules apply uniformly or selectively will determine whether fairness is real or merely rhetorical.
Neglect of the Basics
Even fundamentals are deteriorating:
* Academies function without visible accountability
* Fitness protocols lack uniform enforcement
* Player apparel quality has drawn serious complaints
These are not luxuries. They are minimum professional standards.
Using Experience Without Letting It Hijack Governance
One reform avenue remains inexplicably ignored: involving clean, long-standing members who have remained outside inner circles despite their willingness to contribute.
Former cricketers have a role—but a defined one. Their experience can enrich mentoring, development, and long-term planning. Their presence adds credibility. But history shows that unchecked entry into administration and selection breeds conflict, factionalism, and subjectivity.
The balance is clear:’
* Former cricketers as mentors and technical advisors
* Governance handled by accountable professionals
* Selection insulated by transparent, collective processes
Cricketing wisdom must inform governance—not overpower it.
When Cricket Stops Being About Cricket
Somewhere along the way, a fundamental truth has been forgotten: this association exists for cricket and for cricketers. Today, politics, favouritism, inducement, and access dominate the landscape.
We are back to the dark days of anxious anticipation—where players wait not for performance metrics to speak, but for signals from elsewhere. Performance tracking has receded; extraneous considerations now shape selection discourse. Alarmingly, this anxiety has seeped into league cricket itself, where even participation feels uncertain.
Judicial intervention was expected to end this culture. Instead, the opposite appears to be unfolding. With no visible corrective action, these practices have continued unchecked—even under Honourable High Court supervision. Outside influencers now operate with a sense of immunity, openly flaunting access and sway over selection matters. What began with caution has evolved into confidence born of inaction.
As the season winds down, with only a handful of Ranji and Col. C. K. Nayudu selections remaining, the fear is that matters may deteriorate further. Silence, in such moments, is not neutrality—it is endorsement.
The Question That Refuses to Die
Judicial oversight was meant to correct the system—not coexist with its failures.
Authority without action becomes inertia. Inertia, over time, becomes complicity. Course correction is imperative—now, before these failures harden into permanent damage. If fundamental issues cannot be addressed even under High Court supervision, the prospects of reform under any future dispensation appear bleak.
Perhaps the time has come for a serious, factual reckoning—Who Ruined Hyderabad Cricket? Not as a witch-hunt, but as a chronological audit of decisions taken, warnings ignored, and opportunities squandered.
Because decline rarely announces itself loudly.
It creeps in—through hesitation, accommodation, and the avoidance of uncomfortable truths.
And unless those truths are confronted now, Hyderabad cricket will continue to fade—not for lack of talent, but for lack of courage in governance.
