The renaming of the Pataudi Trophy to Anderson-Tendulkar sparks outrage, igniting fears of sacrificing cricket’s rich legacy for contemporary appeal.
Table of Contents
Farewell to a Legacy: Pataudi Trophy Makes Way for Anderson-Tendulkar Honour
In 2007, to mark 75 years of India’s entry into Test cricket—beginning with their debut at Lord’s in June 1932—the Pataudi Trophy was instituted as the prize for India-England series held in England. Its counterpart, the Anthony De Mello Trophy, honoured series winners in India. Named after the illustrious father-son duo, Iftikhar Ali Khan and Mansur Ali Khan ‘Tiger’ Pataudi, the trophy celebrated a unique cricketing legacy bridging colonial ties and post-independence pride.
Iftikhar, a rare cricketer who played for both England and India, famously resisted Douglas Jardine’s Bodyline tactics, while Tiger, India’s youngest Test captain, revolutionised team identity and unity during his leadership in the 1960s. Their combined legacy symbolised courage, charisma, and the coming of age of Indian cricket.
However, the Pataudi Trophy will now be replaced. In its place comes the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy, named after two of the modern era’s most enduring greats—James Anderson and Sachin Tendulkar. Undeniably worthy in stature, both have redefined longevity and excellence in Test cricket. Yet, the decision to retire the Pataudi Trophy has raised questions. Why celebrate new icons by sidelining a symbol of cricket’s deeper, more layered past?
Appealing to a younger generation or erasing the past?
One rationale behind renaming the series after contemporary legends is to make the rivalry more relatable to younger fans. But does this mean that, two decades from now, we’ll swap out the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy for players of a more recent era? Is this how we honour the pioneers who carved the path for the sport—by letting recency bias erase their memory, allowing new fans to forget the giants who shaped cricket?
That this decision originated in England—renowned for its reverence for history and tradition—is particularly unsettling, though it aligns with recent innovations such as the birth of T20 cricket and The Hundred format.
The change has drawn sharp criticism. Sharmila Tagore, wife of the late Tiger Pataudi, called it “insensitive,” while Sunil Gavaskar was blunt in condemning it, highlighting a “total lack of sensitivity” toward the Pataudis’ contributions. “Here’s hoping if an Indian player is approached, he’ll politely decline,” Gavaskar wrote. What Tendulkar thinks remains unknown.