The decision by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to retire the Pataudi Trophy and replace it with the new Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy has ignited a storm of criticism, with former cricketers, historians, journalists, and fans expressing dismay at what many see as a disrespectful move that sidelines one of Indian cricket’s most iconic legacies.
Set to be unveiled during the World Test Championship final at Lord’s on June 11, the newly named trophy will be awarded during the England-India Test series beginning June 20 at Headingley, launching the new WTC cycle. The decision to rename the series after James Anderson and Sachin Tendulkar was presented as a celebration of two modern legends. But it has instead sparked a fierce debate about cricket history, legacy, and cultural memory.
Pataudi legacy sidelined
Established in 2007 to mark the 75th anniversary of India’s first Test tour of England, the Pataudi Trophy honored Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi—the only man to play Tests for both England and India—and his son, the revered Indian captain Mansoor Ali Khan ‘Tiger’ Pataudi. Together, their contribution to cricket, especially as symbols of the sport’s cross-cultural history, has been widely celebrated.
Tiger Pataudi is remembered by Bishan Singh Bedi as “the best thing to have happened to Indian cricket,” with a pivotal role in fostering “Indian-ness” in a once-regionally divided dressing room. Erapalli Prasanna credited Pataudi for having “encouraged players to prioritise the nation over individual interests, bringing them together as Indians above all else.” And Sunil Gavaskar hailed him as “the most charismatic cricketer of his generation.”
Gavaskar, Bhogle, and Tagore speak out
Gavaskar, in a pointed column for Sportstar, called the move “disturbing indeed,” questioning the logic of retiring a trophy named after players while introducing one named after other individuals. He wrote, “this is the first time one has heard of a trophy named after individual players being retired, though the decision is entirely the ECB’s, and the BCCI may well have been informed.” He added that it “shows a total lack of sensitivity to the contribution made by the Pataudis to cricket in both England and India.”
He also hoped “if an Indian player has been approached, he will have the good sense to politely decline—not only out of respect for two former India captains but also to avoid the same fate of having a trophy named after him retired after he is gone.” Gavaskar stressed that while the ECB is “fully entitled to name the trophy after one of their own players,” he and “loads of Indian cricket supporters” hope that “any other Indian cricketer will have the smarts to decline, lest history repeats itself as it has with the Pataudi Trophy.”
Harsha Bhogle echoed similar sentiments, writing on X: “Having been an admirer of Anderson the player and, as is well known, of Tendulkar, both as a player and a person, I should have been happy with the series being played for a Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy. But it misses the deep connect that Pataudi had with our countries. Both father and son played for Sussex, Sr played for both England and India, Jr set schoolboy batting records in England. There was a very nice ring to the Pataudi Trophy.”
Sharmila Tagore, wife of the late Tiger Pataudi, confirmed the family had not been consulted. “We haven’t heard directly from the ECB, but they sent a letter to Saif (Ali Khan) regarding the retirement of the trophy,” she told The Hindustan Times. When asked about the future of her husband’s legacy, she remarked, “Whether the BCCI wants to preserve Tiger’s legacy is for them to decide.”
Cultural erasure and political undertones
For many, the issue extends beyond cricket, touching on broader concerns about cultural erasure and identity.
Congress leader Shashi Tharoor labelled the decision “disrespect,” adding, “The problem is how little respect the guardians of today’s cricket have for the game’s hallowed history. I have had the honour of watching a #PataudiTrophy Test with Sharmila Tagore — what disrespect this shows to her and her illustrious family!”
Writer NS Madhavan lamented: “At the change of name of India-England Tests trophy from Nawab of Pataudi Trophy to Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy. Nawab was the real moderniser of Indian cricket. At cover he used to prance like a tiger, while other gentlemen found it difficult even to bend.” He added, “Cricket honours tradition; it isn’t a Delhi road to change names now and then,” drawing a parallel to political name-change trends in India.
Sports producer Joy Bhattacharya posed a question many are asking: “What was the need to change!” He added, “In 20 years, what do you plan to name it? The UK does a fantastic job of preserving tradition. The Nawab of Pataudi played with distinction for England & India, and his son captained India in some enthralling matches. They are an indelible part of cricket history.”
Writer and professor Apoorvanand took the criticism further, stating, “To remove the name of Pataudi is part of the larger cultural project of erasing Muslim imprint from the Indian body. Tendulkar accepting it tells you how our elite are complicit in it.”
Tendulkar under fire
While both Tendulkar and Anderson are universally admired, Tendulkar’s silence has drawn scrutiny.
Journalist Sanket Upadhyay asked, “It is surprising that Sachin Tendulkar is not outraged about this. His name has been put on a series by removing Nawab Pataudi’s name. How does his conscience allow this?”
Writer Mrinal Pande echoed the criticism: “Sad that a respected and otherwise good-natured sportsman like Sachin should agree to the erasure of the name of a senior like Tiger Pataudi from the trophy and have it replaced with his own.”
A new era begins under controversy
Despite the backlash, the new Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy will make its debut this June in Leeds. The series marks the start of a new cycle for India’s Test team—led by Shubman Gill, with Rishabh Pant as vice-captain—after the recent retirements of Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli from Test cricket.
As India’s next generation prepares for their toughest overseas assignment, a cloud hangs over what was once a proud symbol of shared cricketing history. For many, the renaming is more than just a branding decision—it is the rewriting of legacy, the silencing of contribution, and a cultural wound dressed up as tribute.
