Why Renaming the Pataudi Trophy Isn’t Fair Play—Even for Legends Like Anderson and Tendulkar

Why Renaming the Pataudi Trophy Isn’t Fair Play: In 2007, prior to the 75th anniversary of India’s entry into Test cricket (having played their first Test against England at Lord’s in June 1932) the Pataudi Trophy was established as the prize for the winner of the series between the two sides played in England. The corresponding trophy was the Anthony S De Mello Trophy for victors of Indo-England matches played in India.

The naming of the trophy after the Pataudi father-son duo – Iftikhar Ali Khan played for both England and India, while ‘Tiger’ Mansur remains India’s youngest Test captain – was seen as thought through, and sensitive, and laudable. There was more than tokenism to the naming. The senior Pataudi embodied the joint cricketing heritage of India and the country which has ruled over them for a long time. He pushed back for what he believed in, and so was dropped after the 2nd Test of the infamous Bodyline series of 1932-33 in Australia when he refused to field on the leg-side, in disobedience to his captain Douglas Jardine.

Also Read: Protesters Clash with Los Angeles Police After 44 Arrested in ICE Raids | Photos & Videos

Iftikhar Ali Khan, who scored a century on debut at Sydney, Australia, in December 1932, played three Tests for England and three Tests for India (all as captain) across a Test career lasting nearly 14 years. His son, who was educated in England, was not only one of India's great batters, but also one of the best fielders in his – old-timers would insist 'any' – era. But it is not just those two together who made a contribution. Taking over command of the Caribbean in 1962, at just 21 years of age, after designated captain Nari Contractor had suffered a sickening blow to the head from Charlie Griffith during a tour match, Tiger took a team that would hardly have considered themselves Indian and for one season, fused that team into a whole. He did it by transcending the boundaries of region and language to forge a fighting fit unit that shared roots and, where permitted, was proud of those shared roots, fostering a sense of `indianness'.

He combined the best aspects of royalty, a real sense of empathy and oneness, and is remembered as the prince with the heart of a commoner. Between them father and son made significant contributions to the game, not just Indian cricket, and, it is therefore only appropriate that the Pataudi Trophy, (one small acknowledgement of their contribution and legacy to the game) exists.

This is probably the last time we will see the Pataudi Trophy. In two weeks, England and India will face off in England, with the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy at stake. This trophy is named after the arguably greatest batter (Sachin Tendulkar) of his generation and without any doubt, the greatest fast bowler (James Anderson) to have ever played the five-day format. Both are gods of the game; both were cornerstones of the first Chappell report; both have pushed the boundaries of excellence in their game, both have inspired us all to play the game the way it should be played and are all in all #legends. No one is disputing the legitimacy of this honour! Both of these men are living legends and worthy of glorifying. Is it going to be at the expense of the Pataudi's? Is there any honour here telling a secondary story at the expense of the Pataudi?

One reason given for this decision is that having namd a series after the current legends of yesterday will elevate the meaning of the rivalry for the young generation and provide relevance they can connect with. So, we are to believe that twenty years from now, we are going to transition from Anderson-Tendulkar to another successor with recency bias? Is this marking "new" legends, while simultaneously discarding the notion of respecting legacy athletes who have paved the way where there has never been a path, while simultaneously catering to new fans erasing the very history that has made this sport what it is?

Also Read: Fadnavis Rebukes Rahul Gandhi Over Maharashtra Poll Rigging Allegations: ‘Insult to Voters’

That such a development has originated from England, with its avowed respect for and faith in history and tradition, is particularly disconcerting although perhaps it is in-keeping with the recent auguries - after all, England has given us T20 cricket, it's also in England a whole new format of cricket played over 100 balls a side, The Hundred, was rolled out and taken on deep root.

It behoves the keepers of the game, the administrators, and even players of the modern era to ensure new, young supporters are educated on the sport's history, any sport's history. To think that today's fans have no interest in knowing about the past is dangerous and naive; it is also potentially an inclination to consign the glorious past to the deepest recess and reinvest the imaginings into the present day.

The rename of the Pataudi Trophy has rightly attracted criticism from several quarters. The elegant Sharmila Tagore, widow of the late Tiger, described the name change as 'insensitive' while the forthright Sunil Gavaskar had less subtlety in his criticism of the change.

The batting legend wrote in his column in Sportstar, “It shows a total lack of sensitivity to the contribution made by the Pataudis to cricket in both England and India.”

“Here’s hoping that if an Indian player has been approached, he’ll have the good sense to decline politely.” One’s not sure what Tendulkar has made of this.

Also Read: Thug Life Day 2 Box Office: Kamal Haasan Film Earns ₹52 Crore, Trails Behind Indian 2, PS 1 & 2