Renaming the Pataudi Trophy: Understanding Why the Decision Matters
The renaming of the Pataudi Trophy to the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy has sparked intense debate across the cricketing world. The renaming is not just a cosmetic change. It represents a deeper shift in how Indian cricket views its own history. At the heart of the controversy lies the legacy of Mansur Ali Khan "Tiger" Pataudi, a captain who transformed Indian cricket’s spirit and identity. Understanding his impact is crucial to appreciating why so many believe the trophy should continue to bear his name. While Tendulkar and Anderson are deserving icons, erasing the Pataudi name ignores the roots and relationships that have defined India-England cricket for generations.
What was the Pataudi Trophy?
The Pataudi Trophy was introduced in 2007 to commemorate 75 years of India’s first Test series in England. It was named after the Pataudi family, specifically Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi (the only man to play Tests for both England and India) and his son Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, an iconic Indian captain known as "Tiger" Pataudi. The trophy symbolised the shared legacy and complex history between the two nations. Traditionally, when India toured England, the series winner received the Pataudi Trophy. In India, the equivalent series has been played for the Anthony de Mello Trophy, named after a BCCI founder.
Have they really renamed it?
Yes. Earlier this month, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) jointly announced that the series would now be called the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy. This new name honours Sachin Tendulkar, the world’s most-capped Test cricketer (200 matches), and James Anderson, England’s most successful Test bowler (188 matches and 704 wickets). The new trophy will be unveiled at Lord’s before the World Test Championship final, just ahead of the five-Test series between India and England which starts on June 20.
What was the reason given for the change of name?
The ECB and BCCI have cited the achievements of Tendulkar and Anderson as modern legends of the game, aiming to make the rivalry more relatable to younger fans and to reflect the trend of naming series after contemporary icons. Officials argued that honouring these two players would boost engagement and keep the rivalry relevant for a new generation. Reports suggest that the MCC may have intervened behind the scenes, quietly discouraging the renaming of a trophy that they themselves had instituted.
What is Tiger Pataudi’s relevance for India and Indian cricket?
Tiger Pataudi was pivotal in instilling national pride and unity in Indian cricket. Bishan Singh Bedi called him “the best thing to have happened to Indian cricket,” crediting him for breaking regional barriers and creating a sense of “Indian-ness” in the dressing room. Sunil Gavaskar and Erapalli Prasanna echoed this, with Gavaskar calling him “the most charismatic cricketer of his generation” and Prasanna recalling how Pataudi taught players to put country above self, uniting them as Indians first.
I agree. 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 #PataudiTroohy Test with Sharmila Tagore — what disrespect this shows to her and her illustrious family! https://t.co/0Ml9OZaG6Q
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) June 6, 2025
Have there been any reactions from the Pataudi family or ex-cricketers?
The decision triggered immediate and widespread criticism. Sharmila Tagore, wife of the late Tiger Pataudi, called the move insensitive and questioned the erasure of the Pataudi legacy. She revealed that the ECB wrote to her son, Saif Ali Khan, about the change, but the family was not consulted.
Sunil Gavaskar, former India captain who played under Tiger, slammed the decision in his Sportstar column:
“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 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.”
Harsha Bhogle, well-known cricket commentator wrote 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.”
Why is the decision wrong?
The Pataudi Trophy was more than a name; it was a bridge between two cricketing cultures and histories, symbolising both colonial ties and post-independence pride. Removing it severs that connection. Moreover, replacing a trophy that honoured deep, historical figures with one named after recent stars risks reducing cricket’s legacy to a popularity contest or marketing exercise. The Pataudi family and key cricketing voices were not properly consulted, leading to feelings of disrespect and alienation.
In 20 years, what do you plan to name it?
The UK does a fantastic job usually 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.
What… https://t.co/oBqzbaGaZ8— Joy Bhattacharjya (@joybhattacharj) June 5, 2025
If such legacy trophies can be retired at will, it undermines the value of all commemorative honours in cricket. Today it’s the Pataudi Trophy; tomorrow, it could be another historic award. For example, England and Australia continue to battle for the Ashes, a symbolic urn steeped in satire and history. That tradition has been sustained since 1882. Will it be branded to Stokes–Smith Trophy for greater relevance?
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
