In a move that has sent ripples through the cricketing world, the historic Pataudi Trophy—once a symbol of the storied rivalry between India and England—has been rechristened as the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. The decision, made by the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) ahead of the 2025 summer series, has sparked a heated debate about cricketing tradition, legacy, and the responsibility of cricket’s governing bodies and legends to preserve the sport’s history.
On August 16, 2025, former India pacer and all-rounder Karsan Ghavri publicly criticized both Indian batting legend Sachin Tendulkar and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for what he described as a failure to oppose the renaming. Ghavri’s comments, delivered in a candid conversation with journalist Vicky Lalwani on YouTube, reflected a growing sentiment among cricket traditionalists who believe that the legacy of Mansur Ali Khan “Tiger” Pataudi has not been given its due respect.
The original Pataudi Trophy was established in 2007 to mark 75 years since India’s first Test match appearance. The trophy honored Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, who uniquely played for both England and India, and his son Tiger Pataudi, widely regarded as one of India’s greatest captains. Tiger Pataudi led India in 40 of his 46 Test matches and became a symbol of Indian cricket’s coming of age on the global stage.
However, with the ECB holding discretion over the trophy’s name, the board announced earlier this year that the series would now be played for the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy, named after England’s pace legend James Anderson and India’s batting maestro Sachin Tendulkar. The change was implemented before the 2025 summer series, which saw a new-look Indian Test side under the captaincy of Shubman Gill take on Ben Stokes’ England in a thrilling five-match contest.
The inaugural Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy series was as dramatic as the controversy surrounding its name. Both teams played high-quality cricket, with India’s Shubman Gill amassing a remarkable 754 runs across five Tests in his first series as captain. On the bowling front, Mohammed Siraj emerged as the leading wicket-taker, claiming 23 wickets in nine innings. The series ultimately ended in a 2-2 draw, ensuring that the honors were shared in the first contest under the new trophy name.
Yet, for many, the action on the field was overshadowed by the debate off it. Ghavri did not mince words in his criticism, drawing attention to the precedent set by other iconic bilateral trophies. “That is very wrong. Number one, the Australia-West Indies series is always called the Frank Worrell Trophy. The India-Australia Trophy is always called the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. If its name changed, Gavaskar will shake the whole of India,” Ghavri said, according to The Indian Express.
He went on to argue that the BCCI should have taken a firmer stand in discussions with both the MCC and the ECB. “The BCCI should’ve put its foot down with the MCC and the ECB. Tiger’s name shouldn’t have been removed,” Ghavri insisted, voicing a sentiment echoed by many fans and former players alike. Ghavri’s remarks highlighted a broader concern: that cricket’s governing bodies risk eroding the sport’s rich heritage by yielding too easily to the winds of change.
Ghavri’s criticism was not reserved for administrators alone. He also expressed disappointment with Tendulkar, suggesting that the cricket legend should have refused to have his name attached to the trophy. “In the same context, when it came to Sachin Tendulkar, that this trophy would be changed, and this trophy would be named after you and Anderson, Sachin should’ve said no. Objection is different,” Ghavri stated. He elaborated further: “In the first place, you should’ve put your foot down and should’ve said ‘No, I don’t want to use my name because Tiger Pataudi’s name is already there. He’s a legend of Indian cricket. If you want to give medals, use our name. Trophy’s name should remain the same.’”
According to The Indian Express, Tendulkar did attempt to address the criticism by proposing that the Pataudi Medal of Excellence be awarded to the series-winning captain, a gesture intended to keep the Pataudi legacy alive in some form. However, for Ghavri and others, this was not enough. “First of all, this question should’ve never been raised. You’re degrading somebody of a great stature,” Ghavri declared, highlighting the emotional weight attached to the original trophy’s name.
The controversy has also reignited a broader discussion about the naming of cricket trophies and the importance of tradition. As Ghavri pointed out, other prestigious series have steadfastly retained their historic names, such as the Frank Worrell Trophy for Australia-West Indies and the Border-Gavaskar Trophy for India-Australia. These names serve not only as symbols of cricketing excellence but as living memorials to the players who shaped the game’s history.
For many cricket fans, the Pataudi name carries a similar significance. Tiger Pataudi’s contributions to Indian cricket—both as a player and as a captain who led the team through a transformative era—are widely celebrated. Removing his name from the trophy, critics argue, risks diminishing his legacy and the sense of continuity that binds generations of players and supporters.
Despite the controversy, the 2025 series itself provided a showcase for emerging talent and the enduring appeal of Test cricket. Shubman Gill’s run-scoring exploits and Mohammed Siraj’s bowling heroics were widely praised, and the closely fought 2-2 draw was seen as a fitting testament to the competitive spirit of both teams. Yet, as the dust settles, the debate over the trophy’s name continues to simmer, with many wondering whether cricket’s custodians have struck the right balance between honoring the past and celebrating the present.
As the new era of the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy begins, the questions raised by Ghavri and others remain unresolved. Will the compromise of a Pataudi Medal of Excellence satisfy those who cherish tradition, or will the renaming be remembered as a misstep that failed to honor a cricketing icon? For now, the debate serves as a reminder that in cricket—as in life—history and legacy matter, and the choices made today will echo for years to come.
