Among the talking points going into what ended up being an epic five-Test series between India and England was the name of the trophy itself. The Pataudi Trophy had been retired, leading to criticism from multiple quarters, and was replaced by the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy, named after England fast bowling great James Anderson and India batting legend Sachin Tendulkar. Strangely, though, both were nowhere to be seen during the presentation ceremony.
Sunil Gavaskar questioned this in his column for Sportstar. “This was the first-ever series named after Sachin Tendulkar and Jimmy Anderson, two of cricket’s greatest legends. One would have expected both to be present to give the trophy to the two captains, especially since the series ended in a draw,” he said.
Anderson continues to play domestic cricket and was in action in England at the time that the series was taking place. Tendulkar, meanwhile, was there for the unveiling of the trophy and Gavaskar has said that the former India captain was in England to the best of his knowledge. Gavaskar drew parallels to what happened earlier in the year in Australia, where he was not included in the presentation ceremony and it was just Allan Border at the end of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. The reasoning given at the time was that this was because it was Australia that had won the series.
“To the best of one’s knowledge, both were in England at the time. So, were they simply not invited? Or was this similar to what happened in Australia earlier this year, when only Allan Border was asked to present the Border-Gavaskar Trophy because Australia had won the series? Since this England series was drawn, perhaps neither was asked to attend the presentation,” he said.
Gavaskar also slammed the practice of giving the newly instated Pataudi medal to the winning captain of the series instead of the player of the series. India captain Shubman Gill and England skipper Ben Stokes were both given a medal each with the series drawn 2-2. “Mostly around the world, administrators are brought in to ensure profits and are quite good at it, but they may not have much knowledge about the history of the sport they are presiding over. So, these little gestures are not in their scheme of things. Nobody from the Pataudi family was there either, for the Pataudi medal, which was to be presented to the winning team’s captain.
“The drawn series showed how silly this idea was of trying to make up to the Pataudis by retiring the trophy named after them. Every time the series is drawn, the medal can’t be presented, can it? Wouldn’t it be better, therefore, to have the medal for the Man of the Series than give it to the winning team’s captain? And what if the captain himself has had an ordinary series and had little impact on the result?” said Gavaskar.
