A Cricketing Legend’s Disappointment: Farokh Engineer on the Pataudi Trophy Controversy
The world of cricket, rich with history and tradition, recently found itself at the center of a lively debate concerning the prestigious Test series between India and England. Former India wicketkeeper-batsman, Farokh Engineer, known for his candid opinions, didn’t hold back his disappointment regarding the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB) controversial handling of the trophy naming rights and their subsequent introduction of a medal for the winning captain, named after the late cricketing titan, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi.
Initially, from 2007, the India-England Test series trophy proudly bore the name of the legendary ‘Tiger’ Pataudi. However, before the current five-match series commenced, the ECB opted for a significant change, rebranding it as the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. This decision sparked considerable discussion among fans and former players alike, raising questions about cricketing heritage and recognition.
The Deep Personal Connection to Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi
For Farokh Engineer, the issue transcended mere cricketing protocol; it touched upon a deeply personal bond. Speaking to PTI, Engineer fondly recalled his close friendship and extensive time playing Test cricket alongside Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi. “Tiger Pataudi was a great friend of mine, a wonderful colleague,” Engineer reminisced, emphasizing Pataudi’s immense heritage and distinguished family lineage. “I was absolutely delighted when the trophy was originally named after him back in 2007. It felt like a fitting tribute to a truly iconic figure in the sport.”
Was the Pataudi Medal an Afterthought? Engineer’s Candid Assessment
Engineer openly conveyed his mixed feelings about the ECB’s revised approach. While acknowledging the undeniable legacies of James Anderson and Sachin Tendulkar – two titans whose contributions to cricket are beyond dispute – he couldn’t shake off a sense of dismay at the initial removal of the Pataudi name. “On one hand, I was profoundly disappointed that Tiger’s name was taken off,” he stated. However, the subsequent announcement of the Pataudi medal offered a glimmer of relief, albeit with a caveat.
“It was quite clearly an afterthought,” Engineer asserted, suggesting that the ECB’s move to introduce the medal felt like a reactive measure rather than a pre-planned, coherent strategy. “They should have announced it right from the beginning; that would have lent it far more credibility. Nevertheless, at least they’ve done something. Common sense, thankfully, has somewhat prevailed, and I genuinely hope the Pataudi name continues to resonate within this historic rivalry.”
Honoring a Legacy: A Call for Proper Protocol and Recognition
Engineer further elaborated on the nuanced nature of the debate, acknowledging that “there are two sides to every story.” While praising the thoughtful gesture of naming a medal after the Pataudis, which he surmised was a “second choice to appease a lot of Pataudi supporters, of which I am one,” he stressed the importance of respectful execution. “You can’t really blame them for naming the main trophy after Sachin and Anderson, given their monumental achievements.”
However, his primary concern revolved around the proper respect afforded to the Pataudi family. “The whole issue is certainly debatable, but the fact that they’ve retained the name is crucial,” Engineer mused. He then made a heartfelt plea for the ECB to extend a formal invitation to Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi’s wife, the esteemed actress Sharmila Tagore, and their son, Bollywood star Saif Ali Khan, to present the medal. He pointed out that this courtesy was notably absent in the previous series, leading to “fingers being pointed at the ECB.” Engineer’s hope is that they will now “give them due credit.”
Sunil Gavaskar’s Critiques: Practicality of the Pataudi Medal
Farokh Engineer is not alone in his reflections on the ECB’s decision. Just last week, legendary Indian captain Sunil Gavaskar also voiced his concerns regarding the practical implications of the Pataudi medal. Writing in his column for Mid-Day, Gavaskar questioned the very premise of awarding the medal solely to the winning captain.
“The announcement of the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy also mentioned that respect would be given to the Pataudis by having a medallion for the captain of the team winning the series,” Gavaskar wrote. His critical query: “Why only the captain, and what if the series ends in a draw?” This highlighted a potential flaw in the current medal system.
Gavaskar proposed an alternative, suggesting a more expansive and continuous tribute: “That’s why it would have been better to have had a Pataudi medal for the Man Of The Match for every Test, culminating in the Pataudi Trophy for the Player Of The Series.” He posited that this approach would ensure the Pataudi legacy is consistently remembered throughout the series, not just at its conclusion. He concluded by inviting “Indian cricket lovers” to share their sentiments on this unfolding discussion, underscoring the deep emotional resonance of cricketing heritage.
