Gavaskar questions England: Were Tendulkar and Anderson invited to trophy ceremony?
"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 hand the trophy to the two captains, especially since the series ended in a draw. To the best of one's knowledge, both were in England at the time. So, were they simply not invited?" Gavaskar wrote in his column for Sportstar."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."Notably, Gavaskar was among those who questioned the renaming of the trophy from the Pataudi Trophy to the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy. The batting legend also opined that the trophy should be named Tendulkar-Anderson, rather than Anderson-Tendulkar.Following backlash, the ECB announced that the winning captain would receive the Pataudi Medal, thereby ensuring the cricketing family's name remained associated with the high-profile series.'NOBODY FROM PATAUDI FAMILY WAS THERE'The Pataudi Medal was shared between Ben Stokes and Shubman Gill after the series ended in a draw. Gavaskar stated that the medal should be awarded to the Player of the Series rather than the winning captain."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.advertisement"The drawn series showed how foolish this idea was of trying to make amends 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 award the medal to the Man of the Series rather than the winning team's captain? And what if the captain himself had an ordinary series and little impact on the result?"If there had been a result and the Pataudi Medal had to be given to the Man of the Series, it would have been a tough choice, for both skippers were simply outstanding," he said.Shubman Gill won the Player of the Series award for his outstanding batting contribution. The Punjab batsman, in his maiden series as captain, scored 754 runs in 10 innings, breaking numerous records. Opposition coach Brendon McCullum named Gill as India's most valuable player.However, Harry Brook, and not Ben Stokes, was named England's Player of the Series. Stokes led his team admirably and bowled with great heart, taking 21 wickets in four matches. England missed Stokes' services in the final Test as the captain sat out due to a shoulder injury.- EndsYou May Also Like
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
West Indies cricket battles funding crisis as glory days fade into distant memory
The once-unstoppable West Indies cricket team - an empire that ruled the 1980s and early 2000s with titans like Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, Michael Holding, and Brian Lara - now stands as a shadow of its former self. The decline is not just painful; it is 2020, an audit uncovered a 'massive hole' in Cricket West Indies' finances, exposing a culture of mismanagement that has eroded trust and crippled operational stability. Calls for radical transparency, governance reform, and ruthless financial discipline are now not just necessary - they are a matter of the field, the collapse has been humiliating. Nowhere was it more brutally exposed than when the team was skittled for a pathetic 27 against Australia - just one run away from the lowest total in Test history. For Clive Lloyd, this was more than a defeat. His rallying cry for a top-to-bottom overhaul - from grassroots talent pipelines to domestic competitions and pitch quality - was as much a plea as it was a warning. The crisis deepens as structural rot sets in. The lure of wealthy T20 leagues is draining the team of its prime talent, with players like Nicholas Pooran walking away from international duty at just 29 to chase franchise exodus exposes a bitter truth: financial security has trumped national pride. Meanwhile, Cricket West Indies' fractured leadership, outdated systems, and decaying domestic infrastructure have turned what was once the pride of the Caribbean into a cautionary tale of squandered legacy and systemic fall of West Indies cricket is not the result of a single misstep—it's the outcome of years of negligence, poor governance, and a failure to adapt to the changing landscape of the key factors stand out:1. Board MismanagementFor decades, the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB)—now Cricket West Indies (CWI)—has been plagued by inefficiency, short-term thinking, and questionable financial decisions. Contracts have been mishandled, payments delayed, and strategic planning almost non-existent. The result? Players have lost faith, and the public has lost notorious example came when disputes over revenue distribution left players short-changed, breeding resentment and mistrust. Without financial discipline and transparency, CWI has crippled its own foundation.2. Player-Board DisputesThe relationship between CWI and its players has often resembled a cold war—fraught with tension, mistrust, and public fallouts. Poor communication and stubborn leadership have repeatedly fractured team 2014, Dwayne Bravo famously led the team's mid-tour withdrawal from India after the fourth ODI in Dharamshala, citing unpaid fees—a move that shocked the cricket world and exposed the board's dysfunction.3. T20 Leagues vs. National DutyThe arrival of the IPL in 2008 changed everything. With astronomical salaries and global fame on offer, top players like Chris Gayle, Andre Russell, Kieron Pollard, and Sunil Narine increasingly chose franchises over the maroon cap. While financially understandable, this exodus gutted the national side's consistency and Decline in Domestic and Junior CricketOnce a production line for legends, Caribbean grassroots cricket is now starved of funds and vision. Infrastructure is crumbling, coaching pathways are weak, and junior development is neglected. Trinidad, Barbados, Jamaica, Guyana, Antigua—all former powerhouses—are struggling to produce talent of the caliber of Richards, Lloyd, or Lara.5. Test Cricket Losing Its AllureFor many young players, Test cricket feels outdated compared to the fast money and instant fame of T20s. Stars like Shimron Hetmyer have skipped key tours, and the art of grinding out a five-day battle is being lost. Without reigniting passion for the longest format, West Indies risk losing its cricketing soul.6. Player Salaries and Central ContractsOne of the most damaging issues is the pay gap. West Indies central contracts offer a fraction of what top cricket nations provide—and nowhere near what franchise leagues pay. This financial disparity pushes players toward club commitments and away from international duty. Fair pay isn't just about reward—it's about retaining ICC-CWI Financial StructureadvertisementTo rebuild West Indies cricket, it is important to understand the financial structure of the ICC and the is set to receive between 1 million dollars and 100 million dollars from the ICC in the 2024–2027 the 2024-25 season, ICC reportedly allocated 20 million dollars to 2022, CWI generated roughly 34 million dollars, with 24 million dollars coming directly from ICC funds are lifelines—but without smarter spending, they won't stop the A Hope for the FutureWest Indies cricket was once the heartbeat of the sport—synonymous with dominance, flair, and unmatched brilliance. From producing fearsome fast bowlers to dazzling stroke-makers, the Caribbean team inspired generations and captured the world's imagination. In recent years, financial instability and structural challenges have dimmed that glow, but the story is far from decline is not irreversible. With strong leadership, transparent governance, and a shared vision, the West Indies can reclaim their place among cricket's elite. Investment in grassroots programs, better player-board relationships, and a modernized approach to the game can ignite a fans, our belief remains unshaken. The Caribbean still holds immense talent—waiting for the right moment and platform to shine. With unity, hard work, and determination, a new generation of match-winners will emerge, bringing back the pride, passion, and power of West Indies cricket. The comeback can—and will—happen.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Injuries are a part of the game; injury substitutes are unnecessary
Had England won the final Test at the Oval, it is possible that without facing a single delivery, their No.11 might have emerged as hero. Chris Woakes walking out gingerly, his left arm in a sling hidden under his sweater was already one of the heroic sights of the series; at Old Trafford Rishabh Pant had dragged his fractured foot to the crease. Pant swung Pant-like, and played the shot of the series when he appeared to push Ben Stokes delicately to cover only for the ball to race to the boundary like a tracer bullet, as Ravi Shastri would say. Players injured during the course of a match returning to the action are the stuff of folklore. Colin Cowdrey, arriving at the crease with his arm in a sling, Anil Kumble bowling to and dismissing Brian Lara with his jaw wired up are justly in that pantheon. Substitute fielders were always allowed in the laws of the game, and till recently substitute runners too for injured batters. Then, following the death of Phil Hughes on the cricket field, a concussion substitute was allowed to bat or bowl. The runner for batters, however, was not allowed. Following the heroics of Pant and Woakes, there has been a cry for substitutes who could replace players injured. Contrasting views Former England captain Michael Vaughan has called cricket a 'dinosaur' game for not allowing injury substitutes, claiming this 'devalues the product'. He went on to say — and this may be the nub — 'It cost England the series because England got to within six runs of beating India with ten players.' On the other hand, current captain Ben Stokes argues that the injury substitute is unnecessary. If someone gets injured, its tough luck. Deal with it, he says, adding that there may be room for manipulation if an injury substitute is allowed. Few international cricketers go through a career without injuries. These are part of the game, like sixes and dogs running onto the field. Wicketkeepers finish with crooked fingers, fast bowlers' backs rebel within a few years, and often in only their 40s, players develop dodgy knees, and carry other evidence of their harsh sporting life. The law on substitutes (Law 2) is one of the trickier ones. It has been manipulated in the past. In his autobiography, Imran Khan has written about a match in Pakistan in the 1980s, where one of the teams, realising the nature of the wicket substituted players after lunch and a whole session of play had been gone through! Nearly a century before that, when the Lancashire captain Archie Maclaren allowed Sussex to substitute a fast bowler who fell ill after three overs, he was berated by Wisden for setting up a 'very dangerous precedent.' Cricket is a tough game. The intriguing case of a substitute who took a wicket occurred in 1982. After fast bowler Gladstone Small had already bowled 15 over for Warwickshire against Lancashire, he was called up for England duty as standby. Manager David Brown (who was 40 and had played 26 Tests for England) was given special permission to take Small's place in the eleven. Brown dismissed wicketkeeper Christopher Scott. The story doesn't end there. Small was not needed by England, then returned to bat, and bowled eleven overs in the second innings. This may not have been the manipulation Stokes had in mind when he said he was against the idea of an injury substitute (or, as in this case, a 'national call' substitute). But he has a point. Would England have won the Lord's Test if Vaughan's Law had existed, and Shoaib Bashir (who got the last wicket bowling with a fractured finger) had made way for an injury substitute? Cricket is a game of pressure, and injuries add to the degree of difficulty. It is not just the romance of the fallen hero rising to a challenge — although as Pant and Woakes showed, there is that too. There is too the danger of batters and fielders becoming that bit more reckless in their approach knowing if they are injured, a substitute will do their job. The modern player (Stokes) I think is right, while the ex-player (Vaughan), who sees cricket as a 'product' has got it wrong.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Top 5 T20 records Dewald Brevis broke vs Australia
Top 5 T20 records Dewald Brevis broke vs Australia Dewald Brevis scored a record T20 century to help South Africa end the nine-match winning streak of Australia's cricketers takes a look at the top five records broken by Dewald Brevis in the 2nd T20I vs Australia Dewald Brevis became the youngest South African to hit a century in Men's T20Is at the age of 22 years and 105 days Dewald Brevis hit the second-fastest hundred for South Africa in Men's T20Is off 41 balls Dewald Brevis made the record for the highest individual score by a South African in Men's T20Is Dewald Brevis made the record for the highest individual score against Australia in Men's T20Is, going past Ruturaj Gaikwad's 123 not out Dewald Brevis set the record for the highest score in Men's T20Is in Australia. He went past Shane Watson's 124 not out against India back in 2016 at the Sydney Cricket Ground
