0 0

Previously, the India-England series in India was played for the Anthony de Mello Trophy, and in England for the Pataudi Trophy. This dual-naming caused inconsistency. Was a unified name like Tendulkar-Anderson a move to consolidate branding of the India-England Test series? Was it done to resonate more amongst the younger generation as greats like Sachin Tendulkar and Jimmy Anderson are contemporaries? If so, why the wasn’t the India-England trophy named as Kapil-Botham trophy? Most appropriately, they were true contemporaries and rivals.

With the likes of Sunil Gavaskar (India-Australia play for the Border-Gavaskar trophy) and Tendulkar already there — why
Kapil Dev’s name isn’t attached to a bilateral Test series? The omission of his name from a similarly prestigious series often sparks debate — and fairly so. Kapil was India’s first world-class fast bowler, a genuine all-rounder, and the captain who led India to its first World Cup title in 1983 — a moment that arguably transformed Indian cricket forever.

It would make sense to name a series — say India vs England, or India vs Pakistan (if revived, which Pakistan cricket board proposed to call it Imran-Kapil trophy way back in 2004) — after him and a peer like Ian Botham or Imran Khan, as they formed the holy trinity of 1980s all-rounders. Or, should the India–West Indies be revived meaningfully: Kapil–Richards Trophy (Viv being the key rival of the 1983 final). Even the India-New Zealand trophy being named as Kapil-Hadlee (former New Zealand great Richard Haldee) isn’t a bad choice as top series like India-Australia and India-England are already taken.

Gavaskar (whose recognition is fully earned) is one of the most established names in world cricket because of his unshakable technique against most fearsome fast bowling of his time without actually facing them in the nets. Similarly, Tendulkar too created a strong legacy through his impactful knocks and longevity.

But Kapil, as a fast-bowling all-rounder, was a rare commodity in Indian cricket, but the narrative has always favored batting legends. Looks like that his feats — 434 Test wickets, 5000+ runs — are stunning, but less glamorized than run-making.

Not to forget that Kapil arguably changed Indian cricket’s psyche more than anyone else before him — proving that India could win on the world stage. If Gavaskar represented stoic resistance, Kapil embodied fearless self-belief. It’s likely overdue that a series — perhaps India–England or India–West Indies — be named in his honor. And with increasing public retrospective appreciation may well see that happen in the near future, who knows?

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %