Should Prasidh Have Played? Ashwin’s Blunt Take Sparks Debate in 5th Test

Let’s be real—nothing gets cricket fans buzzing like a good selection controversy, and the India vs England Test series served up plenty of that. The tension was high in the fifth and final Test at The Oval, sparking the usual buzz about India’s lineup. Leading the charge with strong opinions was Ravichandran Ashwin, who didn’t hold back on his disappointment over India’s choices, especially when it came to Prasidh Krishna. With conditions seemingly tailor-made for fast bowling, Ashwin felt India might have missed a trick..

 

The Case Against Prasidh: Numbers Don’t Lie

 

Ashwin’s criticism has not appeared from nowhere. Prasidh Krishna’s statistics in the series are not helping him at all. Six wickets in four innings, with an average of 55.16, an economy of a fraction more than 5.33—that’s not the stat sheet of a man who looks like he deserves a place in a Test match that matters. The pace was there, yes. Control, a threat to a batsman? Nope!

 

Ashwin pointed out that this wasn’t just about one match—it was about form across the series. And when you add the inexperience factor to the equation, things get even more complicated. Akash Deep, coming off an injury, was still finding his rhythm. Siraj has been overworked. Without the calming presence of Bumrah or Shami, the bowling unit felt raw and reactive, not ruthless. So why bank on Prasidh again? That’s the no-nonsense challenge Ashwin didn’t shy away from tossing right at the selectors’ doorstep.

 

Shardul or not? The Balance Conundrum

 

One of Ashwin’s biggest points was the team’s balance—or lack of it. He floated the idea that Shardul Thakur could’ve been the better pick. Not only does Shardul bring with him a handy seam bowling option, but his batting can also stretch the lower order. Especially with a long tail and fragile top order, that’s value India could’ve used.

 

It’s not like this was a green-top from day four. Day one showed signs of seam, sure, but The Oval generally flattens out by Day 3. So, if you’re looking at an extra pacer, you better be sure he’ll make an impact early on. Shardul’s dual role might’ve helped steady the ship from both ends.

 

And then there’s Karun Nair. Ashwin diplomatically said he’s “okay with Karun playing”—but only if you had Bumrah-Shami-Siraj leading the attack. Without them? It feels like a gamble. A move prioritizing batting depth while ignoring bowling firepower, which, ironically, might backfire on both fronts.

 

The Bigger Picture: Is India Overthinking Again?

 

Let’s zoom out a bit. This isn’t the first time India’s team selection in England has raised questions. It’s almost become a tradition—picking based on records, reputation, or gut feel rather than current form and fit-for-condition choices. Ashwin’s critique isn’t just about Prasidh. It’s about the larger issue of India trying to outsmart the conditions rather than play to its strengths.

 

Ashwin’s insight reflects a growing sentiment among fans—why not go with what’s working? Why stick to players who haven’t delivered when match-ready alternatives are waiting?

 

India finished Day 1 at 204/6—respectable, but precarious. The Karun-Washington stand may have saved the blushes for now, but one more collapse could prove costly. The worry Ashwin flagged—the lack of bowling teeth—could haunt India if England gets batting-friendly conditions by Day 3.

 

Do you think India gambled too much with this playing XI—or is Ashwin overthinking it? Let us know your take. After all, cricket is nothing without a bit of healthy debate!