I think the selections for this Test were slow reactions to continuous speculation and consequently crap.
Persisting with Carberry is pointless, he's limited in ability, mentality and runs, while Root may not be the perfect batsman or opener he presents a better short and long term option than Carberry. *EDIT* As I've been typing he has bagged himself a nine ball duck, just about the icing on the cake.
Carberry : 238 runs @ 26.44 (50 x1, HS 60)
Root : 192 runs @ 27.43 (50 x1, HS 87)
Fair does Root made his 87 when the game was up, but frankly he isn't 33 and scratching around like a county runmaker struggling to make runs in the Test arena like Carberry.
That duck may be only Carberry's second, and indeed only second single figures score, but he's made it to 30 SEVEN times (out of 11 innings) and never past 60. After his painful 81 ball 12 in the last Test you'd think he would have made way, but hell no. It isn't even as if he nominally plays for the same county as Cook (at least I'm sure he doesn't, might be wrong)
Root has struggled to make starts, not that he's alone in terms of England batsmen struggling. 62 runs in his last four innings will have been the crunch, never mind that Carberry is 33, Root here for the future and England are 0-4 down and ringing the changes, persist with someone who is unlikely to ever succeed over someone in poor form - classic selectorial stupidity
Rankin is just clutching at straws, Cook and the selection panel have obviously not really wanted to stray away from the "can bat, can bowl" selection policy so reluctantly tried someone different and he broke down. Whether Yawn's comments about him needing to do a fitness test are fair comment I'm not sure, I think the England set up needs to do a fitness test of a different variety.
What beggars belief is that, Broad aside, the pick of the series bowling averages have both been dropped. First Tremlett averaging 30, you can but wonder what might have happened had they persisted with him, and now Bresnan albeit his average was the third best or least worst of the rest and unless Anderson suddenly picks up wickets at the last hurdle, will remain thus.
Bresnan : 34 runs @ 8.50 & 5 wkts @ 41.20
Anderson : 33 & 8.25 & 11 wkts @ 45.64
Little in it, except Bresnan can make runs and Anderson looks decidedly ordinary when the ball isn't swinging all over the place.
Stokes has picked up what I call a routine 5wi, for want of a better description. Basically it's a five wicket haul that comes by virtue of a side being dismissed for a big-gish score and one bowler happening to pick up half the wickets or more - as opposed to a match winning five wicket haul where the side are bowled out for a score well below par and setting the bowling side up in box seat.
So that's a routine 5wi to go with a hundred when the runs don't matter, slightly more important as the wickets were taken when it matters but still not so much Michael Yawn should be getting excited in the crotch area as he has been.
As for Borthwick, well England don't have a great history of leggies and the quest to find a Warne has always stumbled at every hurdle, just like the incessant quest to find the next Botham or indeed convert keepers into Gilchrist
The aussies were always going to target him, are the selectors stupid? I would have to go back through a lot of 80s, 90s and indeed 00s scorecards to make this a definite worst, but this could be one of the worst England XIs of all time. Even in the 90s the side had a few good players, might be worth a thread.
----------
Where are all the Stokes doubters now? England's highest individual score (and their only century), second highest batting average, second most wickets, second best bowling figures. Hmm
Won a match yet? No. Scored a hundred in the heat of battle rather than a token one when the match was lost? No. Taken a match winning 5wi? No, although England haven't yet lost this match but I meant in terms of bowling the opposition out for a low score as opposed to eventually polishing them off.
I'm not convinced he is a number six, nothing about his ability. And as five wicket hauls go I'm unconvinced, had he knocked over Smith and Haddin before they got the aussies back in it fair enough, but picking them off when the innings is winding down plus a couple of lower order batsman is what makes up a bog standard 5wi.
As for going second in the bowling averages, I think you'll find it's third in ENGLAND's series averages where the third best was over 40 so it's hardly the accolade you're trying to make it sound.
England bowling averages 13/14
Broad : 19 wkts @ 27.42
Tremlett : 4 wkts @ 30.00
STOKES : 13 wkts @ 33.08
Bresnan : 5 wkts @ 41.20
Anderson : 12 wkts @ 47.42
Rest are at 80+ per wicket, Stokes' average is now modest, ordinary, whatever you want to call it.
As for second in the batting, on 33.33 and would only take a small swing around for him to not be with Bell on 31.00 and Cook on 29.00. Most of the ones just below have been axed, all eggs in one basket with a f**king great big hole in the bottom.
His token hundred aside when the game was lost, fields back etc, 80 runs in five innings is his mark on the series and a whopping 52 in four @ 13.00 when the runs could have counted for something (also made a 28 when the game was already lost, when he could have helped win a match last time around he made 14 and 19, and took 1/46 and 1/50)
Statisically 33.33 and 33.08 look quite good, so far, but in terms of crucial performances he's picked up the pieces in a bowling performance once and scored a hundred when it doesn't matter.