Woakes and Kerrigan are both young guys, who are going to be nervous playing Test cricket and who are doing so on a flat wicket, offering them nothing. They're not going to come in and both take 5 wickets and look World Class from the word go. Plenty of good Test bowlers have started badly, so I don't see the need to be overly critical.
Like I said, it's the right time to try something new, rather than in an more important game.
They're both 24, if they're being picked they should be up to it and "young" not used as an excuse.
And there's limited advantage to trying something new in a dead rubber when it's one game and it may well see neither picked again in a hurry. Cook, wunderkapitan, has zero trust in Kerrigan already, so bang goes that particular theory.
I'd counter the dead rubber notion with a run of games giving them a chance to succeed, not be pressure for them to do well from the off. Either way neither looks particularly up to the task even if Woakes pulled it back.
Cook doesn't trust either overly much in a dead rubber, what odds he's going to in an "important game".......................
----------
I would! Even though I picked that side when Anderson only had 17...sneaky
But yes, mainly because of quality of wickets. Look who Anderson's dismissed this series...of his 21 wickets only 9 have been top 7 batsmen (Rogersx2, Clarkex2, Haddinx2, Smith, Watson, Warner). Compare the other major bowlers of the series: Swann has 20 of his 25 wickets as top 7; Broad has 13 of his 18 wickets as top 7; Harris has 14 of 20; and Siddle has 13 of 17.
Oh, sneaky. Haven't the lower order been your better batsmen?
That's reasonable, but regardless who the wickets were, Anderson's dry spell was 5 in 2 Tests, Broad's just 6 in 3 Tests, regardless who the wickets were Broad wasn't getting many and I've heard you need 20 not just the top handful.
But I take your point
Anderson's been dining out on bowlers and cheap wickets: Peter Siddlex6(!), Starcx3, Harris, Agar & Lyon. He also got a couple of cheapies in the 3rd innings at Manchester when Australia were pressing for quick runs - Haddin was one I remember. In my view he hasn't done his job with the new ball at all. I count only 4 new ball wickets for Anderson in the series: Clarke and Rogers 1st innings at Trent Bridge, Watson 2nd innings at Lord's, Warner at The Oval. This Aussie team is meant to have awful batsmen. Why can't Anderson get more of them out?
I suspect he's also very knackered, overbowling 1st Test as wunderkapitan kook ignored Finn too much, and this Test thanks to the genial selection of Kerrigan and Woakes.
But I suppose it is refreshing that someone doesn't automatically take Anderson as one of the best in the world, I heard yesterday someone suggest the English opening bowlers rank alongside the South Africans.
I've long doubted Anderson is that good, and am not overly convinced who you get out matters too much if you're taking wickets, but I'd rather have Anderson open the bowling than Broad who for me would make a better 1st change bowler.
Oh and 9/10 of Bresnan's wickets were batsmen, Watson x4, Warner x2, Smith x2, Hughes x1 and while Agar isn't a batsman he is handy with the bat being his other. Bresnan's batting has been around the same level as Broad's this series although he's been the epitomy of steadiness with 1-2 wickets every innings.
And in the first two Tests he took the same number or more wickets than Broad, up until Broad woke up from his slumber in the 3rd and jumped straight into your and everyone's dream XI. Take out that 3rd Test and Broad returns :
1/128
1/30
1/108
0/54
1/26
2/54
1/40
Decent figures in the main if it were ODIs, the two hundreds excepted spoiling the illusion, but still 7/440 = 62.86 average is more typifying of what Broad has done this series (4/5 Tests)
Other factor for Broad vs Anderson - Broad has made a lot more runs.
I disregard that, mainly because Swann can bat and with a proper top seven you shouldn't be picking a four man attack on the basis of batting. I fear England picked Woakes on that basis, and he may even make some runs, but I'd have taken Finn or Tremlett over Woakes any day and every day.
Wasn't clever England indulging in time wasting yesterday, they should get penalised for that and ??? isn't enough. And I sympathise entirely with the aussies when they AGAIN gave England the chance to scurry off for bad light while the aussies appeared oblivious to any danger or the fact the umpires would just do that.
I thought the aussies would bat on a bit, try and make it so they don't have much batting to do 2nd innings and grind England down a bit ahead of the Ashes (II).
If they can get Root and Cook out early, Trott is out of form and the lower order starts at six with a out of form Prior fitting into what I suspect will be something like Prior, Woakes, Broad, Swann, Kerrigan, Anderson. Puts a bit of pressure on the top five, Boycs has been slating what TMS were discussing as picking five bowlers on the premise they'd bat first which was out of their control.
If we're preparing players for the Ashes then Bairstow or whoever will be among the batting should have played, if we're playing five bowlers and Woakes is one of them down under then it may not be 5-0 to the aussies again like the last time we were that stupid, but I suspect it may not be whatever scoreline
to England..................... aussies look to be working their batting out, and on home turf I think the conclusion from this series will be it won't be nearly as easy down under
Not sure what Faulkner's at, or if talk of a declaration are serious. I'd be batting on with Smith still there, with Starc and Harris capable of hanging around and scoring a few runs, and England's fine ability to knock the tail over 
