I think Shah has to make a statement with his batting, he has been more consistent for England lately and probably has a firm hold on his spot, figuratively speaking, but he should be one who steps up for them. So too, to some extent, Strauss. He has never been a one-day player of great regard, but as the captain of the team, he will have to create some performances and certainly lead from the front.
Bopara is in a weird situation in that the selectors have only just decided that he's not good enough for the 5th Test, yet they expect him to score runs in the coming weeks. Of course he'll feel like he has a point to prove, but maybe the timing is a bit awkward.
I guess in picking Denly, they feel they have enough senior players. Otherwise, talent or not, it's a lot to throw on a kid. Trott would have made a much more sensible selection. Dare I say, obvious, even. They clearly know he exists. He's apparently good enough for the Test side, but how he can average over 40 in one dayers and not be good enough for the ODI team is just one of those mysteries.
Bresnan strikes me as another odd pick. Mascarenhas was mentioned earlier and I think this just makes it more confusing. Is Bresnan picked as a bowler or an allrounder? He doesn't really seem to standout enough just as a bowler.
I'm sure Eoin Morgan vs Ireland will be a cracker.
Although Swann is a handy cricketer, England would do well to realise that Australia have struggled not only at reading the doosra, but also the googly. Rashid might prove a more useful selection at some point.
Is Anderson's spot safe in ODIs? He's not had a good run in the last couple of years. I can still remember when he averaged about 25 and was regarded as a bit of a limited overs specialist. These days, not so. I would assume he is nevertheless a certain starter, but Sidebottom might be a better way to get off to a good start.
Still, England's selectors have won the Nobel Prize. It's tough to avoid picking Ian Bell, but sometimes, through hard work and determination, it can be done.
