In reference to Hoggard and Harmison, Australia could have been saying similar things in the 2005 Ashes, but the truth is that the time was up for those bowlers, no matter how good they were at their best.
Harmison has looked awful for a while now and in truth his peak wasn't so flash that he simply had to have this sort of tenure. He was effective for 100 wickets and still worthwhile for 80 more, but he now doesn't remotely look like the guy you'd pull out of a domestic game for a call up. He's tall, pretty fast and not yet 30, but he's a player who has hung around because of that body and not because of the head.
Hoggard might have a bit more to go, but his fitness is a worry. If he has come into this series with full fitness, then he's looking a good five years older than he really is. I'd hope that he's just underdone.
I don't know so much about Anderson being the future, but Broad has plenty of good moments for a young guy. I'd suggest they need to think harder about how they pick bowlers, but Sidebottom was a selection that suggests they do know how to do the right thing, so I'm not so sure. England supporters talk about Moores' involvement in selections in a very different aspect to what I'm used to; does he get the final say? There might be better arguments for transparency and division of power, but I'm not seeing an example of why the coach should be the dictator.
In terms of the batting, there's not a lot of reason to drop any of them on paper. They're all accomplished enough, just not performing. I would say that in a team game, sometimes a loser's malaise can hurt players who are otherwise fine (and maybe bad bowling weakens batting resolve and so forth), but apart from that there is no obvious answer to their woes. It's just a general lack of intensity.
To be fair to the batsmen, this isn't a huge lack of intensity, either. It's just very noticeable. They're still playing well enough to give a 4 or 5 day contest.
The bowlers have finally found their lines. Brilliant come back boys.
