Absolutely. I don't think either Anderson or Tremlett are remotely likely to be either particularly wicket-taking threats or economical bowlers. Broad I'm still not sold on either. Trouble is, people pick them because they think they can take wickets, regardless of whether they can bowl economically or not. But in reality they mostly do neither.
That's fine, because that is your personal judgement on Tremlett and Anderson, rightly or wrongly.
The former. Every time. Trouble is, it's not as simple as that. If you can bowl 10 overs for 18, you're almost certainly going to get a wicket or two gifted to you. Equally, if you've gone for as many as 55 the chances are you've bowled poorly and the wickets have come from bad bowling, so won't recur very often if at all.
Yeah, he's played well.
No, it won't.
Sort of a bit damned if he does & damned if he doesn't in fairness to him.
Mills has proven himself to be just as effective against slow bowlers though, I recall him hitting four consecutive sixes against slow Australian bowlers at the SCG...think Mr Lehmann may have been on the receiving end then. A lesser bowler than Swann naturally, but still.
Oh I remember it certainly, was almost the most unthinkable turnaround in ODI history. Nonetheless, Anderson is the likeliest to smash for mine and they'd do best try and target him with just 3 wickets left. Won't be easy if he keeps bowling at the blasted stumps though.