They will go with an all rounder, but with Smith and Voges both able to send down a few handy overs (Smith risky but attacking, Voges more likely to hold an end up) without risking Clarke's fitness or resorting to Warner I don't think it is needed. There is enough cover and in conditions likely to seam and swing Australia needs six genuine batsmen.
I suspect Watson will play, and Australia should get the better of England with ten men plus a slip. If an all rounder has to be picked I would rather M Marsh, he's more likely to produce a reliable 30. Watson an unreliable 20 with one decent score to make the average look better than the real return. And Marsh is just as likely as Watson to tie and end up plus get the odd wicket.
It is the bowling that is hard to get right. And even harder to get categorically wrong.
Starc was possibly the pick of the bowlers in the West Indies, but the key point is "in the West Indies". How much can that form against a an opponent barely at Test level be trusted.
Johnson hasn't been the super-Mitch of two years ago but he ishas been reliable for a while now. While he might nit have hit his x-factor peak as often, his worst has generaly been fairly good. He is a different bowler now. The so-called x-factor (laughable reasoning at the time) can still be there - and he's not a liability when it isn't. His probable psychological hold over England gets him picked.
Harris, when fit, enough said.
So it comes down to Starc or Hazelwood. I would probably be conservative and go with Hazelwood. But if the decks are low, slow and soft Starc could keep that in-swinging yorker working for 40 overs so I don't have any issue with playing both Johnson and Starc. The selectors may also go with Starc meaning the side bats at a decent level down to number nine (not the way I would pick sides but definitely a consideration in the minds of selectors).
