Some figures for bowlers who have bowled against India and bowlers who have bowled at The Oval. It seems that the taller bowlers do better there so maybe Tremlett, Broad and Sidebottom would be suitable.

Against India -
2 matches 10 wickets at 19.60 econ 2.22 s/r 52.90 - Tremlett
3 matches 14 wickets at 25.78 econ 2.94 s/r 52.50 - Anderson
10 matches 36 wickets at 29.05 econ 2.83 s/r 61.40 - Hoggard
2 matches 7 wickets at 30.00 econ 2.47 s/r 72.80 - Sidebottom
3 matches 10 wickets at 31.30 econ 2.49 s/r 75.20 - Harmison
1 match 4 wickets at 32.35 econ 3.39 s/r 57.00 - Jones
2 matches 7 wickets at 37.71 econ 3.17 s/r 71.20 - Caddick
5 matches 14 wickets at 38.21 econ 3.22 s/r 71.00 - Cork
1 match 1 wicket at 59.00 econ 5.20 s/r 68.00 - Plunkett
2 matches 2 wickets at 113.00 econ 4.10 s/r 165.00 - Tudor

Gough and Mahmood haven't played Tests against India

Oval stats -

4 matches 18 wickets at 24.38 econ 3.35 s/r 43.60 - Harmison
5 matches 23 wickets at 25.00 econ 2.88 s/r 51.90 - Caddick
2 matches 7 wickets 32.71 econ 4.00 s/r 49.00 - Anderson
4 matches 10 wickets at 39.90 econ 3.83 s/r 62.50 - Hoggard
5 matches 12 wickets at 41.83 econ 3.46 s/r 72.50 - Cork
1 match 2 wickets at 50.50 econ 3.74 s/r 81.00 - Mahmood
4 matches 8 wickets at 53.50 econ 3.56 s/r 90.00 - Gough

Jones, Plunkett, Sidebottom and Tremlett haven't played Tests at The Oval

I like Bell too, but he averages 36 (minus the freebies v Bangladesh) which would have been fine in the 90s, when batting was so much tougher but now probably isn't enough to be a regular. Obviously he has done very well since his recall last year (though remember his runs v Pak last summer were against a depleted attack and, generally, in lowish pressure) but can we trust him for such a big game? I guess what, for me, clinches him not playing is his poor record against India, and his trouble against Kumble. But I certainly see him as having a long-term future (would dropping him again muck him up?)

__________________
third-umpire.com

Why not? He's got a pretty exemplary record against sub-continental sides.. had an extremely acceptable Ashes tour last winter and has generally looked the part all this summer. No case to answer: he should remain one of the first names on the teamsheet.

In terms of his "class".. I'd agree that he's not in the league of the all-time greats... but he's compact and technically proficient, he plays straight, he's got softer hands than most. I'm pretty sure that if I had to pick a recent England XI (say of the last decade) he'd be in it.Why not? He's looked very much the part when he's had a chance... and is in reasonable form. I've nothing against Shah... but Joyce is at least as deserving.

I'll say this about Rikki Clarke: not yet and, unless he shows serious improvement soon, especially with the ball, not ever.

__________________
third-umpire.com

For the next Pietersen should drop down to 5 and Collingwood should bat at 4.
The reason being Collingwood can blunt the early attack. Now he couldn't do this against the Aussies but the Indian attack he could. This will free up Pietersen for the chance once the new ball has been seen off.
Also Pietersen is a much better slogger than Collingwood and Bell and if he is left with the tail it would be better potentially more runs.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

As feverpitch has stated Bell has an average of mid/high 30's excluding Bangladesh. In todays game that isnt even an average performance.

The fact is his career so far is only average and he needs to rise above that level or lose his place.

Re: Joyce, I dont think he technically good enough for test cricket, his technique reminds me too much of Nick Knight - without the agressive ODI style batting.

__________________
Mark.