In light of Starceh looking the goods with the Duke, it does merit consideration.
The case for:
1. English conditions obviously favour quick bowlers, and it's likely that at least one will run through a side with a terrific showing. It's a better probability of that with four specialist pacemen instead of three.
2. All available seamers, Bird aside, are significantly better batsmen than Lyon.
3. The last two times we beat the filth we were fielding four quicks (Headingley 2009 and Perth 2010).
The case against:
1. The over-rate. Getting to 90 overs is improbable with no viable part-time spinner, presuming Smitteh and Warner don't make the starting XI and Clarke's back is too fragile to risk bowling him.
2. Would be a waste of a new ball given five quicks will be using it, and none but Twatto are proven at reversing it.
3. Lyon has a much better chance of dismissals with Haddin keeping, and his effectiveness under Wade has skewed his average.
4. Lyon will have massive footmarks to bowl at for Cook and Broad.
5. He just took a seven-for against the best players of spin in the world.
As much as I love Lyon and believe he deserves success, I wouldn't shed (many) tears if Faulkner or Starc played at Trent Bridge. The batting they add would be priceless. That said, there are unanswered questions about our attack's penetration with the older ball (see South Africa in Adelaide, Sri Lanka in Hobart and the whole India series) and Lyon's our best bet to keep pressure on from overs 30-80. Moreover, the over-rate quandary is impossible without him if the Poms aren't dismissed quickly.