On Anderson:
Well, he's not the ideal bowler by any means - given his injury problems and his apparent inconsistencies. However, to say he hasn't performed for England since 2003 is a gross oversight - he's done so several times in one day cricket and is very under-rated as a one day bowler. His test efforts have been dissapointing, but he has actually been treated a bit harshly in ODI cricket (after being picked initially before he was ready - both physically and as a bowler in general). His inconsistencies are often spoken of, however I think they are an effect of his injury problems - he's in and out of the side so often, that even when he is in form, he then loses his rhythm due to missing a game or so. Obviously, this remains a problem as there is nothing to suggest thus far that he won't continue to get injured with regularity, however he has definitely still done enough to suggest he should be persisted with in the ODI setup - especially if the next best options are Bresnan and Onions!
On Bresnan:
Picking players in good form sounds like a good idea in theory, but is it really? Unless the plan is to rush players in for three games and then rush them out again, I don't see the logic in picking someone just because they've done well in the short-term past. It can really have adverse effects both long and short term - for one, good form from poor players often doesn't translate to the international level, depending on the reasons the players are poor. Something a lot of people overlook though, is the cyclical nature of form itself. Most things in cricket are somewhat cyclical, but form in sports is by definition - it actually refers to the cyclical ups and downs of a player's performances. Picking someone at the top of their merely because it is so can have adverse effects long term, even if the form translates itself. Lets say Brensan, supposedly in good form, translates his form to England colours and does well for a series or two because of it. Well, like all form, his will balance out and his low points will come to the fore, and he'll get hammered - yet the selectors will still live in hope after seeing his first few games, only to persist with him for two years before realising he isn't very good and then cast him aside as "inconsistent." For this reason, I say the fact that Bresnan is in good form is actually a reason not to pick him - "good form" suggests that he's at a cyclical peak and that his performances recently have been anomalitic. Given he averages over 39 with the ball in List A cricket at an economy rate of over 5, his mean performances obviously aren't very good - in fact they are shocking - so why pick him?
And, even stepping aside from that, how good is his form? I had a look on cricinfo to see if his one day bowling had improved, and it hadn't, really. In fact, it has been ridiculously dire this season - he's actually in bad form. He's averaging 63 with an economy rate of 6.58. It'd be just as moronic to select him now as it was when he was selected originally - if not moreso!