I would be radical as well and play this team:
Strauss
Cook
Trott
Hildreth
Collingwood
Prior
Flintoff
Broad (reprieved for now)
Swann
Anderson
Onions
I wouldn't "reprieve" Broad, half his series wickets came in the aussie 1st innings in the 4th Test once the game was all but over - the aussies were 393/6 when he took MJ's wicket, 292 runs ahead. And then he made an unpressured 61, we need players who can do that when we need it, not once the game is all over bar the shouting. Where was the 61 when we needed it 1st innings? Nowhere. A rather tame shot and out for a less than convincing 3 runs.
ASHES 2009
Strauss : 344 runs @ 49.14.
Been strong leading from the front, the only England batsman to make 100 and scored DOUBLE the next highest score in his 161. His captaincy has been in doubt, but frankly I think a lot of it is unjust. His only two defeats as captain have been when England collapsed for 51 in the carribean and again when England could only must 102 here, so not a lot his captaincy could have done about either. Maybe he shouldn't have batted, but let's face it, England should still have made more than 102 runs, even 190+ would have put us in the game.
Cook : 203 runs @ 29.00
Just the one score over 30, without his 95 he is averaging just 18.00 in six innings. He did offer some resistance in the 4th Test, fair enough, but 30s aren't good enough to make him exempt from criticism. Maybe had he scored 60 1st innings instead of 30 and 30 I could make a case for him.
Bopara : 105 runs @ 17.50
Not even convincing runs, his HS of 35 could have been a lot less and perhaps had it been we'd have seen him gone already. He should never have been thrown in the deep end at no 3 against the aussies, and he is one of 2-5 players who should have gone before the 4th Test and maybe then we'd not have fallen apart - that's not even hindsight.
Bell : 64 runs @ 21.33
Good fifty on his recall, a match to forget like the rest at Headingley. The only two reasons I wouldn't drop him are that he's only had a couple of chances so chopping and changing wouldn't help and he is experienced which anyone coming in won't be
Collingwood : 225 runs @ 32.14
Hard to believe he has the most fifties of any England batsman this series, but he needs to dig in and produce more runs when needed like he did at Cardiff.
Prior : 239 runs @ 39.83
Perhaps silencing the critics for now, averaging well with bat and not too much wrong with his keeping. Unfortunately his good form with bat led to England's folly in playing five bowlers without Flintoff in the side, especially with Cook, Bopara and Bell looking vulnerable above and a long looking tail.
Broad : 168 runs @ 28.00 & 12 wkts @ 36.33
OK with the bat, but half his wickets have come in a lost cause situation and his HS also came when the game was all but up. You could make a case for his retention, but only if you ignore his lack of form in 3/4 of the series so far and disregard the circumstances of his 6/91 and 61.
Swann : 168 runs @ 33.60 & 6 wkts @ 68.17
Combatitive with the bat, mostly ineffectual with the ball. 2/3 of his wickets came in his 4/87, unfortunately England have too many underperformers with the ball in the series and that's why the aussies have had one strong innings per Test - even in defeat they reached 400.
Anderson : 84 runs @ 16.80 & 12 wkts @ 38.92
Arguably our best bowler, but not quite dominating the aussies as some of the 2005 bowling attack did. Another bowler whose BB makes up near half or more of his wickets. Good fight from him with the bat, but I'd swap those runs for the extra 4-5 wickets he should be taking with his ability
Harmison : 19 runs @ 19.00 & 2 wkts @ 49.00
Many wanted him recalled for his bounce, pace and aggression. Well 2/98 was hardly worth the baited breath, in fact his recall was just a waste of time. I do wonder if he played for the aussies if he'd even bowl England out, not the match-winner many make him out to be and his best days are probably behnid him in the past where perhaps he should be left
Onions : 19 runs @ 9.50 & 10 wkts @ 30.30
Irony is a funny thing, more wanted Harmison recalled than Onions included/retained and yet Onions has done better than supposed better bowlers. He's taken the most wickets per Test of England's bowlers and his figures reflect his relatively constant threat.
Hardly any of the above have strong cases for retention, however I think a maximum of four changes should suffice. I would have dropped Bopara and brought in two batsmen with the second coming in in place of Flintoff instead of Harmison. But now we face two choices, make a few changes that arguably should have been made last Test, or risk the same names doing better than they have in the WHOLE SERIES. It's not that Bopara et al had a bad game, they've had a poor series. And as mentioned TWICE, Broad's efforts when the game was lost are admirable but are we to expect repeats only when the game is lost? We want match-winning 5wis, not those taken when the opposition have piled on the runs, misery and are over halfway to victory. Where was the 6/91 when we needed it at Edgbaston?
BROAD BY TEST
1st : 19 & 14 + 1/129 = DRAWN
2nd : 16 & DNB + 2/78 & 1/49 = WON
3rd : 55 + 0/51 & 2/38 = DRAWN
4th : 3 & 61 + 6/91 = LOST
Some useful contributions, but his main contributions have been when the game is lost or not enough to turn a drawn into a win