England should be getting a massive score against this bowling line up. Very little quality in it.
I am not convinced bowling first was the correct option here. Especially as if any swing will come it will be later in the day.
Not sure why you think that a opening partnership of Boult (197 wickets at an average of 23.56, economy of 4.94) and Henry (130 wickets at 26.2, economy of 5.17) is "very low quality". Southee is missing out, because of the location, and needing to pick 2 spinners - but his record is definitely not as good as the other two (214 wickets, but an average of 33.6 and economy of 5.47) but is still better than any bowler for England not named Woakes. Santner vs Sodhi is close - Sodhi is more expensive, but takes more wickets (Santner averages only 38.58 but with a pheonomenal economy of 4.94. whilst sodhi averages 35.6 but economy of 5.46), but Santner has the added string of being good with the bat; Neesham is a really underrated all rounder (definitely better than Ali - averages 4 more with the bat and 14 less with the ball in ODIs). Only Ravindra (instead of Sodhi as the 2nd spinner) you could really question.
If you compare that to our bowling line up - our pace bowlers are all *considerably* worse than Boult/Henry (and 2 of them worse than Neesham!) - Woakes is our best bowler, but he only averages 30 with a Economy of 5.43 (Curran averages 36.8 at 5.89, Wood 37.9 and 5.42); Ali is *awful* at taking wickets but is ok economy wise; Rashid is comparable to Sodhi (who they didn't pick) figure wise.
The main difference is more our batting line up is stronger - and we have better 6th/7th choice options in Root/Livingstone, in case someone takes some tap.