There is one aspect I find pleasing about Hazlewood's bowling in this Ashes as it shows a maturity not seen from him in the past. It is his productivity and impact in the first innings. This is an aspect of his performance that appears to have been missed by some other posters.
Lords: 22 - 6 - 3/58.
Leeds: 12.5 - 2 - 5/30.
Manchester: 25 - 6 - 4/74. 
Almost all these wickets were top order bats secured in either his opening or second spells.
These figures show he was pivotal in getting Australia off to a good start in 3 of his 4 matches. and for a man that is not "an opening bowler" according to a certain someone, he and his fellow Blue Pat Cummins formed a lethal partnership.
His only failure to make an impact was in the last Test.. tho he did have Denly (94) dropped ..was it for a duck?.. Just reiterating that JH's figures were spectacular before this game.averaging @18.. the lowest of all bowlers. Also the lowest s/r and betting the lowest e/r too. The only two times in the series he was not in control of his game was when Stokes and Buttler took the T20 like heavy handle to him.

there was 1 ball in particular which wade faced where a yorker at blistering speed from archer surprised him. He had taken a big step toward off and readjusted against a 93mph yorker tailing on leg stump line to get bat on the ball across his body.

He has better reflexes than ponting and can use it to negate conditions and lateral movement. Makes up for sound but not great technique. 35ish average is excellent in England

The overlooked thing about Anderson is that Broad was going to get dropped to fit him in. Similarly, imagine if Smith didnt miss 1.5 games for Australia (and again the argument to that is Labuschagne may not have played). 

What is amazing DC is which test have you forgotten in such a short time, for the 20 wickets from 3 tests. was it the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th test? (seems to be 4 tests but maybe I don't know numbers as well as I think I do) which makes it 5 wickets per test (20 wickets to fall per test 4 bowlers just doing his job) Don't worry with him bowling it just monotony that you can easily forget a particular one, don't go running off to the Doctor.

With the post I pointed out which was more about that fact that some said 20 wickets @ 18 is spectacular (which was the stat at the time I posted) and Hazlewood is part of the best bowling attack in the world, which it may appear on paper, but when you break it down 1 test was 9/115 which we lost, the other 3 tests were 11/322 so nearly 30 average. 30 average across 3 tests is not spectacular and definitely shows inconsistent bowling, considering the other bowlers were consistent with their performances. This is England, this should be Hazlewood's playground. I've already done Archer and Cummins in the previous post but look at Broad
23 wickets @ 26.65 BBM 6/177 so other 4 tests 17/436 av 25.6 seem to show me fairly consistent bowling across all tests same as Archer same as Cummins. So whilst Cummins consistently bowled at 20 Archer was consistently bowling at 21 and Broad consistently at 25 Hazlewood bowled at 30 for 3 out of his 4 tests (definitely not at his 22 average as his overall series would suggest, but which the other 3 actually did.) They were the opening bowlers for 4 tests, and the end result for those 4 tests England 2 Australia 1 1 draw. Do you see a problem in this line of thought?

Read what you must into it just putting it out there. So if you want to continue with a player, who appears to be an automatic selection, that is bowling with an average 30+,  75% of the time (Look at India av 34 Look at SA av 40 so it's not just a one off occurrence) hoping that those one off tests may actually achieve a win, which it didn't in this Ashes series, that is you're opinion which you are entitled to have. I just differ in my point of view, but I can back up how I come to that conclusion. Look at Australia's Win loss ratio with Hazlewood last 12 tests he has played 3 wins (there's that 25 % again) 7 losses 2 draws, can you see a correlation??

You can put the blinkers on and ignore it. that is your prerogative, you can look at other reasons such as batsmen, which Paddles and myself have shown is not as big a problem as some would suggest, it is existent but not the sole reason, but ultimately we are all wanting the same thing, we want the best players on the field to win matches against the best in the world. The Ashes was 4th against 5th and finished in a draw no changes to their positions, they truly are 4th and 5th, and Australia is 5th. We are 3 points ahead of 6th placed Sri Lanka who the ICC in all their wisdom only gave 13 matches in the 2 year ICC test championships, the lowest number alongside Pakistan, so they obviously aren't respected as a test playing nation. We have the No 1 batsman, we have the No 1 bowler you explain it.

Now you can say it is Hazlewood bashing, you can tell me to give it a rest, that also is your prerogative, but this is an obvious problem that I would say has been existent for 2-3 years now with no sign of improvement in any aspect, it is there look for it yourselves, you appear to be well knowledge cricket followers. How about the Ashes in Australia which we won 4-0
Hazlewood 21 wickets @ 25 BBM 8/140 other 4 matches 13/404 average 31 (there's that 30+ average again over 4 tests this time) it is consistently there, it is not imagination. And that is against a very poor team with regards to batting on home ground, and you wonder why we are being humiliated by South Africa and India, whose bowlers are bowling around those 20 averages, not just against us, but against the world.

Now Hazlewood is out and it is all over for another 4 years. 

 At home our batting will be formidable. Not sure how you fit khawaja, smith, wade, warner, burns, patterson, head and labu into the top 6 but its good to see options

Not sure how you fit khawaja, smith, wade, warner, burns, patterson, head and labu into the top 6 but its good to see options