You are being a naughty boy again Bob, getting up to your usual tricks
:lol, this time by selecting PART ONLY of my post, so that is is immediately out of context, to enable you to, yet again, change the goalposts and, crucially, the thrust of my post.
Also you wrote: ....who was the 'old timer' in the squad that was failed to be replaced & so cost England dear ..... From which I gather you now consider it OK to
'put words into the mouth of others', provided of course, it is YOU who is doing it.
:-"
I wrote:
If Sibley was an Aussie Zid, he would most likely be very swiftly given an early international appearance opportunity , to test (no pun intended), his mettle, and then taken into the excellent system we have to nurture promising cricketers, improving their existing strengths and carefully correcting their flaws.
Being English, the first re-action wlll almost certainly be he is too young to play with the big boys, and he will be left to the tender mercies of his college and county coaches without any long term and structured plan to nurture him along.
In my opinion this reluctance to 'go with youth' which seems to be an in built attitude in England, has cost that country dearly in the past,in terms of lost promising talent. Hope this doesn't prove to be the case with Sibley.
The OVERALL main thrust of my post, which was specifically in response to Zid's, was that, notwithstanding having with a population more than double that of Australia, the UK has not produced anywhere near the number of young native born cricketers who have gone on to enjoy a career as aTest player, as has Australia. Further to express, as MY OPINION, possible reasons for that situation.
Even with my alleged difficulty in comprehending written English, coupled with an alleged tendency to hullucinary thoughts, :-"
I think it is reasonable to assume your response implies you disagree with my view
which, in essence,is that the lack of emerging young native born English cricketers strongly indicates that those responsible are not doing enough to identify promisng young players, and to ensure the structure is available to then encourage and nurture them
and then give them an early age opprtunity to prove themselves at Test Match level.
That is the long standing, and proven successful, policy in Australia which, I repeat,
with a populaton less than half that of the UKhas, for several decades included, and continues to include more, (by far), native born players in its Test sides, than does England, and which players I SUGGEST, in the main, are more likely to have started their Test careers at an earlier age than their English counterparts.
I suggest a quick check , and then a comparision, of the birth places and their ages upon international debut, of the English Squad players selected to go to Australia, and of the Australian squad which has just comleted the series in England, will provide a very strong indication, to an unbiased mind, of the respective merits of our widely diverging opinions. PERSONALLY, I am certain additional checks/comparisions between the two squads named for the PREVIOUS series in Australia, and even for the series before that, would produce very similar results.
OK Bob , this will constitute my first and last response to this latest bit of nitpicking on your part :-"
. So once again I am generously giving you the last word(s)
, in the certain knowledge that you will not let me down in my expectation of an entertaining response, full of "Bob" logic and interpretations.
WARNING. I have been asked to pass on the message that, if you continue to be nasty to me, the recently homecooked Cornish Pasties, Pork Pies and Mince & Onion pies specially prepared for your return, wlll be distributed to others more deserving, (including ME!)..
)....but, surely, we are just getting a step too far. If a country of 65 million people ....including a very large proportion of ethnic Citizens!)...can't actually find a total of 17 players born within its' boundaries then, just maybe, it is time to call the squad something other than England?? 
:-" 