If you knew no better, or solely got your cricketing opinions from the mainstream media, you would think that Lesson have done the right thing in switching up their T20 squad after that loss to Australia. By including Mark Chapman and Tim Seifert at the expense of Tom Bruce, Tom Blundell and Seth Rance, you may be tricked into viewing these changes as exactly what the Blackcaps T20 team needs, yet as someone who keeps it 2,000 percent real for youz; this is exactly the problem with Lesson.

First and foremost, Anaru Kitchen is still in the squad. I don't like to restrict myself to Lesson's mode of thinking - because it's immensely flawed in my opinion - so I don't want to restrict myself into thinking that a batting spinner is needed to replace Kitchen, if that was the case I can think of both George Worker and Anton Devcich who deserve selection ahead of Kitchen, let alone Chapman as a like-for-life replacement.

It's definitely not mandatory though to have a batting-spinner and there are other cricketers with different skill-sets who are more deserving; Bruce, Rance, Henry Nicholls, Mitchell McClenaghan, Glenn Phillips etc.

What I found most confusing though is why Blundell and Bruce were initially selected, now that they have been made the scapegoats. Both Chapman and Seifert had far superior Super Smash campaigns (4th and 5th in Super Smash runs) compared to Bruce and Blundell (12th and 20th) and I wouldn't have been mad or confused if Seifert or Chapman earned selection ahead of Bruce and Blundell to start with.

I feel for Bruce and Blundell because they are the latest young players to fall victim to the Lesson yo-yo. They are not anywhere close to being the reasons why the Blackcaps aren't playing good T20 cricket right now, yet they are the scapegoats. Lesson has no idea what to do with their wicket-keeping situation and instead of stepping outside the box to try something funky and select Seifert, Blundell and Phillips in the same team, they continue to mess with the confidence of these players without much rational behind it.

Selecting all three in the same team is super funky and while I like it because they are all slick young batsmen, I'm not here to convince youz of that because I know it's funky. The logical move would have been to select Seifert from the jump because his top-shelf Super Smash came after he dominated the opening round of Plunket Shield cricket (47.22avg in 10inns), thus making Seifert the best wicket-keeper/batsmen in Aotearoa right now.

Instead, Lesson are confusing themselves.

Perhaps Lesson confused themselves into thinking that Blundell was the best option to replace Phillips? Seifert and Canterbury's Cameron Fletcher both had superior Super Smash campaigns and Central District's Dane Cleaver was slightly better than Blundell, thus making Blundell the fourth-best option.

Here are their career T20 batting stats...

Phillips: 28.17avg/131.93sr.
Seifert: 23.14avg/135.56sr.
Fletcher: 29.52avg/124.35sr.
Blundell: 26.13avg/120.92sr.
Cleaver: 19.92avg/ 126.58sr.

Lesson selected the bloke with the lowest strike-rate, put him in a position where his role is to score quickly and then dropped him straight afterwards. I view that as being completely unnecessary.

Having seen something about Lesson going back to the Super Smash to make these changes, I was even more confused. Giving the Super Smash some respect would have resulted in Seifert and Chapman being selected initially, as well as fitting in Anton Devcich, Will Young and Daryl Mitchell because they were exceptional in the Super Smash.

What about poor ol' mate Seth Rance?

Just as Lesson are being celebrated for plucking the best T20 players out of the Super Smash, Rance is dropped after taking 13w @ 16avg/8.15rpo in ... the Super Smash. One would think that a career T20 average of 19.50 (it's his best format) might warrant a decent crack of international T20 cricket, instead Rance is kicked to the curb.

Rance needs a decent crack, multiple games against quality opposition to gauge what he's all about and whether he can make the jump up to international cricket. Mitchell McClenaghan is a proven performer, who couldn't play Super Smash because he was playing in a far better competition over the ditch and is currently the best seamer in Ford Trophy cricket (11w @ 19.18avg/4.90rpo); both Rance and McClenaghan should feature in an Aotearoa T20 team right now as they are two of the best T20 seamers from Aotearoa, right now.

Don't be silly either, because McClenaghan is definitely up for Blackcaps selection. He gave up his NZC contract which only took away the financial stability offered from NZC, this doesn't rule him out of Blackcaps selection in any way, shape or form. Unless NZC have black-balled McClenaghan in a low key NZ Rugby ploy where they only select players who are eligible for NZC contracts.

Why else would Aotearoa's best T20 seamer (at least top two with Trent Boult) not be selected in Aotearoa's T20 team?

Lesson are simply not selecting the best T20 players to represent Aotearoa in T20 cricket.
This is in vast contrast to Australia and England, which may turn out to a genius move - let's be fair. By going against the grain in sticking with their best overall kiwi cricketers instead of T20-specific players, Lesson might shock us all and lead the Blackcaps to T20 glory. I'm still open to that and while I think it's wrong, whatever works is all good.

My key message here is to not believe the bullshit that is fed to you from Lesson and the mainstream media. The mainstream media do not pay domestic cricket any respect, thus they have no basis to question Lesson's selections and follow the Lesson/NZC narrative without rocking the boat.

It's very easy to celebrate Mark Chapman and his selection. Not only is this an illusion as any kiwi joker knows Chapman should be been given a run earlier in the summer, the victims in these T20 changes are other young/fringe players who have been shafted for no reason. The same core group will be rolled out in the coming T20 games and the proof will be in the pudding, I'm more interested in the development of young cricketers and how Lesson are severely mishandling the development of these players - players who I view as the best crop of youngsters of my lifetime.

No wonder many of these players don't end up performing consistently in international cricket. Guys like Bruce, Phillips, Blundell, Lockie Ferguson, Ish Sodhi, Matt Henry and Jimmy Neesham have been victims of Lesson's yo-yo and that breeds fear, fear in being dropped without much of a logical explanation or without a chance to actually suss out international cricket.

Perhaps the next victims will be Chapman and Seifert.

Hit an ad to support the Niche Cache.