Michael Clarke is a fantastic guy to have in any team for any player, his hair excluded that is, he's brings in with him one hell of an energy. He's like the kind of guys everyone should dream to have in their team.

But I think what Racheal actually means is if Australia have the token "boring" guy in their team, you know, the kind that come from the Richardson, Kirsten, Dravid bread...Steve Waugh was like that for the Australia in one way, although perhaps not in the exact literal sense, but of all the players Aus had in their team when Tugga was around he was easily the least flashy of them. You would expect him to do all the dirty buissness.

Michael Clarke is way too talented and exciting to take up that role, he is in fact the complete opposite of your trade mark readguard action players. Simon Katich as Racheal perhaps is going to point out is more suited to that kind of role, in fact in his summer heroics against India (in that series where India forced a 1-1 dra) he batted very well in that kind of made, making runs when other people didn't.

Clarke is a free scoring, free minded shot maker, who is at his best when he is doing what he does best, i.e. play shots.

And since we're on this topic, a related news report from cricket info might be of interst to some of you:

Mass exodus on the cards, says Martyn

On a side note, this made me laugh a lot , I wonder if it did it make anyone else laugh?