It is very obvious that this is the one move that will probably have had the biggest impact so far this Ashes.. (I know it is only two days) He has been an interesting mix so far.. It is obvious that he prefers a more hands on role and is fronting up a lot more to the media than Mickey Arthur did. It is also obvious that he is eroding some of the authority from Clarke and it is basically as much HIS show now as it is Clarke's.. I am of the opinion that given the young nature of this Aussie side and the fact that some of these players have vast potential, they will actually benefit from a Lehmann style of character leading them than Clarke and/or Arthur. I also feel Clarke will be a much better captain for Australia if he is just left to do on field decision making, tactics, strategies etc. Leadership does not seem to come naturally for him and his choices seem to be often biased by his personal equations with the players involved and his opinions about them based on factors other than basic cricket skills. While this is not exactly uncommon, I feel for a young side who are not exactly brimming with huge numbers of very talented players, such leadership can be damaging. I honestly feel Lehmann being here might be a better option for everyone involved with Australian cricket. I like the way he is trying to give very defined views on the batting order, what he expects out of each batsman, his simple reasoning for batting players in those positions and his surprising everyone with Agar's debut on the morning of the match. He gives the impression that he is trying to change too much, much too soon but I do like the reasoning he has offered for these decisions. I think Lehmann will help settle this Aussie side, if not anything else, and even if they fail, at least it will be with some clarity of thought and alignment of purpose, which did not seem to be the case with the Arthur/Clarke regime.. Thoughts?