Some people equate arrogance and ego with being an ordinary player. There is no correlation between the two. If you are a really good player you deserve to be a bit arrogant IMHO. Shane Watson has been fantastic since the ODI series in England at least and has continued his form to now. He takes crucial wickets and has the ability to break partnerships, his batting is powerful and a pleasure to watch, he may not go on with innings as much as he should but he seems to get to around 50 a lot of the time and that is a lot better than someone like Marcus North or Phil Hughes who after brilliant starts to their careers are lucky now to last about 10 balls.
I don't see how Michael Clarke has been so terrible. That fantastic century he made in one of the ashes tests (I forget exactly which one), and plenty of excellent innings since. Just about the only guy in the side who plays spin bowling well which is very handy. The problem is that people expect him to be Don Bradman or Brian Lara all the time, standards are set enormously high for him, so having an excellent test average, an excellent fielder and an excellent leader (when Lara Bingle isn't stuffing things up) is not enough, he has to be one of the greats of the game. A lot of people hate him purely for his relationship with Bingle.
I don't see what all this moral high ground that people seem to take against the 'arrogance' of the Australian team is all about. You call it arrogance I call it confidence and a winning attitude. Generally players who don't have an arrogance about them are mentally weak and let their opponents and the crowd walk all over them. One of the major reasons Australia is so successful, in not just cricket but sport in general, is thanks to this supreme self confidence and mental strength and passion.