How can everyone suddenly shut Pearce down after one average game?
The guy is 19 FFS, give him a break.
Soward is a good player, but is in the same mould as Marshall, Mullen, Carney...a very very crafty running 5-8 with an outstanding long kicking game, dangerous running game and support play, but an inconsistent short kicking arsenal and can often overplay their hands and end up looking foolish. These are all x-factor players, they can turn a game but also cost their team the game at the same time. They thrive outside solid halfbacks who aren't too expansive but accomplish their tasks required by them, like Ben Hornby, Scott Dureau, Peter Wallace, etc. An example of a halves pairing similar to this is currently Soward/Hornby.
Pearce is a COMPLETELY different player. He is a kick happy halfback who thrives on having to lead a team around, is a great leadership character and provides lots of direction, but because he has such a pivotal role, if he doesn't do well, he can often be very easily seen as a scapegoat. He is in the same mould as players like Rovelli, Head, Kimmorley, Orford, Prince. These sort of players thrive best when with unobtrusive 5-8's that provide them with good ball and allow them to run the show, whilst still providing a more consistent second option, like Anasta, Campese, Burns, Lyon, Seymour, Witt, etc. An example of a halves pairing similar to this that worked in recent years was Morris/Smith.
Problems arise when you mix and match. Titan's struggled when Josh Lewis arrived as his self-confident play clashed with Prince, and Rogers proved a better partner. Likewise, when Soward and Chase were together in the halves, although huge attacking potential, there was no consistency or stability.
In the end, we are talking about two HUGELY different players. Depending on the team make-up, you may want different players. Tigers would LOVE a player like Pearce next to Marshall, but with Lockyer getting on in age, Bronco's would look great with someone like Soward outside the stable Wallace.
