Carney already leaving Pearce behind

As Queenslanders slowly come to the daunting realisation that they are running out of fingers and thumbs to count the Origin wins in a row with number nine fast approaching, it is never too early to jump onboard the NSW selection debate forum.

That means we must do what we sky blue supporters do best – fight among ourselves.

It is on that very note that I come full circle to my favourite of all pet-peeves. That is, why Mitchell Pearce is holding NSW back and why the Blues must realise that pinning their hopes on Todd Carney is a no-brainer.

Now, to begin with, I get that one is a halfback, the other is a five-eighth. However, this is as much an argument about why Carney has to be there, regardless of who is at seven, and Pearce simply cannot be there, regardless of who is wearing six.

Basically, if you don’t want to read the rest of this article, the argument for Carney can be summed up in the following sentence. Carney tore apart the Warriors and gave Cronulla their first win in 2014, while Pearce has been helpless and hapless as the Roosters title defence wobbles under his directionless meandering that some are curiously calling ‘playing as a halfback’.

For those of you still with me, it says a lot that Pearce, with his reliable old second-rower Sonny Bill Williams back alongside him, couldn’t kick the ball or land a pass to save his life against the Sea Eagles and again against the Bulldogs in consecutive Friday night games.

If I hear a single, solitary person arc up about ‘conditions’ and ‘teammates’ dropped ball’ and ‘forwards dominating for the Bulldogs’, I will lose the plot.

Pearce played in exactly the same conditions as Daly Cherry Evans and Josh Reynolds more recently, and they didn’t seem to have too many problems.

I have a riddle for you – how many players does it take to carry Mitchell Pearce in a footy team? That’s an easy one, because the answer is obviously 16.

But the more curious, perhaps unanswerable conundrum, is how many apologists does it take to make mere mortals believe that Pearce is a competent (forget ‘great’) halfback? Because the answer to that little pickle appears to be infinity times ten.

When was the last time DCE had a soft game, and people blamed his forwards? Or Cooper Cronk missed the pass, and it was his outside backs’ fault? Todd Carney only has to drop a ball, over the tryline, having stepped 13 players, and people question his ability.

But Pearce Jr faces no such criticism from those in a position that matters. It is tiring to the point of disbelief the amount of words and oxygen that have been wasted trying to point to the factual reality that cannot be avoided – Mitchell Pearce does not cut it.

He is not elite. He is barely competent, at the absolute best.

He was outperformed by Josh Reynolds on Friday, and poor Josh has previously found himself in sky blue, on a bench for 80 minutes, having to endure Pearce playing a full representative match.

Pearce has not controlled a game at halfback since the under sixes, and NSW rugby league, nay, Australian rugby league, is suffering for the perpetual apologising that goes on.

His continued selection in representative sides stunts development of quality players who cannot compete because of Pearce, the most protected species since the fight against Japanese whalers.

And for what? Can someone tell me what purpose it serves to be week after week demanding that ‘Pearce’s time will come’, ‘we have to stick with him’, ‘he’s the best halfback in NSW’.

Please – he’s like Ringo Starr, not even the best at what he does in his own band.

To say that Pearce has been toiling this season is a severe understatement. In two tight games, two Friday nights in a row, he has contributed exactly zero to his team’s chances of winning in extremely close ones.

Surely that is a reminder that, whether it is for club or state, with the game on the line, with a mere handful of points separating your teams, time and time again, Pearce has not delivered.

And even though it is very early in the season, to be honest, I had seen more highlights from Carney in the first four rounds, and he was injured for three of them.

Now, granted, Carney didn’t have his best game against Newcastle.

Couple things about that. Firstly, the all-time great Australian team of all time, with each player at the peak of his powers, was not going to beat Newcastle at Hunter Stadium last weekend.

Secondly, it was Carney’s first game back. And he was still a player better than a) everyone else for the Sharks in a beaten team and b) Pearce on the same weekend.

But in Round 5? There was simply no comparing. Carney wore what should be one of two different types of sky blue jersey this season on Saturday, and tore the Warriors to shreds. He absolutely flogged them.

To have a five-eighth playing for NSW doing that thing where the ball gets to our outside backs quickly would be like rewinding the clock back to 2005 when, interestingly enough, NSW actually won a series.

Cut out passes, intercepts, kicking into territory (and not of the spectator filled variety otherwise known as ‘the grandstand’ that Pearce is more used to finding) – heck, it was like those halcyon days of Sterling, Kenny, Daley and Johns.

I was salivating yesterday at the thought of NSW perhaps finally putting a halves pairing on the park (Carney and Adam Reynolds) that might actually take it to the Maroons for a change.

Of course, this all ignores the fact that Reynolds had a stellar game against the Dragons (5/5 kicks for goal thank you very much).

I’m almost passing out, Bruce Macavaney style at the 1992 Olympics, at the thought of two brilliant ball-running, pass-making, kicking-for-territory halves on either side of the ruck.

They would have the Maroons defence doing something they haven’t done for years: wondering what the Blues will do next. Or at least, simply wondering more than ‘when will Pearce drop the ball next?’

Now I know what some of you might be saying: how can you compare a good performance against sub-standard competition in pitch-perfect conditions (Carney against the Warriors) with a less than stellar performance against the benchmark in disastrous conditions (Pearce against the Bulldogs)?

Well, I’m glad you asked.

I can compare them, because one is that you can only beat what’s in front of you. More importantly, the fact that Pearce (again) failed to step up when it mattered against good opposition belies the fact that he maintains his Greg Norman status. That is, fair in the minors, falling to bits in the majors.

And Carney has out-performed him by doing more in 80 minutes than anything Pearce has put together in five rounds, irrespective of whether the opposition was great or mediocre.

Meanwhile, and make no mistake, this farcical treatment of both Carney and Pearce creates an environment of both insipid performance and muddled mind frames.

It tells Pearce that he can relax, when he should be pushing himself, while it conversely tells Carney he needs to be better, when he’s good enough already.

This ‘pick and stick’ defence to justify Pearce’s continued selection is all good and well, but not if he’s rubbish. You can point at Queensland picking and sticking, and stating that if it works for them, it should work for us, but that’s only the case when you are sticking with good players to begin with.

Laurie Daley needs to take his head out of the sand and wake up and smell the rich, vibrant, fresh aromatic coffee wafting through the air: drop Pearce, shape the team around Carney.

Otherwise, Queenslanders will soon be thankful for wearing thongs and being able to count those series wins in a row.