http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2011-03-10-men10_ST_N.htm?csp=34

As Robert Bianco points out, Cryer won an Emmy and Sheen did not: "A few years ago," he says, "you might also have said that Sheen was more central to his show than those other actors were, but that's no longer true. Over the past season, his role as the show's comic driving force has diminished, with far more of that weight being carried by Cryer, who was always the better actor."

This may be true, but part of what drives 2.5 Men is the chemistry between the two actors. Cryer is the perfect straight man to Sheen's comedic lead.

I think trying to insert another actor into the equation is dicey. Maybe Cryer and a replacement actor will have chemistry, but it won't be the same chemistry and I think it's a mistake to continue on with another actor in the lead role.

if you compare Sheen's acting and the role of Charlie Harper in the past season or so to the seasons before it, there has been a BIG difference in the role he's played and how much has gone into it.

Charlie's just been "phoning it in" to some extent recently, it couldn't be that difficult to find someone with better chemistry than what we've seen lately.