You should open your eyes more then. miller is a promising youngster. He isn't good enough to be the starting scrum half for a SL club with ambition. If you can't see that then you need to watch more rugby. Thankfully it seems our coach agrees with me and not you

You're the one talking borlox mate. The only notable things miller has done since he arrived is wind up fatty from the dobbins and punch the ball out in the CC semi as the hooter blew. He may end up being a good scrum half but he's currently championship (or whatever it's called now) standard. Anyone who claims anything else is clueless about the game

Let's just leave it to lenny..seem to get it right last night. Imo.

I agree he isn't quite good enough just yet but I don't think you do him justice because he has had plenty of good moments that make me think he can be good. His try against Rovers at CP, his break, step and pass on debut against Cas to give Crooks a try, his break to set up Ellis's try in the playoffs.

He's got lots to learn but I've seen more than enough flashes to say that there is a good player in there.

Keep telling yourself that Jake, all I know is we played two half backs last night and we may have played just one. They both have exactly the same kind of game, but Rankin has pace. Meanwhile we have a genuine scrum half on a pretty penny sat in the stands. If you think those were the only things Miller contributed last year, then I doubt it's me and Chris that know f all.

We have a genuine scrum half in the u19's but he isn't good enough for SL yet either. Do you think that radford would leave miller out if he wasn't the best option?

Horne was dire last night. Sorry, but we should be trying out a partnership not flogging a horse that runs well 4 times a year.

I think the main issue with Miller is that for the amount that (people believe) we are paying him he should be starting and he should be a star.

Rankin should deffo be a starting Half Back, I think Horne is too similar and not the answer we need at Hull, we need a Rangi Chase style Scrum Half. I hope one of 2 things happen, either we pay off/loan out miller and try (again) to sign a tried and tested and experienced Half, Or we give Miller enough chances that will either make him a star or break him.

I would love Miller and Rankin to work and them be our halfs for years to come.

Interesting reaction to Horne's performance from some. He made some errors and did some good things. As well as Rankin did in the second half he was virtually anonymous in the first but that seems to be less scrutinised. Miller will get his chance but as Jake says Radford knows best what he's getting from his players.

For me this argument is the same as the Azza/Houghton argument and all boils down to each individual's rugby philosophy. As an example, I wouldn't have Houghton in my starting 17 as I believe he's too defensive minded and offers us nothing in attack - my dad on the other hand thinks Houghton should be in the England setup.

The same idea applies here, Radders obviously has his philosophy with split halves (have to go by what I've read on here as I'm on holiday ATM) and feels Horne/rankin is the way to go. My preference would be for Miller to play instead of Horne as I feel he offers something different to Rankin/Horne who are quite similar.

I think there's a little bit of proving a point regarding Miller, he was Gentle's blue eyed boy after all. I also think there's sentiment towards Horne, like he has towards Yeaman.

I just don't buy this "Miller is our only natural scrum half" thing. For me Miller and Rankin are very similar, more so than Rankin and Horne. Miller is a lot like Rankin in that he is a little more off the cuff and likes to step and attack the line. Of the 3 I think Horne is more like the stereotypical SH, but really the only "proper" scrum half at the club is HTW.

And besides, what is a "proper" scrum half? This isn't 1983 and scrum halves don't need to be 5'4, stand at first receiver and shout at everyone. They just need to be able to unlock a defence. Positions are so interchangeable these days that it doesn't matter. If I hadn't seen a team sheet and didn't know the players and someone asked me who was playing 7 last night, I would have said Westerman.

There's a difference between running AT the line like Rankin/Horne and taking the ball TO the line like Miller does.

I'm not sure Miller does take the ball to the line though, all the good things I remember him doing have been when he goes himself. When he does try to take it to the line his passing is often poor.

Sooner or later one of Horne or Rankin will get injured and then Miller will have to play. Let's hope his confidence isn't totally shot by then knowing his coach doesn't rate him, just like Seymour knew Gentle never wanted him.

How on earth do you know this to be true? Miller was in the 19 so Radford was obviously pondering on his final selection throughout the week. Should everyone not selected to play assume the coach doesn't 'rate them'?

Miller will get his chance for sure, and it may not take an injury to Horne or Rankin to ensure that happens. Miller needs to prove he's good enough is all.

I don't know it to be true but it's my honest and genuine belief. Do you have a problem with that?

Garbage, there is no evidence to suggest that Radford doesn't rate Miller just because he wasn't selected for the first game.

But why do you believe it so early in the season? Why would he put Miller in the 19? I have no problem with anyone's opinion, but a comparison with the Seymour situation seems a bit wild with no evidence.

It's common knowledge that Gentle did not rate Seymour who was Agar's signing and Miller was Gentle's protege so maybe that colours Radford's view of him?
The way Miller was used during the friendlies ie behind a pack of kids suggests that Radford had already decided that Horne and Rankin who played in a stronger team would be his first choice pairing

From what I saw of Rankin in the derby he and Horne were my first choice pairing for the start of the season, too. Doesn't mean I don't think Miller will go on to do well, and doesn't mean Radford doesn't rate him either. Let's not forget Radford was Gentle's assistant.

Miller isn't good enough. He will get his chance through injuries throughout the season and some on here who clearly have short memories of his performances last season will see that!! Radords got it right, Hornes contribution is only ever realised by some supporters when he isn't playing, take last year for example.

How about Horne played because he is a better defender than Miller.

Yeh I think that was probably what radford thought! But watching the game again, he did miss a few tackles he should of made, made some decent tackles to, don't think millers defence is actually to bad, think is own enthusiasm causes his own downfall, often last season he was quick of the line and first man in to a tackle no matte who it was on and came of 2nd best, maybe if his team mates showed as much enthusiasm as him and got of the line quicker they'd be two man in the tackle, leaving him less exposed one on one! Saying that I thought Horne had an half decent game and deserves the spot against saints. Frustrating he didnt get ball out wide when we had big overlap, but I'm sure he's more disappointed than anyone. Miller will get is chance, and really hope he takes it, I think he could end up been a decent signing in a well organised team, and one with confidence. And I know the young hb in our team rate him very highly

You mean last year when we got to a challenge cup final without Horne?

Can people please remind me of any game where he was 'not good enough'. Because quite frankly, people are talking rubbish. Fans who write a player off after a handful of games are the type of fans we don't want, no wonder we're a laughing stock at times. Same people were talking the same rubbish about Seymour this time last year too.