Just a quick one, as I've seen comments about it a few times now: Why is Radford getting the credit for Thompson when he was signed by Gentle/McRae? Did Radford identify him, or is it just part of a 'good recruitment = Radford/Tony, bad recruitment = Gentle/McRae' campaign?

Do think Miller should be playing sooner rather than later and Azza should stay at 9, not saying he has been bad in the halves so far. He also doesn't seem to play as long as Houghton when he is at 9, plays 30 odd minutes either side of half time, maybe swap him for starting at 9 and Houghton come off the bench?

Something else Radford has done the last few games, having Rankin come on for the last 20 minutes or less, seems a bit odd having a bench space taken up by a player who is only intended to come on for a short space of time rather than to spell with another player like the forwards do

I still think Miller can't now be played because of the cap, but I said that about Pitts, so who knows.

And just to add that Radford is also getting praise for nearly winning at St's, Warrington and Cas. All places that Gentle's side won at!

Signed under Gentle and not a lot of people, myself included, saw this as great signing particularly for a position we seemed to be well covered in. He has impressed so far, filling in at prop quite well, and thats probably where Radford is getting some credit, same with Bowden, looks a different player to last year

If Thompson really was as bad a signing as a lot on here would have us believe, then Radford deserves all the credit.

My starting HB pairing would have been Miller and Rankin and I would have given them and extended run together to allow them to gel. However it was obvious Radford wasn't going to play Miller from the lack of game time he was given in the friendlies.

Radford started with Horne and Rankin. Fair enough. We beat Cats and then lost two tough away games at Wire and Saints. Then just as we start a run of "easier" games Radford drops Rankin and starts Heremaia at half back.

After two matches of that we may have a change this Sunday. We are struggling to field two props so lets throw on Miller to play behind a weakened pack. A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I saw one.

Miller counts on the cap regardless of whether he plays (assuming he is in the top 25 earners), the same goes for Shannon.

If not playing a player meant they were off cap then we would get a lot of backloaded contracts and players not playing in their final year.

As the caps live your right, if Miller and/McDonnel left before playing a game all their cap would be available.

if miller isn`t going to get a game how much would it cost to pay him off,and give him his airfare home,so he can kickstart his career,back in aus.

Depends what he wanted. Max is his current contract.

That would depend on whether he has an offer from another club. Unless he has another club to go to why would he leave at all? Would you?

A good chance for the likes of btw and brad fash to get a run out maybe they'll be a big hit no pun intended but do agree with the halfbacks would put miller and rankin together with heremaia and horne on the bench plus two other forwards I don't always agree with stacking the bench with forwards, would like to see talanoa and crookes swap positions we are always banging on about a big centre and talanoa did play there for souths

He'd have no problem getting another club in Aus, but I don't think he even wants to leave, loves it here by all accounts and is usually involved in events such as RW's QOS night.

If he doesn't feature this week I think it will be obvious he isn't in Radford plans or we have salary cap problems.

It cannot be a salary cap issue (See Sheldons post) so it would be down to not being in Radfords plans.

why would it hold Green back?. Tuson is a backrower and Green a prop. I doubt there would be a problem.

It's beginning to increasingly look that way.
Would like to see Milky given a shot.
We'll see this weekend.

Would love to see Miller given a chance. My only worry is that it looks as though we will have a very disjointed pack against Widnes. If Miller plays behind a beaten pack I can see him becoming the scapegoat if we lose.

Well there are rumours of the former, but then there are always going to be. The longer he's left out and we still have slightly misfiring halves though, the more it looks like he's got no future here (and possible stubbornness by Radford if he does keep leaving him out in favour of a combination that isn't really working).

[urlhttp://hullfc.com/article/33500/hull-fc-facing-prop-dilemma[/url

Carvell definitely out - Feka a possibility at best.

I agree that is a concern. In isolation this weekend is kind of a no-win situation; if he's still left out it doesn't look good for him, whereas if he plays behind a beaten pack he'll probably struggle. I'll be disappointed if he's brought back and then ditched again after only one game where the pack don't lay enough of a platform, hopefully he'll be brought back in for a run of games starting this weekend.

The Paea video. I always think the reaction of players is a useful guide to assessing an infringement. The complete lack of any sort of reaction from a single Cas player says a lot IMO. Not even an appeal for a penalty (which would have effectively sealed the game by wasting the last minute kicking for touch).

I'd definately pick Watts this week. lol

Rankin
Talanoa
Yeaman
Crookes
Colbon
Horne
Miller
Watts
Houghton
Pitts
Ellis
Tuson
Westerman

Heremaia
Whiting
Thompson
Arundel

Thompson to push up to prop again. Arundel can do a spell at 2nd row with Tuson pushing up to prop if need be.