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