Quote: *1865* "The game against Cas proved the opinion that tbf most of us hold, that Heramaia & Horne in the halves just doesn't work in the long term.
Against Bradford, who are decimated by what's going on at the club and defensively inept as a consequence, H & H found it easy to create and find space leading to a healthy victory. The following week they're faced with a well organised and drilled side playing with confidence, and basically look like headless chickens, giving the team no direction what so ever inside the attacking zone.
Now i'm not saying that Miller will definitely be any better (although I think he will) but why stick with something that's proven to not work? And with it take away our greatest impact.
The reason Rankin looked good when he came on is he has pace and took the ball to the line, this is something Miller has and does. For me it's just a no brainer.
I think a combination of 1. Rankin 6. Horne 7. Miller looks pretty good.'"
That's what I can't get my head around. Of all the possible halfback combinations we've got, we seem to be favouring the one with the most evidence that it doesn't work. Might as well try something relatively untested that [imight[/i work, rather than stick with something that has continually shown that it doesn't.
