Game, set & match.

Hahaha..yup, your response exactly catergorizes you in the 'likes of me' perfectly.
And no..I disgaree, we should have binned Radford off BEFORE he had even 1 game under his belt, he should have manned the up and said I'm not ready, I'm not qualified or expereinced enough to do this job. BUT at the very least we should have binned him during the season when it was plainly obvious he was so far out of his depth..the man is incapable in every capacity and he said he would go if he couldn't cut it..which he can't..so we have a manthat lies and goes back on his word at the helm..
As for my words..I gave details about the issues..something the likes of you won't or just can't..HTH

I suppose the counter-argument to that is that it only takes 24 games to establish that Miller is not up to the job but 30 games is not enough to make the same decision about Radford?

This I don't understand, can you separate whether Miller has been poorly managed and encouraged from his ability?

A good manager can encourage, nurture etc.

(apologies if this is seen as against the AUP, not my intention, but I think he has suffered from a lack of support)

That is only too apparent.


If you want to specifically discuss whether Miller was given the chance to prove himself, go right ahead. If you want to [iquestion[/i whether we have the training resources at the club to properly exploit the latent talents of Miller or indeed any other half you are free to do so. What is not appropriate is a wider discussion of coaching at the club or general comments regarding individuals on the coaching staff. That discussion is already taking place elsewhere.

Hopefully that's clear enough?

Posters on here made assertions with regard to Miller, I pointed out simple facts regarding his treatment by the club/Radford which is a direct connection as to why the club are paying him off/forcing him away from the club..can you not see the direct connection between the two?

Then to prove the point I substituted the word 'coach' into a posters words to make the point that his statement is actually more applicable to Radford than Miller..I think the two are inextricably linked in this conversation especially since the actions of the coach and club have a direct bearing on how others see our club and the performance of the team and individual players themselves which again is linked back to Miller and why we have the topic at all.
Do we want our players to be treated fairly or don't we? Do we want to encourage youngsters or just go with a 33 year old on his last legs.
Pretty much every topic is linked in some way, not talking about all aspects that have an affect on our club makes a mockery of having an open forum for discussion.
Just because some forum members including moderators don't like the opinion of certain other members when it is clear that aspects of the conversation are directly linked to the topic shouldn't mean that those with a differing opinion be gagged..Or are you going to warn me about criticism of the moderation process again?
It isn't criticism, it is as before an open query given your post above in relation to staying on topic??

Except that it didn't make that point whatsoever. Miller was signed in a panic by the previous coach after other targets decided against joining. He wasn't signed by Radford. It's not Miller's fault that he was able to attract an over inflated contract value based upon some promise shown in the junior game in Australia. However - 24 games for Hull FC in Super League under two coaches where he failed to provide even part of the answer to our woes in his position have meant that decisions have to be made in regard to his future. Again not his fault he isn't good enough at the level he was wrongly signed at. It's his contract value as much as anything causing the problem. Cross reference this with Rankin who has shown some promise and has performed, at times, to the required level. He still has a contract because his contract value fits with his worth.

You can't take the position of hammering the coach every post for poor performances but then hammering the coach when he wants to reshape the squad to make better use of the fixed amount of cash he has to spend on wages. In effect you're criticising him for losing games then criticising him again for trying to put that right. Radford didn't sign Miller and doesn't think he can do the job required. Criticising Pearson would be more realistic as he sanctioned the deal for Miller. Maybe that's why Pearson allegedly has a lot of sympathy for Miller's predicament.

If miller was a good enough player n able to do what we need he'd be our scrum half. Simple really. Can't kick short, can't kick long can't drop a goal defence is flimsy n although has some other skills can't seem to have a sense of time as to when's best to run or pass or kick.
Radford give him a go after waiting for his chance. He failed

So if Pryce gets to 24 games, we can decide on him and call for his head if hes not torn it up in every game

I thought Long, Seymour and Miller would all do a job for us when initially signed.
Wrong with all three.
I'm gonna predict Marc Sneyd will be useless for us.

The cheerleaders wont like that

im predicting that sneyd will do well for us.

Isn't the fact that Millers kicking game (which is one of our biggest problems)is about the worst I have seen from any of our halfbacks in the last few years, enough to say he isn't good enough to play SL yet. Add to the fact the rest of his game is hit and miss and he struggled to make a big impact in the championship with Donny, tells me this is the right decision at this time, in 2/3 years he may turn into a good halfback, but we can't afford to pay him six figures hoping he improves all of his game massively in the off season.