Even radford said pre season he wont get more than 15/16 games from horne, as he body struggles to recover from games due to his diabetes.

He sees him daily and after games, so he will know best.

I don't have a problem. Except with the idea that playing players with 'potential' is better than playing players who are in form. I very much doubt that Radford would let any of the halves continue playing if they're struggling for form if there is another player who can step in and then plays to a better standard. The idea is to win games with in-form players playing in the team. If the in-form players are also those that are young with potential then all well and good.

Trying to predict the fitness of players as you have done is just a bit daft in my opinion. Just ask those old timers Crooks and Lineham who were injured last season or Grandad Tuson who is crocked at the minute.

I suspect that if Horne is fit and playing better than Miller then Radford will play him in front of Miller. Same if he's playing better than Rankin. Or all the other combinations. Radford's boss wants him to win some games so he'd be daft not to. If the form combo for the season is Miller and Rankin then all the better.

Ridiculous to be chopping & changing halfbacks, pick two and stick with them. It's the only way we'll see any kind of success.

What a ridiculous post. I merely mentioned Horne's fitness, which even the coach has mentioned. What's Lineham, Crooks and Tuson got to do with having a consistent HB partnership? Which is what I was referring to.

Good post.

You predicted that Miller and Rankin would play more games together than Horne and an other. That was the definition of ridiculous. Also claiming that 'the thread finished here' as you did earlier could possibly be deemed even more ridiculous than that.

Of course I'll predict they will, they're younger and don't have diabetes to effect recovery. I don't see Radford stating he'll only get 15 games out of Miller or Rankin.

I'd prefer us to have a consistent halfback partnership [icapable[/i of playing 27 games. Horne would be a brilliant back up.

So you'd have Horne on the sidelines waiting until Miller or Rankin got injured even if Horne had showed far better form than either/both of the other two ?

Radders has said in the press if he gets 15 games our of Horne he will be happy so this to me says they've got to stay in form & compete for a shirt that doesn't mean he will play him for 15 then stop or pick & choose his games so he gets 15, just with wear & tear on the older guys in the squad taking longer to get over, radders sees it as a bonus for Horne/FC to play regular.

I'd give them first crack, yes. And I'd only change it for injury. I just see consistency as paramount over anything else, and to be fair it's the only position I would make that sacrifice.
Id rather have a consistent partnership for 27 games than a marginally better one for half a season. In the long run I think that will serve us better.

Fair enough. For me it's the most important position in the team to have form players playing.

You have already said that your not a fan of Rankin and more importantly don't even see him as a half back yet you would only drop him if injured and keep a fit and probably our most consistent player in the first half of last season(horne)on the bench regardless of form,bewildering.

We've been waiting for ages for decent h.backs and now imo we have got 3 so let's just enjoy the fact of the competition for places COYH

I seem to recall last year having Seymour , Holdsworth and Horne available and being very surprised that Seymour and Holdsworth barely got 15 minutes together in pre season games. I think if you bring players in on long , expensive contracts , especially in pivotal positions , then you've already made a decision that these players are "first choice" and it has to then make sense to make the roles theirs to lose and give them time together to create an understanding with each other and the rest of the team. At least then you know whether the decision to bring them in was right or wrong , ie potentially just poor recruitment , as opposed to it being lack of game time , not gelling , losing confidence , not getting a platform from the pack etc etc.