Sampras vs Wilander, 1989 US Open

Moose Malloy · Apr 13, 2007

was very excited to see these clips on youtube, I've wanted to see this match for years. Picture isn't great, but good enough.

Mats was the #5 seed & defending champion(though really not playing well in 1989) while Sampras was ranked 91 & only 18 at the time. here are 4 clips that show the entire 5th set (notice that CBS cuts away from the match to show highlights of the days play. guess tennis fans always had something to complain about. I like the intro theme music CBS used back then) Sampras had great volleys even then. He comes to net after every serve, even though it really wasn't his game then. Late in the match Carillo said that Sampras came in 160 times! Only 31 times for Mats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BCR67yhIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmvnpxKZCNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzNp8B5hbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTBpWri4G7E

Carillo said Wilander was 14-1 in 5 setters in Grand Slams coming in to this match. What a great final game, quite a battle.

laurie · Apr 13, 2007

Cheers Moose!

I'm going to check them out right now.

laurie · Apr 13, 2007

Wow, that was great!

Sampras was then 5 ft 10 so he was still growing. Mats Wilander always looked like the mad scientist with that hair!

When serving for the match, Sampras served a bomb to get back to deuce when break point down - down the centre on the ad side, the ball had so much kick it went over the centre line judges head!

Wilander was a very steady player but I wouldn't pay 10 pence to watch him play. One match I have is the 1983 French Open final against Noah. Noah played well but Wilander was very much from the Bjorg mould.

Just a shame the video was not of higher quality. More to the point - its' a real shame VHS won the war with Betamax. How? Betamax was 10 times better and had that match been recorded with a Betamax machine, the quality would have been excellent.

I have a great CBS version of the 1989 French Open final between Chang and Edberg, recorded with Betamax - the picture is sensational and I'm making clips of that match to put on my website.

Moose Malloy · Apr 13, 2007

Sampras was then 5 ft 10 so he was still growing. Mats Wilander always looked like the mad scientist with that hair!

I think that was a misstake by CBS, when Sampras shakes hands with Wilander, he looks taller & Wilander was listed as 6'0.

Plus no way did Sampras weigh 140 lbs, his legs were pretty defined even then.

Sampras was listed as 6'1, 160 at the 1990 US Open, he didn't look different from the Sampras in those 1989 clips so it doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if CBS flashed Agassi's stats from 1988 by mistake, because I'm pretty sure was 5'10, 140 in '88!

jamauss · Apr 13, 2007

That was awesome.

I like how Sampras hit a slower-kicker on the last match point instead of going for an ace. Just made sure he got it in and Wilander probably wasn't expecting that kind of serve, either.

shakes1975 · Apr 13, 2007

laurie said:
Wilander was a very steady player but I wouldn't pay 10 pence to watch him play. One match I have is the 1983 French Open final against Noah. Noah played well but Wilander was very much from the Bjorg mould.

you are mostly right about wilander, except that he wasn't like this early on in his career, away from clay.

if you get a chance, you should watch his matches at the AO when it was played on grass in kooyong. he was hardly the borg clone that he became at the FO. he beat peak mac in 4 in the 1983 AO SF.

wilander was a versatile player when he wanted to be.

Moose Malloy · Jul 26, 2007

just came across some clips from another match I haven't seen, Edberg-Sampras '90 Los Angeles. Edberg was #1 & coming off a Wimbledon win, while Sampras was only ranked 15.Doubt anyone could have imagined that a few weeks later Sampras would win the US Open, while Edberg would lose 1st round!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5CJnkAr9Ro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfw9hRP0deI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh38Tj2Uacg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tQYFgOh_r4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQEfjqKIqu4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfWWuETNFRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLi-A1HAx3s

The Gorilla · Jul 26, 2007

laurie said:
Wow, that was great!

Sampras was then 5 ft 10 so he was still growing. Mats Wilander always looked like the mad scientist with that hair!

When serving for the match, Sampras served a bomb to get back to deuce when break point down - down the centre on the ad side, the ball had so much kick it went over the centre line judges head!

Wilander was a very steady player but I wouldn't pay 10 pence to watch him play. One match I have is the 1983 French Open final against Noah. Noah played well but Wilander was very much from the Bjorg mould.

Just a shame the video was not of higher quality. More to the point - its' a real shame VHS won the war with Betamax. How? Betamax was 10 times better and had that match been recorded with a Betamax machine, the quality would have been excellent.

I have a great CBS version of the 1989 French Open final between Chang and Edberg, recorded with Betamax - the picture is sensational and I'm making clips of that match to put on my website.

thankyou .

The Gorilla · Jul 26, 2007

isn't so weird to see sampras grunting and celebrating every ace obnoxiously though?

krosero · Jul 26, 2007

Hi Moose. I know you revived this thread to talk about another match, but I haven't seen it, while I have seen the Wilander-Sampras match.

Moose Malloy said:
Late in the match Carillo said that Sampras came in 160 times! Only 31 times for Mats.

And compare that to the previous year's final, when Lendl came to net 77 times and Wilander 131 times.

What would have made Wilander come to net 100 fewer times in the '89 match?

MooseMalloy said:
Carillo said Wilander was 14-1 in 5 setters in Grand Slams coming in to this match.

That one loss would be to McEnroe at the '85 USO.

I wonder what Wilander's net stats were against McEnroe.

laurie · Jul 30, 2007

The Gorilla said:
thankyou .

Actually Gorilla, I uploaded that match on my site in June during the French Open.

I've decided again to try Youtube out. I've got clips of at least 15 Sampras matches. I'll avoid any Wimbledon matches. That way I done't have to keep rotating my clips because of limited bandwidth on my website. Also, I have matches that are not on Youtube right now so I can fill a void. I'm going to concentrate on Sampras and Kuznetsova matches first. I uploaded these yesterday as a start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6-A3jTSl3c

I have 15 clips of the 1999 Los Angeles final between Sampras and Agassi. Hopefully they will alll be bunched together. I'll continue uploading matches over the course of this week.

snapple · Jul 30, 2007

As a huge Wilander fan, it's very depressing watching that last game knowing that the the Mats of the year before would never have missed those passing shots which were an inch or two out. It just shows that once the mental focus waivers even a little as it did with Wilander, it can make the difference between winning the U.S. Open and losing in the 2nd round (albeit to a future all-time great).

armand · Jul 30, 2007

I've seen/heard that Sampras was born in Cali, DC and now this clip says Potomac, MD! What's going on? Why all this confusion

MaximRecoil · Jul 30, 2007

laurie said:
Just a shame the video was not of higher quality. More to the point - its' a real shame VHS won the war with Betamax. How? Betamax was 10 times better and had that match been recorded with a Betamax machine, the quality would have been excellent.

I have a great CBS version of the 1989 French Open final between Chang and Edberg, recorded with Betamax - the picture is sensational and I'm making clips of that match to put on my website.

Except that Beta wasn't "10 times better" than VHS, or better at all for that matter -- that is an urban legend, based mainly on Sony marketing from "back in the day". In fact, VHS was superior overall, which is why it succeeded. At a time when Beta offered an hour, VHS offered two hours. Hollywood movies tend to fit on a single two hour tape, so the studios predominantly went with VHS, as did the customers. By the time Beta had 2 hour tapes, it was "game over" (not to mention that VHS then had 4 hour tapes, and then 6, and 8 hours tapes, always ahead of Beta in that respect).

Regarding picture and sound quality, the two formats, which were both 1/2" magnetic tape BTW, had the same potential; given that they both used analog recording in the composite domain, with the same available bandwidth. Sony came out with such hardware and recording improvements as "HQ" and "Hi-Fi Stereo" earlier than VHS did, but VHS always caught up in less than a year's time (usually just a few months).

So, on comparable recording/playback machines, there was no difference between Beta and VHS in regard to picture or sound quality (or differences so negligable that they could only be measured on sensitive testing equipment), plus longer-running tapes were available for VHS.

Furthermore, you can not judge the quality of VHS from those YouTube clips. Aside from the obvious facts that you don't even know for sure that it was recorded on VHS rather than Beta, and that whatever machine and tape he used is not necessarily representative of the potential of the entire format as a whole, here are some more reasons:

- The quality and condition of the tape itself, and the machine, are huge variables that affect final picture and sound quality.

- In order to get a video on YouTube, the video from the tape must first be captured to a digital video format. There are various procedures and types of hardware for this, as well as cable connection types. This is another set of variables which affect quality. For example, S-video for the transfer beats composite, a high-end Hauppauge capture card beats a low-end ATI AIW card, etc.

- The codec and bitrate used during capture is another huge variable (very few people use lossless codecs or raw [no compression] for capturing because of the huge file sizes involved).

- And finally, there is YouTube's notoriously crappy default compression and conversion to the FLV format, to top it all off.

laurie · Jul 30, 2007

MaximRecoil said:
Except that Beta wasn't "10 times better" than VHS, or better at all for that matter -- that is an urban legend, based mainly on Sony marketing from "back in the day". In fact, VHS was superior overall, which is why it succeeded. At a time when Beta offered an hour, VHS offered two hours. Hollywood movies tend to fit on a single two hour tape, so the studios predominantly went with VHS, as did the customers. By the time Beta had 2 hour tapes, it was "game over" (not to mention that VHS then had 4 hour tapes, and then 6, and 8 hours tapes, always ahead of Beta in that respect).

Regarding your last point, I've come to realise that now I've uploaded some clips to Youtube myself.

Regarding picture and sound quality, the two formats, which were both 1/2" magnetic tape BTW, had the same potential; given that they both used analog recording in the composite domain, with the same available bandwidth. Sony came out with such hardware and recording improvements as "HQ" and "Hi-Fi Stereo" earlier than VHS did, but VHS always caught up in less than a year's time (usually just a few months).

So, on comparable recording/playback machines, there was no difference between Beta and VHS in regard to picture or sound quality (or differences so negligable that they could only be measured on sensitive testing equipment), plus longer-running tapes were available for VHS.

Furthermore, you can not judge the quality of VHS from those YouTube clips. Aside from the obvious facts that you don't even know for sure that it was recorded on VHS rather than Beta, and that whatever machine and tape he used is not necessarily representative of the potential of the entire format as a whole, here are some more reasons:

- The quality and condition of the tape itself, and the machine, are huge variables that affect final picture and sound quality.

- In order to get a video on YouTube, the video from the tape must first be captured to a digital video format. There are various procedures and types of hardware for this, as well as cable connection types. This is another set of variables which affect quality. For example, S-video for the transfer beats composite, a high-end Hauppauge capture card beats a low-end ATI AIW card, etc.

- The codec and bitrate used during capture is another huge variable (very few people use lossless codecs or raw [no compression] for capturing because of the huge file sizes involved).

- And finally, there is YouTube's notoriously crappy default compression and conversion to the FLV format, to top it all off.

Regarding your last point, I've come to realise that now I'm uploading clips to youtube myself.

We had a Maxell Betamax machine in the 1980s and it always recorded very well. Thanks for your info.

The Gorilla · Jul 30, 2007

do you have a copy of edberg V McEnroe wimbledon semi?

Oh, btw, what's your name on youtube so I can subscribe?

hoosierbr · Jul 30, 2007

I saw those clips (Edberg-Sampras) a while back. I really enjoyed Vitas Gerulaitis as a commentator. He had some great insight during the Lendl-Sampras USO QF that same year, also on youtube.

Edberg was on a 20 match win streak (or something like that) going into the Open that year and lost in straight sets. Was a huge surprise but maybe not a shock since he hadn't played his best there before, save for a couple of SF's where he got his clocked clean.

I think his winning the Open the next two years was a bigger shock!

armand · Jul 30, 2007

On one of the match points, Sampras double faulted badly. His face shows a lotta pain; that was the beginning of the ulcer years

MaximRecoil · Jul 30, 2007

laurie said:
Regarding your last point, I've come to realise that now I'm uploading clips to youtube myself.

Yeah, it really sucks, particularly for watching tennis. YouTube is okay for most videos, but "YouTube Quality" makes trying to follow a small, fast moving tennis ball next to impossible. The same goes for my other favorite sport, ice hockey.

You mentioned uploading clips to your website in your previous post. Did you ever do that? At least that way you can control the quality, instead of always having it murdered by YouTube's compression scheme.

FiveO · Jul 30, 2007

I thought this was an interesting insight from Wilander regarding his '89 US Open meeting with a young Sampras:

How would you rate your opponents like McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg and Becker? Who was the toughest to play with?
Sundar, USA

I think Boris Becker was. Ivan Lendl was the best player I ever played. He was the first guy to bring the game to more of a power level and you could know that if he played really well you could get blown off court and that wouldn't happen against John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors or even Bjorn Borg or Guillermo Vilas.

Lendl was able to do that. Then Becker came along and he was a kind of similar player to Lendl although he came to the net a little more. The difference with Becker was that he hit these shots from both sides. He had a very modern way of thinking on the tennis court. He would hit certain shots very hard that we thought you weren't supposed to do. It was like wow, you can't play tennis like that. I remember the first time I saw Pete Sampras I was defending the US Open in 1989 and I lost to Pete in five sets.

They were saying he was the next star. I totally disagreed at the press conference because I said there's no way you can play like that - you can't hit two good shots, then hit one bad one into the fence, and then hit another bad one and then two great serves and you suddenly win the game. I thought that's not the way to play tennis. But he changed the game and I think Becker was the first guy to do that. I had big problems with Boris Becker's power game and not knowing what he was going to do next.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/sports_talk/3693007.stm

laurie · Jul 30, 2007

MaximRecoil said:
Yeah, it really sucks, particularly for watching tennis. YouTube is okay for most videos, but "YouTube Quality" makes trying to follow a small, fast moving tennis ball next to impossible. The same goes for my other favorite sport, ice hockey.

You mentioned uploading clips to your website in your previous post. Did you ever do that? At least that way you can control the quality, instead of always having it murdered by YouTube's compression scheme.

Yes I still do, but the bandwidth is small so I have to rotate the clips every two weeks or so which is very time consuming - plus as they are not embedded people miss out on them if I take them off.

My website can be accessed here

http://www.classictennismatches.net/index_files/page0018.html

Gorilla, my name on youtube is laurie1414 - if that means anything to you, I'm still familiarising myself with how youtube works.

laurie · Aug 3, 2007

I've always wondered what Wilander was getting at with these comments in 2004. Clearly as an 18 year old, Sampras would play streaky and hit great shots followed by bad ones because he was not developed - making him dangerous. Wilander winning the French at 17 I suppose couldn't come to terms with this concept, because he played the old school way of hitting as many shots as possible in the rally and grinding an opening. Plus his serve wasn't big. So he played mature and steady even as a teenager.

I suppose what Sampras and Becker did as opposed to Lendl was the concept of ending the rally in Tennis with one shot. Lendl had modern power with an old school mentality. He preffered to grind you down and was willing to hit long rallies and run you left and right before finishing you off. Lendl had the power to finish points quick but used that option sparingly, as he got around 30 years old he took up that option more due to decline in footwork.

Sampras and Becker brought the idea of ending the point with a big serve, ace or unreturnable, a big forehand, a big return off the serve down the line or crosscourt, they really shortened the points. In Sampras' case, he brought this concept to the 2nd serve of ending the point with one shot (2nd serve) which around 1989/1990 was unheard of, and still not really practised today among most pros.

So I think (could be wrong) that's what Wilander is referring too. I also think, that despite Sampras' talent and all round game, his ability to use his serve as an absolute weapon probably denied more people appreciating his talents more. Especially considering that the early 1990s was littered with big servers, Wimbledon was the main source of people's discontent and especially in Britain, everyone associates Sampras with Wimbledon and nothing else. I also think Wilander is clearly not a fan of this style of Tennis or of Sampras considering other statements he has made over recent years.

AAAA · Aug 3, 2007

I also think, that despite Sampras' talent and all round game, his ability to use his serve as an absolute weapon probably denied more people appreciating his talents more.

Clay didn't allow Sampras to use his serve as an absolute weapon so clay was the only surface that alllowed us to appreciate what Sampras could do without a big serve friendly surface to back him up. Unfortunately sampras didn't WOW the audience on clay.

laurie · Aug 3, 2007

AAAA said:
Clay didn't allow Sampras to use his serve as an absolute weapon so clay was the only surface that alllowed us to appreciate what Sampras could do without a big serve friendly surface to back him up. Unfortunately sampras didn't WOW the audience on clay.

From what I understand, Pete Fischer (his early mentor) was a bit disappointed that Sampras' game became based around the serve. He wanted him to develop his groundstrokes even further and become a more all court player at all times. I think that's where their disagreements centred around which became bigger as time went on.

Zimbo · Aug 3, 2007

laurie said:
I've always wondered what Wilander was getting at with these comments in 2004. Clearly as an 18 year old, Sampras would play streaky and hit great shots followed by bad ones because he was not developed - making him dangerous. Wilander winning the French at 17 I suppose couldn't come to terms with this concept, because he played the old school way of hitting as many shots as possible in the rally and grinding an opening. Plus his serve wasn't big. So he played mature and steady even as a teenager.

I suppose what Sampras and Becker did as opposed to Lendl was the concept of ending the rally in Tennis with one shot. Lendl had modern power with an old school mentality. He preffered to grind you down and was willing to hit long rallies and run you left and right before finishing you off. Lendl had the power to finish points quick but used that option sparingly, as he got around 30 years old he took up that option more due to decline in footwork.

Sampras and Becker brought the idea of ending the point with a big serve, ace or unreturnable, a big forehand, a big return off the serve down the line or crosscourt, they really shortened the points. In Sampras' case, he brought this concept to the 2nd serve of ending the point with one shot (2nd serve) which around 1989/1990 was unheard of, and still not really practised today among most pros.

So I think (could be wrong) that's what Wilander is referring too. I also think, that despite Sampras' talent and all round game, his ability to use his serve as an absolute weapon probably denied more people appreciating his talents more. Especially considering that the early 1990s was littered with big servers, Wimbledon was the main source of people's discontent and especially in Britain, everyone associates Sampras with Wimbledon and nothing else. I also think Wilander is clearly not a fan of this style of Tennis or of Sampras considering other statements he has made over recent years.

Laurie,

I think you have it all wrong. He has the upmost respect for Sampras and his game. This topic was addressed a while back. Check it out.

This is what you posted way back concerning the same quote from Wilander. The thread was about the rise of the Modern Power Game:

laurie said:
He was moaning about losing to a kid of 18, whose game was still unpolished. A year later that kid went on to win the tournament at 19. His game became a lot more polished especially under Gullickson in the mid 1990s.
I would call that moaning.

In respone Grimjack posted this:

Grimjack said:
He's not "moaning" here in the least, and I have no idea where you're seeing it. Sounds like a distaste for Mats is coloring your judgement.

If anything, his comments here are self-critical. He's saying at the time he first saw Becker/Lendl, he didn't fear that style game, because its low-percentage style didn't make logical sense to him. And he's further saying that he was wrong, and he mis-read the situation, and even that Pete and Boris changed how the game was played in certain power circles.

He's not moaning. If anything, he comes across as awe struck.

From your comment am I right to assume you don't agree with Grimjack? I personally think he's right on. On many occasions Wilander have said that Sampras when on was almost unbeatable and that his game had the highest potential.

laurie · Aug 3, 2007

Well Zimbo, I think I remember saying to Grimjack that I assessed the situation differently to him. Grimjack might be right but I have to say I don't share that gut feeling over Wilander's comments at all.

anointedone · Aug 3, 2007

It is impossible for Sampras to have won 14 slams if he mostly just a serve. Karlovic, Ivanisevic, even Krajicek are arguably 3 of the very few players with equaly as great a serve, particularly on the first serve, yet they have 2 slams between them. Karlovic in fact has spent very very little time even ranked in the top 50 thus far.

How other aspects of his game compare to such and such a great player, is open to debate of course. However the "just a serve" cliche attached to Sampras by some people is definitely wrong.

Also I dont see why it is so wrong to benefit from your serve. The serve is the most important single shot in the game probably, if you have to pick one. I didnt hear anyone condemning Federer from winning this years Wimbledon final over Nadal, predominantly based on the advantage his much superior serve gave him and the extra points from his serve, which watching the match seemingly swings the other way otherwise. If you took away any players best shot, say take away Federer's forehand, Agassi's backhand or return of serve, Nadal's speed, Safin's backhand, Edberg's volley, they all win alot less and are much less successful too.

FiveO · Aug 3, 2007

Mats evidently likes to talk and the press still likes to quote him. I don't think Mats was implying that Sampras was unworthy, over-rated, or anything negative. I thought he was reflecting on his difficulty in reconciling an approach to the game which was far different than his generation and that of generations prior to his. High consistency had always been the name of the game, what the pros had to do to win match in and match out and to succeed at the majors in particular.

To take a big cut on a return and miss it was considered idiotic at that time. To go for winners off the ground from behind the baseline was still rare. Even the harder hitters before Becker, like Connors and Lendl, brought power within a framework based primarily on consistency. Before them Laver hit hard for his day but generated tremendous topspin, for his era, for added consistency. This new breed, it seems, had taken Mats by surprise.

I think Mats was confessing his difficulty with dealing with these new, higher risk, ultra power players when his playing instincts had been honed to hang in and wait these players out and let them "come off the boil" as Fred Stolle was apt to describe it, tighten up and come back to earth where he could deal with them more easily and that tactic was rendered ineffective. I think what he was saying was that these guys changed the approach to tennis at the highest level. These guys would consistently go for shots that were considered lower percentage in his day, be unfazed by their own errors on big points and because it was their inate approach come back and go for a bigger shot again. They probably looked like the streaky, up and down, players like LeConte and Kriek to Mats, except they were better overall. With experience these new era players reigned it in a tad, but were consistently going for more and making more.

Also keep in mind that the first Wilander snippet I quoted was from May 13, 2004.

Here's another dated October 15-21, 2005:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/tss/tss2842/stories/20051015000502000.htm

INTERVIEW

Wilander on his contemporaries

Pete Sampras (1-2): You have to put him as the best player in the world. Level wise, it is very difficult to say if it is Pete Sampras or Rod Laver. They won a lot of majors. Or Bjorn Borg, for that matter. But if you talk about the level that Pete Sampras played at, I would have to say that, when he played well there was no way Roger Federer would have beaten him. Not yet!

Sampras would have been able to play Federer's serve. When Pete Sampras played at his best, it was different tennis. If Sampras is playing 90 percent and Federer is playing 90 percent, I would say Federer is a much better player. But so far, nobody has reached the level attained by Sampras.

FiveO · Aug 3, 2007

anointedone said:
It is impossible for Sampras to have won 14 slams if he mostly just a serve. Karlovic, Ivanisevic, even Krajicek are arguably 3 of the very few players with equaly as great a serve, particularly on the first serve, yet they have 2 slams between them. Karlovic in fact has spent very very little time even ranked in the top 50 thus far.

How other aspects of his game compare to such and such a great player, is open to debate of course. However the "just a serve" cliche attached to Sampras by some people is definitely wrong.

Also I dont see why it is so wrong to benefit from your serve. The serve is the most important single shot in the game probably, if you have to pick one. I didnt hear anyone condemning Federer from winning this years Wimbledon final over Nadal, predominantly based on the advantage his much superior serve gave him and the extra points from his serve, which watching the match seemingly swings the other way otherwise. If you took away any players best shot, say take away Federer's forehand, Agassi's backhand or return of serve, Nadal's speed, Safin's backhand, Edberg's volley, they all win alot less and are much less successful too.

Toward that end here's what Agassi said in an interview with Inside Tennis in September 2006:

.....IT: Andre, let's briefly run through the different strokes and tell me the toughest ones you've faced. Is Federer's forehand...

AA: It's arguably the best that's ever been in the game.

IT: Sampras' serve?

AA: There are others with better serves, but he defended his serve well and that makes a difference. When you talk about a serve versus a hold game, you're talking about two entirely different things. Wayne Arthurs has one of the most beautiful serves you'll ever see. If you gave Pete Wayne Arthurs' serve, he would have been that much nastier.....

http://www.insidetennis.com/0906_agassi.html

Sampras vs Wilander, 1989 US Open

G.O.A.T.

laurie

Guest

laurie

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Legend

laurie

Guest

Rookie

Banned

Rookie

laurie

Guest

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Rookie

Hall of Fame

laurie

Guest

laurie

Guest

Hall of Fame

laurie

Guest

Semi-Pro

laurie

Guest

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Similar threads