Murray accomplished something none of the other top 4 achieved

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

He won his first slam, beating a player that had already won a slam.

To me, that is some feet.

Roger had philipousis.
Novak Tsonga
Nadal (Some rookie in the French)

Murray's had it so tough, every slam final it's either Roger or Novak.. Roger, arguably the best player ever and Novak, arguably the best hard-court point constructor ever.

Virtually every time he had reached a final in previous year's he's also had to get one of the top 4 in the semi finals, ofcourse that changed this year but once again a massive feet.

To sum it up I don't think anyone can ever say Andy Murray didn't deserve this slam, no lucky draws, injuries to top player's or anything. He battled and he battled and that inner strength is finally there with him now.

I was a little disappointed with his lack of a celebration, I feel he was too emotionally drained to celebrate to the level he probably felt like. The feeling was jus relief, massive weight off his shoulders now. Expect Novak and Andy to dominate the hardcourt slams now.

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

Colin · Sep 10, 2012

I just finished watching the replay, and while it was great (because the competitors were equally matched) I definitely think it plays against those pushing for labeling this as the golden era.

Federer from 2004-2007 would have won that like 6-1, 6-3, 6-2. He would have made either of those guys look like fools.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

English comprehension skills?

They were not wins in the finals, that's what the thread is about, your post therefore is insignificant, irrelevant, pointless, uneeded, NOT REQUIRED, thanks.

tudwell · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

I can assure you it is much tougher to beat a player who has aleady won a grandslam in a grandslam final as opposed to a grandslam semi final.

A) They are more experienced, been there and done it and can control their emotions a lot better.

B) Its harder to play well under the most severest of pressure.

C) It is EXACTLY TRUE!

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tudwell said:
And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

He jus wanted to point out something irrelevant even though he clearly gets the idea of why I am glorifying such a feet.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Colin said:
I just finished watching the replay, and while it was great (because the competitors were equally matched) I definitely think it plays against those pushing for labeling this as the golden era.

Federer from 2004-2007 would have won that like 6-1, 6-3, 6-2. He would have made either of those guys look like fools.

Such waffle with unproven and very unfounded assertions.

Roger Federer of 2004-2007 would have done bla bla bla ...

Fact is he had Roddick, an ageing Agassi and Hewitt in slam finals. When he met someone with real talent and in their peak, Safin, he came up short. Not knocking Federer, but don't demean Murray and Djokovic's performance today with subjective remarks based on the basis Federer played really pretty tennis during 2004-2007 and his opponents lacked the offensive, defensive skills to not look like they were being tormented and toyed with.

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
English comprehension skills?

They were not wins in the finals, that's what the thread is about, your post therefore is insignificant, irrelevant, pointless, uneeded, NOT REQUIRED, thanks.

I know that they were not in finals(as I already said,so your English comprehension skills don't seem to be up to task yourself),but they still had to beat a multiple slam champ and the GOAT to even make the final at their first slam win. That counts for a lot no matter if you like it or not,Mr. Smart*ss.

Oh,and Nadal was barely even 19 when he won his first slam by having to beat Fed to do so. Keep pretending that doesn't mean anything if you like,but you're not very convincing while you have your head stuck in the sand.

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
He jus wanted to point out something irrelevant even though he clearly gets the idea of why I am glorifying such a feet.

I am not a "he". Please get it right next time.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
I know that they were not in finals(as I already said,so your English comprehension skills don't seem to be up to task yourself),but they still had to beat a multiple slam champ and the GOAT to even make the final at their first slam win. That counts for a lot no matter if you like it or not,Mr. Smart*ss.

That is an insignificant point! It matters not! If that actually mattered, would I have made this thread? It does not even come within the same radar as "still had to beat them in the semi finals" .. no one gets nervous in the semi finals, to beat the best you have to play YOUR BEST and to play your best UNDER PRESSURE, where nerves are jangling is not easy.

It counts for ******** in relation to this thread, absolute ********. The topic was BASED on WHO THEY HAVE BEATEN IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, YES THE ACTUAL FINAL. You come in and make annoying remark about how it is not true and then say that is why? It is true. It's a fact. Semi final opponents do not stop it from being a fact and the statistic I was highlighting has no relevance to your pointless point which did not need to be said.

Antonio Puente · Sep 10, 2012

Yes, but he's 25 years old. Nadal was 18 when he won his first slam. Fed and Djoker, 21.

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
That is an insignificant point! It matters not! If that actually mattered, would I have made this thread? It does not even come within the same radar as "still had to beat them in the semi finals" .. no one gets nervous in the semi finals, to beat the best you have to play YOUR BEST and to play your best UNDER PRESSURE, where nerves are jangling is not easy.

It counts for ******** in relation to this thread, absolute ********. The topic was BASED on WHO THEY HAVE BEATEN IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, YES THE ACTUAL FINAL. You come in and make annoying remark about how it is not true and then say that is why? It is true. It's a fact. Semi final opponents do not stop it from being a fact and the statistic I was highlighting has no relevance to your pointless point which did not need to be made.

I was pointing out that you were actually wrong in saying that they didn't have to beat a slam winner to win their first slam because they did,and the GOAT at that. I know you were talking about in finals,but you were still fundamentally wrong,which is all I was trying to say. You immediately went on the attack and lost your sh*t over what I said. I think you should calm down before you open a vein.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
Oh,and Nadal was barely even 19 when he won his first slam by having to beat Fed to do so. Keep pretending that doesn't mean anything if you like,but you're not very convincing while you have your head stuck in the sand.

Again, you are bringing up COMPLETELY irrelevant feets to this specific topic which is not about anything but the bloody player's who when winning their first Grandslam beat in the final.

I don't know how to break this down for you, I actually don't think it matters much @ all as its quite evident you're a girl with a huge crush on Nadal and hate to see him perhaps forgotten about in the midst of all this commotion about someone new.

Colin · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Such waffle with unproven and very unfounded assertions.

Roger Federer of 2004-2007 would have done bla bla bla ...

Fact is he had Roddick, an ageing Agassi and Hewitt in slam finals. When he met someone with real talent and in their peak, Safin, he came up short. Not knocking Federer, but don't demean Murray and Djokovic's performance today with subjective remarks based on the basis Federer played really pretty tennis during 2004-2007 and his opponents lacked the offensive, defensive skills to not look like they were being tormented and toyed with.

Roddick of 2006 would have beaten either of these dudes 7-6, 6-4, 6-4

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
I was pointing out that you were actually wrong in saying that they didn't have to beat a slam winner to win their first slam because they did,and the GOAT at that. I know you were talking about in finals,but you were still fundamentally wrong,which is all I was trying to say. You immediately went on the attack and lost your sh*t over what I said. I think you should calm down before you open a vein.

I SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BEAT A SLAM WINNER IN THE FINAL, IN THE FINAL, I WAS NOT WRONG, I WAS TALKING IN REGARD TO THE BLOODY FLIPPING FINAL.

*SLAMS HEAD AGAINST MONITOR SCREEN REPEATEDLY* FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL! FINALLLLL!!!

Where are these people from?

I wasn't wrong read, I was articulate with my post and title, anyone with half a brain would know I was refering to the final alone, everyone obviously knows what you have pointed out and it has no single relevance to anything.

What do it have to do with the price of rice?

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Again, you are bringing up COMPLETELY irrelevant feets to this specific topic which is not about anything but the bloody player's who when winning their first Grandslam beat in the final.

I don't know how to break this down for you, I actually don't think it matters much @ all as its quite evident you're a girl with a huge crush on Nadal and hate to see him perhaps forgotten about in the midst of all this commotion about someone new.

Omg,this is too funny. :lol: Newsflash: I WAS ROOTING FOR ANDY TO WIN. I don't really care if you think Nadal is "forgotten" in the midst about someone new(Andy isn't new anyway),because that's just pure bs. I was just pointing out that were not entirely accurate with what you said. Have you opened that vein yet? Lol.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

There's nothing fundamentally wrong about anything as my point of discussion and what I rate so heavily is the fact he had to beat them in the final, which as I have expained with many reasons to that you have not even bothered attempting to contest, IS BLOODY HARD.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
There's nothing fundamentally wrong about anything as my point of discussion and what I rate so heavily is the fact they had to beat them in the final, which as I have expained with many reasons to that you have not even bothered attempting to contest, IS BLOODY HARD.

Before getting so aggressive, please do note that it's 'FEAT' and not 'FEET'. I thought it was a typo in the first post but saw that you had 'mis-spelt' it a number of times.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Before getting so aggressive, please do note that it's 'FEAT' and not 'FEET'. I thought it was a typo in the first post but saw that you had 'mis-spelt' it a number of times.

Another insignificant and irrelevant post made in the thread, contributing nothing to the discussion @ hand.

Can we hear from some people that would actually like to discuss the point I've made in my opening post, rather than howmany pubic hairs Nadal had when he broke onto the tour and my spelling of the odd word being wrong?

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
This isn't exactly true. Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005,just to get to the final. Cvac had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there,as well. Fed is the only one who did not have to beat a slam champ on his way to his first slam win.

I know those wins weren't in finals,but they still count as having to get through a proven champ to win their first slam,and not just any proven champ,but the GOAT.

Yup and Federer had to beat Roddick in the semis of his first GS win as well

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Another insignificant and irrelevant post made in the thread, contributing nothing to the discussion @ hand.

Can we hear from some people that would actually like to discuss the point I've made in my opening post, rather than howmany pubic hairs Nadal had when he broke onto the tour and my spelling of the odd word being wrong?

That wouldn't be possible as you are convinced that you are correct and dismiss all other points of view. Hence, a 'discussion' with you on this topic is not possible.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

What's harder.

Beating a Grandslam winner in a Final or a Semi final?

Big question for you tenniswriter, would Berdych have beaten Federer @ the US Open had that been a final as opposed to a Quarter final this year? Be truthful now.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
What's harder.

Beating a Grandslam winner in a Final or a Semi final?

Big question for you tenniswriter, would Berdych have beaten Federer @ the US Open had that been a final as opposed to a Quarter final this year? Be truthful now.

Well, Del Potro's a ****ing legend then

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
That wouldn't be possible as you are convinced that you are correct and dismiss all other points of view. Hence, a 'discussion' with you on this topic is not possible.

I am not dismissing anyone's views.

That chick has brought up a point completely unattached from the feat I am basing this thread on.

Djokovic, Federer and Nadal didn't beat a Grandslam champion in a final to win their first Grandslam. Whether or not they beat one in the semi final is completely irrelevant to the actual statistic. They may very well have done had they had the opportunity, but I can assure you it is a much harder achievement to win your first slam against an already slam champion, so that alone deserves a mention and a lot of credit. All people can do however is undermine it with if buts and whatevers.

You can't argue with the fact I made in the opening post, bringing up a separate fact doesn't stop my fact from being fact. So why bring it up? And when doing so why so it is A) no true and B) fundamentally wrong?

Let's have some intelligent people post.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Well, Del Potro's a ****ing legend then

Yes.

...but, not in the top 4 though, so once again you're going off topic and bringing up nonsense. *Sighs*

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
I am not dismissing anyone's views.

That chick has brought up a point completely unattached from the feat I am basing this thread on.

Djokovic, Federer and Nadal didn't beat a Grandslam champion in a final to win their first Grandslam. Whether or not they beat one in the semi final is completely irrelevant to the actual statistic. They may very well have done, but I can assure you it is a much harder achievement to win your first slam against an already slam champion.

You can't argue with the fact I made in the opening post, bringing up a separate fact doesn't stop my fact from being fact. So why bring it up? And when doing so why so it is A) no true and B) fundamentally wrong?

Let's have some intelligent people post.

Nice. You dismiss me because I am female. That comment along with your cray cray outbursts in this thread prove a lot to me about the type of person you are. If that vein hasn't burst yet,then it is most certainly about to. Lol.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Yes.

...but, not in the top 4 though, so once again you're going off topic and bringing up nonsense. *Sighs*

Ohkay. Murray's better than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who didn't deserve their first slams as much as Murray did? Happy?

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
Nice. You dismiss me because I am female. That comment along with your cray cray outbursts in this thread prove a lot to me about the type of person you are. If that vein hasn't burst yet,then it is most certainly about to. Lol.

Well said 'chick' . Lol

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
Nice. You dismiss me because I am female. That comment along with your cray cray outbursts in this thread prove a lot to me about the type of person you are. If that vein hasn't burst yet,then it is most certainly about to. Lol.

Certainly not.

Again, you've yourself look really stupid.

Initially had you down as a guy, for then you had to set me straight on.

Clarky21 said:
I am not a "he". Please get it right next time.

So you see I dismissed your stupidity way before you told me you were female and it was on the basis you were actually not able to discuss or debate anything in regard to once again, I know I keep using this word, the "FACT" I brought up in the opening post.

You said it was not true and fundamentally wrong. Yet the fact it is true can't make it fundamentally anything but right. If your argument is that there is no difference between beating a Grandslam champion in a final and a semi final then you are having a laugh.

Clarky21 · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Certainly not.

Again, you've yourself look really stupid.

Initially had you down as a guy, for then you had to set me straight on.

So you see I dismissed your stupidity way before you told me you were female and it was on the basis you were actually not able to discuss or debate anything in regard to once again, I know I keep using this word, the "FACT" I brought up in the opening post.

You said it was not true and fundamentally wrong. Yet the fact it is true can't make it fundamentally anything but right. If your argument is that there is no difference between beating a Grandslam champion in a final and a semi final then you are having a laugh.

How about not referring to me as a "chick"? It's offensive,capiche?

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Certainly not.

Again, you've yourself look really stupid.

Initially had you down as a guy, for then you had to set me straight on.

So you see I dismissed your stupidity way before you told me you were female and it was on the basis you were actually not able to discuss or debate anything in regard to once again, I know I keep using this word, the "FACT" I brought up in the opening post.

You said it was not true and fundamentally wrong. Yet the fact it is true can't make it fundamentally anything but right. If your argument is that there is no difference between beating a Grandslam champion in a final and a semi final then you are having a laugh.

I'm sorry, you are right. *bows*

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Ohkay. Murray's better than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic who didn't deserve their first slams as much as Murray did? Happy?

That's the problem with this forum.

You see every positive comment on a top player as some sort of subtle attempt @ making out they are better than all the other top players.

You are a product of this defensive type of poster^ It's ugly to see. Get to talking about tennis, appreciating the players and debating stuff that actually is worth debating.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
That's the problem with this forum.

You see every positive comment on a top player as some sort of subtle attempt @ making out they are better than all the other top players.

You are a product of this defensive type of poster^ It's ugly to see. Get to talking about tennis, appreciating the players and debating stuff that actually is worth debating.

Yeah, I'm awful and so is everyone else on this forum. I'm afraid that's what you're going to have to put up with though, so best learn to accept it or post on another forum.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

Clarky21 said:
How about not referring to me as a "chick"? It's offensive,capiche?

I've said my peace with you, fact you are resorting to me refering to you in slang term for a female and making a full blown five course meal of it shows you know you were wrong in bringing up such a pointless thing.

I'll wait for someone with an actual point on the topic @ hand before replying again now.

PS: Chick is the same as calling a bloke a dude, grow up with your PC nonsense.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Yeah, I'm awful and so is everyone else on this forum. I'm afraid that's what you're going to have to put up with though, so best learn to accept it or post on another forum.

TennisWriter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 117

Tennis_Maestro
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England London
Posts: 3,596

No thanks.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
TennisWriter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 117

Tennis_Maestro
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: England London
Posts: 3,596

No thanks.

You're the one who has a 'problem' with the forum mate, not me. Stop bringing up irrelevant points

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
You're the one who has a 'problem' with the forum mate, not me. Stop bringing up irrelevant points

Just saying. You pulling the old card which everyone with no individual thought does, in saying, "don't like it, leave"... is quite patronising from someone who has only been off the plane 5 minutes.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Just saying. You pulling the old card which everyone with no individual thought does, in saying, "don't like it, leave"... is quite patronising from someone who has only been off the plane 5 minutes.

Okay. Not going to feed the troll any more.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Okay. Not going to feed the troll any more.

Bye.........

ninman · Sep 10, 2012

Given that 33 of the last 40 grand slams have been won by either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, that makes this thread almost irrelevant.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

ninman said:
Given that 33 of the last 40 grand slams have been won by either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, that makes this thread almost irrelevant.

I am simply trying to hail how difficult the job was for Murray. When these player's went onto take their first slams they had rookie's in the final to contend with.

Murray, Murray had the best player of all time and a player who I feel will prove to be the best player of all time on a hardcourt. (Non-indoor)

The first one is always the one that opens up the flood gates, when you break your duck it becomes that much easier mentally, granted you have the talent to sustain it.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tudwell said:
And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

I missed this guys post, he summed it up beautifully and the reason for this thread stems around the part in bold.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
I missed this guys post, he summed it up beautifully and the reason for this thread stems around the part in bold.

Ah. Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams, but they were in the semis of the '08 US Open and the quarters of the 2010 Australian Open. Didn't you say beating Grand Slam champions in rounds before the final doesn't matter much?:?

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Ah. Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams, but they were in the semis of the '08 US Open and the quarters of the 2010 Australian Open. Didn't you say beating Grand Slam champions in rounds before the final doesn't matter much?:?

Tennis_Maestro said:
I missed this guys post, he summed it up beautifully and the reason for this thread stems around the part in bold.

Once again.

tudwell said:
And Murray has beaten Nadal twice at slams - both times reaching the final and playing another grand slam winner. That's the point. Murray has only played the best of the best in finals, and today he finally broke through.

As for his celebration, I wasn't surprised given his muted celebration at winning the Olympics. Still, it's no Safin at the 2005 Australian Open.

The part in bold.

*Snores on keyboard*

zzzzzzzzzztupidddzzzzzzzzzzz

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Once again.

*Snores on keyboard*

zzzzzzzzzztupidddzzzzzzzzzzz

See what I meant about dismissing others opinions?

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
See what I meant about dismissing others opinions?

Okay, last time.

See the text in bold, the part I bolded, from his post? I bolded it, yes? You see that? That's what I was plauditing, not anything to do with what he said in relation to Murray having to beat Nadal in semi finals or any of that ****.

Last time of breaking everything down for you. English comprehension skills man and you're a writer.

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

..and it is not an opinion, its jus you getting the wrong idea because you don't read the post.

tenniswriter · Sep 10, 2012

Tennis_Maestro said:
Okay, last time.

See the text in bold, the part I bolded, from his post? I bolded it, yes? You see that? That's what I was plauditing, not anything to do with what he said in relation to Murray having to beat Nadal in semi finals or any of that ****.

Last time of breaking everything down for you. English comprehension skills man and you're a writer.

Wow. So offensive, relax. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything you say. And yeah, I'm a writer, but I'm always looking to improve, so thanks for that, will consider it

Tennis_Maestro · Sep 10, 2012

tenniswriter said:
Wow. So offensive, relax. Everyone doesn't have to agree with everything you say. And yeah, I'm a writer, but I'm always looking to improve, so thanks for that, will consider it

You aren't disagreeing anything. You are jus making separate facts and not reading.

Stating a separate fact: Oh but Fed, Novak and Rafa had to play them in semi finals BUT!

Not reading: Already explained this.

Now bored of explaining.

Murray accomplished something none of the other top 4 achieved

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads