Can Nadal complete 16 slams or more?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jackson vile, Jul 3, 2010.

?

What it be folks

Poll closed Jul 11, 2010.
  1. It could very well happen, time will tell

    89 vote(s)
    54.3%
  2. Ain't going to happen, every year I claim his career is over

    75 vote(s)
    45.7%
  1. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    read this carefully, you are delusional to think federer should've won all of their non-clay meetings when rafa himself couldn't win all of their clay meetings

    you are delusional enough to think that fed fans/fanatics think he should've won all of their non-clay meetings

    you are delusional enough to think nadal didn't even benefit a bit from the majority of their matches being on clay.

    That's the case with many *******s like you anyways
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    what some don't realise is that when they mention the H2H time and again, they're double counting, most of their slam meetings were in the finals and federer's losses in those matches already cut into his slam tally ( he'd have been favoured to win had there been anyone else across the net in most of those slams )
     
  3. Cassius Clay

    Cassius Clay Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    Nadal has dominated the generation to a much smaller degree than Federer. He must REALLY suck then. :(
     
  5. cueboyzn

    cueboyzn Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    991
    Location:
    SA

    Every time people say it's over for Roger, he comes back and wins more slams. Don't be surprised when he retires with 18, 19 or 20 slams.
     
  6. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361


    Nadal in 2005 won 11 titles at the age of 19 and never came close to doing it again. So you can't say Nadal wasn't a force during that time. How many titles Roger won in 2001(age 19) beside having a big win over Sampras at SW19? If you have been watching Roger throughout his career, Roger was at his best in 2005/06, or around 24/25 years old. Anyone who say he's still in his prime today has no clue. As far as Rafa today, he's at his prime at the age of 24. He's not going to be playing his peak level when he's nearly 29. History is not on his side.

    You're really hard on Roger and it's no surprise b/c you hate the guy. Sampras at 28/29 years old got own by young players too. Lendl 8 straight USO final streak was snapped by Sampras. Let's wait til Rafa reach this age, I guarantee you the young players will have many wins over him too.
     
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Again, it's too late. Roger is nearly 5 years older than him. Nadal wasn't there in the final at the US Open Series for Roger to improve the h2h. Now you want a past prime Fed to improve h2h agains Rafa at his ideal age for tennis? Get real.

    Keep in mind Roger also won 4 Master Cup, where Rafa was good enough to only met Roger one time. Guess who won that match?
     
  8. dmt

    dmt Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,655
    actually they played twice at the masters cup
     
  9. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Only slam winners count for h2h comparison?

    Classic double standard by Davey.
     
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Thanks. Athough I don't fault Nadal for losing b/c it's Roger's better surface. Same with Roger on clay against Rafa.
     
  11. jackson vile

    jackson vile Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,827
    Well we can take away the if, now since Nadal won today and now has 8 slams at age 24.

    We will have to wait and see if Nadal can relisticly continue in this trend.
     
  12. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,047
    Location:
    shiran
    I don't see why not.

    8W
    8F
    3AO
    2USO
    -------------------
    Total: 21 slams

    21 > 16
     
  13. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    If you want to seriously argue that Nadal's win over Roger in the future dont count then all of Roger's wins before 2008 over Nadal dont count either as that was clearly "pre prime" Nadal like it or not. In which case Roger has no wins over Roger on hard courts and grass and Nadal leads those surfaces 4-0. Nice try. Any future wins over Roger count for Nadal since Roger benefited from playing a teenaged Nadal while still in his own prime (not that this even helped him that much as he still quickly went down in head to head). End of.

    And who cares about Roger's "prime" when you basically admited he had only a 2 year prime and are claming Nadal has already had a 5 or 6 year one.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  14. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    I agree Roger isnt in his prime today. I do think it could be easily argued he was still in his prime in 2008 and 2009 though. You dont win 3 out of 4 slams as Roger did from 2009-early 2010 by being "past your prime" that is unless you are admiting the only reason Roger won that many at that point was Nadal's injuries in mid 2009 (in which case you would have a real point). In 2008 he played great tennis and was denied winning 3 of 4 slams by a healthy and on fire Nadal who was just starting his prime yers as a player.

    And if you think 2005 or 2006 was prime Nadal you have even less clue. Nadal was owned by guys like Blake, Berdych, Youzhny, these years. Berdych as we saw again today is playing his best tennis EVER and still cant make a dent on Nadal on any surface these days. Nadal's slam results in 2005 were 4th round of Australia, 2nd round at Wimbledon where he lost to Gilles Muller, and 3rd round of the U.S Open. And you are trying to argue this was prime Nadal. Truly insane. As for the 11 titles, well just goes to show what a crap group the Federer contemporary era was that they allowed an 18 and 19 year old boy who couldnt even make a slam quarterfinal anywhere but clay and who was owned then by every flat ball hitter to win that many tournaments. The same group that allowed grandpa Agassi to win so many slams, Masters, and make so many slam finals. Truly a joke group as many of us said all along.
     
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Nadal at 19 in 2005 won 11 titles, including a slam and 4 MS. That is as dominant as you can get. If not for Roger, he's undispute #1 in 2005. Stop making sound like Rafa was trash during 2005 b/c he never won 11 titles in a year again. My point still stand...Roger past his prime. From now on it's prime rafa vs. past prime roger. It's not their fault they are almost 5 years apart. And of course it's not Roger's fault when Nadal doesn't do well at the US Open Series(when he was winning slam and a clear #2).
     
  16. kanamit

    kanamit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,045
    Can he? Hypothetically yes. Realistically no.
     
  17. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    2005 or 2006 was not prime Nadal and to argue so is retarded. You can argue all you want but there is no way you are going to be able to convince anyone 2005 was already a prime Nadal. I did not say Nadal was thrash in 2005, Federer isnt thrash now eithr otherwise he wouldnt have won a slam this year. So if Nadal's wins over Roger in the future dont count, then none of Roger's wins over Nadal before 2008 count. And even if we discounted all of Roger's wins over Nadal in just 2005 and 2006 (despite that even in 2007 he had yet to make his first hard court slam semis) it would still now leave Nadal with a 4-2 head to head lead over Federer on non clay surfaces now. If Nadal's wins from here are discounted because of a "post prime" Federer then Federer sure as heck doesnt get credit for any wins over the Nadal that was owned by Berdych, Blake, Youzhny and made only 1 slam quarterfinal on hard courts.

    So a baby Nadal would have been undisputed #1 in 2005 even with a 6-3 record in the other 3 slams outside the French had Federer not existed? All you do is continue to prove what a joke group Federer's contemporaries were anyway, hence why so many of us said what easy competition he had during his dominance.
     
  18. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    I'd love it if Nadal does win 16 or more slams, but the that would be crazy.

    The fact that he's won 8 slams, already, is so far beyond what I expected him to do in his career when I just first saw him all those years ago.
     
  19. Valdez737

    Valdez737 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    BRONX NYC
    Rafa prob win 12ish Roger not done yet by far he got few more years and few more gs
     
  20. Baikalic

    Baikalic Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    748
    nice poll choices buddy.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    I'm not arguing with you anymore. It's pretty clear their H2H doesn't paint a clear picture b/c:

    1. They are nearly 5 years apart
    2. Their best/worst surface are the opposite.
    3. Their meetings were not equally balance across all 3 surfaces
    4. Roger's best years are over and now it's Rafa's time
    5. Besides past his prime Roger lost motivation b/c he's got nothing more to prove
    6. If having better H2H prove to be a better player, then nadal should have won more slams since 2005.

    An accurate h2h comparison would be like Fed vs. Roddick. They both are nearly the same age, peak the same time, and most importantly, their best/worst surface are identical. Roger has the edge in H2H, but he's also way ahead in slam count.
    Make sense to you now???
     
  22. robin7

    robin7 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    Why not?

    3AO (2 more) - possibly
    8FO (3 more) - very likely
    4WC (2 more) - very likely
    1USO (at least 1) - possibly

    :shock:That gives 16 GS!
     
  23. jukka1970

    jukka1970 Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    I rated this 1 star, because the poll choices are so damn stupid. Talk about a tunnel vision discussion
     
  24. statto

    statto Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    877
    Location:
    England
    When I first joined this board I posted that I thought Nadal could end up on 12-14 slams, and was roundly mocked for it.

    Less than a year later and most people would probably admit that 12 is very doable. That speaks volumes about Nadal's performances over the past 4 months.

    EDIT: Just checked and it was actually just 12, not 12-14 (2 more AO, 3 more RG, 3 more W, 0 USO). Two down, six to go. :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  25. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    1. They are nearly 5 years apart Up to now this made things harder on Nadal, not Federer. Nadal was SEVENTEEN years old when he first played Federer starting his dominance and prime years. Their final non clay meeting to date was when Nadal was still 22 and Federer 27. Yet despite this Nadal still managed to completely own Federer on clay over many meetings yet be 4-5 on non clay surfaces, and 3-3 on hard courts which is Federer's best surface and Nadal's worst- and those even include 2 Nadal losses indoors which is a non slam surface that Nadal really struggles on.

    2. Their best/worst surface are the opposite. This is true. And this is the point. Nadal owned Federer on his surface right from when he was 18 years old, while prime Federer could never own even a teenaged Nadal on his.

    3. Their meetings were not equally balance across all 3 surfaces

    Since Nadal wins almost every clay court meeting, and has won about half the non clay meetings, Nadal would still have a clear head to head edge even if only a third of the matches were on clay.

    4. Roger's best years are over and now it's Rafa's time

    That logic could be applied to 2004-2007. It was not Rafa's best years yet and it was Roger's time. It didnt stop Rafa from shutting Federer out of any big clay court titles, and beating him on other surfaces too.

    5. Besides past his prime Roger lost motivation b/c he's got nothing more to prove

    Yes, but this explains nothing to any of their past meetings other than one additional clay meeting this year.

    6. If having better H2H prove to be a better player, then nadal should have won more slams since 2005.

    Nadal was 18 years old at the start of 2005. What did Federer win between ages 18-21? Nadal has won more slams since turning he turned 22 in during the 2008 French than Federer too. In fact between the time of Nadal turning 21 and before Federer even turned 27 Nadal won 3 slams to Federer's 2 and far more tournaments overall if you want to do it that way as well.
     
  26. Aykhan Mammadov

    Aykhan Mammadov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    I think Federer will finish his career with 17 or 18 slams. By the way, if I'm not wrong Agassi whom u mentined here got just 8 slams for his long career. Nadal already has 8 slams, so that I think he will beat that possible record.
     
  27. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Why is it always the h2h that would be used to decide the greater player if they have a similar number of slams? What about other records? I'm not saying h2h isn't important, especially when two players has same number of slams, but I can't think why it'd be more important than other records.

    Would Nadal have more weeks at no1? Or more consecutive weeks? Or more YECs? Or 5 consecutive of any one slam (let alone two)? Or 3 slams in a year? Or Federer's crazy winning percentages in his best years? Or even just Federer-like domination? or win 24 straight finals? or not lose to a top 10 player for like a year and a half? or get 10 straight slam finals? or have the winning streak record on two of three surfaces? Surely these records put Federer on at least equal footing with Nadal even with equal GS titles.

    Oh, and there's plenty more where that came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  28. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Response in bolded parts.
     
  29. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,168
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I rated it 5 stars to balance out your irrational 1-star rating :)

    Don't take it so seriously... it's a freakin Internet poll :wink:
     
  30. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Hahahahahahahahahahah....


    ahahahahahahahah
     
  31. powerangle

    powerangle Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    5,248
    I know right? For a lot of *******s, that's what they hang their hat on. The head-to-head argument, because that's the only thing they've got going for them right now. Nadal has all the potential in the world, but head-to-head is not the end-all-be-all. Other stats do exist, and Nadal will be considered more accomplished when he has achieved more than Federer. Nadal is on pace right now and that's it, and I'm a Nadal fan.
     
  32. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    response in bolded parts
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  33. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Davey manages to slide in that bit all the time dosen't he?Using that logic anybody who could win slams and titles in their teenage years did so thanks to weak competition :lol:

    Seriously though-this just shows how insecure fans like davey are. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2010
  34. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    Davey's a moron. The guy's a joke. I'm just ashamed he's a fellow Canadian. This site needs a moderator badly.
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    ^^^
    Thanks guys for bringing this thread back to Earth again after Davey have taken it to a "twilight zone". I know it's incredibly difficult to deal with him rationally.
     
  36. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    People keep calling Nadal an "early bloomer". While on the surface that makes sense, especialy when said in the past, we are now seeing evidence he isnt as much an early bloomer as people said. What I mean by that is sure he was much better as a teenager than Roger and many others. On the other hand his prime years were not 2005 into his early 20s as people assumed. This is evidenced by the fact that his greatest achievements in tennis have come from 2008-today, especialy when healthy. He is winning hard court slams, he is winning grass court slams, he is even more brutally dominant on clay. In 2005 and 2006 he was producing weak results in all the slams outside the French and 1 Wimbledon. In 2007 he still couldnt even make a hard court slam semi yet. In hindsight it should be clear that was definitely not prime level Nadal yet. So while he was better at those ages than many, he still was at the disadvantage, the same way Roger will be at a disadvantage in any future meetings.

    Seriously it is dumb to suggest this was prime Nadal all along:

    Australian Open 2005-2007: 4th round, DNP, quarters
    Wimbledon 2005-2007: 3rd round, finals, finals, but eked past atleast 3 different low ranking guys in 5 sets for the 2 finals
    U.S Open 2005-2007: 3rd round, quarters, 4th round

    Not to mention Blake, Youzhny, and Berdych had a combined 8-3 record over Nadal before the 2007 clay court season began, with all matches taking place in 2005 or later. This would never happen to prime Nadal, as we see this year Berdych is playing the tennis of his life and still cant buy a set off Nadal.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  37. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    Location:
    Airstrip One
    I've thought about that before, and that's the way it would seem, yes.

    I think it all comes down to Nadal's incredible work ethic, and to the training of Uncle Toni. Nadal is like a beast that continues evolving and becoming better and better.

    The only question is whether injuries can be managed, or they will be a trouble that will keep him from achieving even more impressive goals.
     
  38. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    response in bolded parts.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  39. robin7

    robin7 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,155
    Assuming x & y are the # of GS to be won by Rafa & Roger respectively in the next 4 years (2011 to 2014). By that time Rafa & Roger will be 28 & 33 respectively.

    To overtake Roger in GS count, Rafa needs to win 2 GS more than Roger each year.

    8+x > 16+y
    x-y > 8
    1/4 (x-y) > 2

    Meaning if Roger wins 1, Rafa has to win 3 each year etc.

    Having said that, I don't think Roger will win any GS 2012 onwards while Rafa has a few more years left to win a couple more (of course barring from any injuries).
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  40. Bud

    Bud Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    31,168
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Primes

    I agree.

    I think Nadal will go through a number of 'primes' in his career. He changes and evolves (see 2005, 2008, 2010), constantly staying ahead of those who seem to figure out his 'current' playing style.

    In 2010, he improved what needed improvement and recognized he needed to amend his playing schedule to ease the stress on his knees. He also lost some weight to benefit the knees, as well. Now once again, 2010 is shaping up to be a stellar year... like 08 and 05.

    However, when all seems right and Rafa gains momentum once again, something happens to set him back. He then adapts, retrains and comes back stronger during the next iteration.

    IMO, this is a whole new class of player that nobody has witnessed up to this point (without sounding too dramatic). I'm really curious to see if this 'treatment' on his right knee removes all the pain as it did in his left knee. If so, it appears the sky's the limit for Rafa.

    Rafa has already won 3 big tournaments on DecoTurf (2x Canada Masters and the Olympic GM in Shanghai)... He's made the SF 2x in a row at the USO and was also a finalist on the DecoTurf at Shanghai in 09 (at his low point). So, the USO is absolutely attainable for him. IMO, once he breaks through there, after a huge break post-Wimby... he'll win a number of US Open titles.
     
  41. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793

    I don't know about a number. There are roughly six guys who I would favour on US Open hard courts

    Del Potro
    Murray
    Soderling
    Djokovic
    Davydenko
    Federer if he can find his form

    Nadal has had an awesome 3 months but you're forgetting he was losing to guys like Roddick and Ljubicic on slow hard court earlier in the year.
     
  42. aldeayeah

    aldeayeah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,985
    Of which 6 were less-than-MS tournaments, many of which he doesn't even play anymore.

    Slams+MS+WTF results (winner/runner-up):

    2005: 1/1 Slam 4/5 MS
    2006: 1/2 Slam 2/2 MS
    2007: 1/2 Slam 3/5 MS
    2008: 2/2 Slams 3/4 MS
    2009: 1/1 Slam 3/5 MS
    2010 YTD: 2/2 Slams 3/3 MS

    It sounds a bit like Lendl.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    People should stop minimize Nadal's playing level in 2005 just b/c he's 19 years old. Most players don't reach high level at 19 but only a few exception. Like Borg or Seles, he's an early bloomer, and plus, he join the ATP tour at 15, so it's not like he's a rookie in 2005. Besides the 11 titles, it was the only year he won 4 MS. Not to mention he skipped the Master Cup. Nadal's results was good enough to end the year #1 most likey in any year, but since Roger was so dominant he had to settle #2. If you go back and look at the year when Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi end the year #1, can you dare to say Rafa's #2 in 2005 was less stellar than him? No way!
     
  44. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Dosen't matter.Looking at the MS-slam combo that's still an excellent year.4 out 5 MS and losing one final in five sets to Roger-all sounds very good.
     
  45. aldeayeah

    aldeayeah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,985
    It does. I just was trying to provide a more comparable statistic across years since he did win a bunch of mickey mouse clay events that year as well.

    IMO the difference between the results of 2005 Rafa and 2007 Rafa (two relatively injury-free years) was due to scheduling and better competition at the top due to the rise of Novak Djokovic (although Ljubo was mighty in 2005 too, Novak was a better competitor).
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2010
  46. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,361
    Even if he try to win 11 titles in a year it's not a certain that he can do it today. The fact remain is both Roger and Rafa won 11 titles in 2005 and an undispute #1 and #2 respectively.
     
  47. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I have doubts that Nadal can maintain his fitness long enough to do it. His game is much more physically demanding on his body than most.
     
  48. Praetorian

    Praetorian Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,202
    Anyone here with so much certainty that they'll be their house? I'm not, but anything can happen.

    Hell, for all we know, some Junior may come out next to convert he *******s to bandwagontard when he comes along.
     
  49. samboy01

    samboy01 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2010
    Messages:
    503
    16 slams...

    What if Nadal ends with more master series titles, more overall titles, a very convincing head-to-head lead against Federer and wins 14 slams including the calendar grandslam next year, would he be GOAT? I'd say yes.
     
  50. Ray Mercer

    Ray Mercer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    793
    Possibly but is that assuming Federer remains at 16? Also, if his 14 slams contain 10 French Opens that does not do him any favours. Federer's grand slams are evenly dispursed aside from the FO where he would likely have 5 of those had it not been for Nadal. Rog has 6 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens and 4 Aussie Opens which is pretty diversified. The majority of Nadal's slams on the other hand have come from 1 tournament.
     

Share This Page