Most talented player of all time

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Apr 9, 2009.

  1. Joe Pike

    Joe Pike Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,309

    You would be surprised - I really have no "agenda".
    OK, Graf drew me to women's tennis. Before and after her I almost exclusively watched men's tennis.
    Her talent is extremely underrated. The ability to move around on the court like she did, her ability to hit technically extremely complicated shots (her late forehand, her really unique kind of BH slice) showed far more talent than Mandlikova types.
    Dont forget that Steffi had to cope with many injuries in the 90s, that she had to shorten her daily exercise program to about 50 % of what she did in the 80s. Just imagine what she could have accomplished if she had had a relatively injury-free career like Evert or Navratilova. Sadly it was not meant to be ...
     
  2. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,607
    Location:
    OREGON
    But you so rarely post on men's tennis. Why only Steffi?
     
  3. Joe Pike

    Joe Pike Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,309

    I rarely post on men's tennis because I prefer to watch it.
    Different with women's tennis. As I almost never watch it I have more time to post about it.
     
  4. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,607
    Location:
    OREGON
    You know that made no sense right? You have x amount of time to post/watch and can use it as you please and divide it so those matches you watch, are the matches you post about.
     
  5. ubermeyer

    ubermeyer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,176
    Location:
    Texas
    I think talent should be measured by success, excepting players who probably would have had big results but were sidelined by injury or other factors out of their control.

    So, I think Federer is the most talented player of all time.
     
  6. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    If success is measured by merely counting up major titles, then you'd be correct.
     
  7. NikeWilson

    NikeWilson Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    683
    Talent like God-gifted talent... Andre Agassi.
    His groundstrokes in particular were so natural, even at a young age.
    His hand-eye coordination was phenomenal. His power and precision was amazing. He was a tennis prodigy.

    He has revolutionized the game into what it is now. Everyone is a baseliner nowadays. Agassi is the Godfather of the baseline game.
    They all took his cue and improved on it with more topspin and better running/fitness.

    He was very talented and very exciting to watch. I miss him. :(
     
  8. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    So, you've never heard of Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg or Ivan Lendl?
     
  9. chandler bing

    chandler bing Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2011
    Messages:
    178
    Justine Henin is the most talented player I've ever seen.
     
  10. robbo1970

    robbo1970 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,259
    Location:
    UK
    and for me too. My favourite player.

    Obviously not the most successful, but the title of the thread says talented and Bahrami is a genius! Some of the tricks and skill he displays, a lot of the most successful players could only watch and admire.

    He is Mr Entertainment as far as tennis is concerned. I would imagine that when the senior tours and exhibitions are on, he is the one the fans want to see.

    I'm hoping to get to see him one day :)
     
  11. Down_the_line

    Down_the_line Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    8,043
    Location:
    Edmonton, Canada
    I'm shocked - I repeat, shocked - that nobody has said Federer. I know what the OP is getting at, but I still think Federer is the most talented player of all time. What makes him the greatest player is his massive accomplishments that accompany the talent.

    EDIT: Nevermind, just saw that someone mentioned Fed on the page before this one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2011
  12. Iron Man

    Iron Man Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    yes shocked because many people here are biased against Fed even though all the experts and the ordinary people agree that his talent is unique

    indeed , no other player comes close to him as far as talent is concerned . maybe he 's not the stongest mentally maybe he's not the most physically powerful one but he's for sure the one who captivates us with the genius he has ..

    perhaps some people will reailize this when he retires ..

    no doubt there were other talented players such as agassi nadal mcenroe laver sampras rios santoro djokovic but Federer is far ahead ..
     
  13. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    This is classic overstatement. "All the experts" don't agree that Federer is the most talented player of all time. He is certainly one of them. But, there are some who think, for example, that Pancho Gonzales was the most talented player of all time. I personally think he may have been the greatest athlete over 6' tall in tennis history. The same can be said for Pete Sampras, Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Ilie Nastase, and John McEnroe. Federer may be the most talented, and most skilled player of the oversized, graphite racquet era, which has resulted in the highest level of play on an absolute basis. But, I personally expect that any of these other players would have done the same, maybe better, had they played in Federer's era.
     
  14. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Wouldn't worry about it. "ironman" is a the classic idiot fanboy. As near as I can tell, he's posted TWICE not about Federer.

    Pearls of ignorance include:

    "federer won't retire until he gets at least 25 slams ... so no hope for his haters
    "

    "24 slams I guess "

    "I don't think that sampras would be a problem for federer , he already played against players who have better serve than sampras and beat them easily . technically and tactically federer has the edge so I guess Roger will find multiple solutions to handle him ."


    "borg is boring to watch ..
    sampras a little bit

    no way davydenko is boring , on the contrary he's so exciting to watch "

    "anyone who's playing in this era is really unlucky because Federer is there .. I fancy someone like Djokovic could have been one of the Goats if he had played in another era .. "

    "I'm a big fan of Federer and I'll keep on supporting him till he retires
    no other player has his talent and no player can make me watch the whole match through

    Federer is a legend and legends... "


    "yes Pete can beat Federer at his prime but once or twice out of ten matches ... "

    "you're an idiot by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar ..

    stop trolling and overhyping your player , you really made me hate sampras with your silly comments and hype .."
    (oh the irony....)


    "i admit that berdy is a great player , as for federer what he lacks is a bit of confidence that's all"

    "he would be unbeatable and untouchable" (If Fed tried to use his backhand as his dominant stroke! LOL)

    "he cried because he's very sensitive and emotional and because he lost the match he was supoosed to win against his main rival plus he thought that he disappointed all his fans who were waiting eagerly for tying the record ...
    it's not easy for the guy who is unanimously considered to be the GOAT to lose many slam titles against someone who is less talented than him and in the same scenario and the same way ..}
    (TRUE, but Rog found a way to do it)

    "if they had played 10 times for instance , Roger would have led 8 - 2
    with my high respect to Pete as a great champion .."



    "Federer is the GOAT not because he has more grand slams , but because he's the most gifted , talented and polyvalent player in tennis history "


    "I'll stop watching tennis if Federer loses to Nadal in the US open

    it's unfair !

    but , inchalla , Federer will beat him easily if he plays his game
    "
     
  15. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Discussions about talent usually don't refer to fulfilled talent, but to potential talent that is suspected to have remained somewhat unfulfilled in terms of accomplishments.

    If discussions about talent referred to fulfilled talent, then of course the first candidates would be the ones who accomplished the most in each period. I take it as a given that all top players and multiple slam winners from each decade have by definition the largest amount of *fulfilled* talent in that period. There is no such a thing as a top tennis player without a huge amount of talent for tennis. Assuming that a person can become a top tennis player by discipline and hard work alone, is like assuming you can bake a loaf of bread without dough.

    So the discussion is always oriented to finding out the extent of the gap between the assumed amount of natural or raw talent, and the actual, fulfilled talent as shown by accomplishments. In other words, how much of the originally available dough did not make it, for whatever reasons, in the actual baked loaf.

    There are some conceptual difficulties in these notions, because the unfulfilled part of a player’s game is always the part of his game you don't see. If you saw it, it wouldn't be unfulfilled. It is largely theoretical. But you feel you can get hints of it, signs, hunches, based on sporadic displays of unusual brilliance, and you say: "ah, if this particular skill had been honed further, or made more steady, he would have accomplished a lot more.”

    Which does not answer the question whether the skill could in fact have been honed further.

    It is also a fact that the criteria to detect these brilliances is based on deeply-set on aesthetic preferences, which are tied to a notion of naturalness. Good one-handed backhands tend seem more pleasant than two handed ones. A serve motion like Jay Berger’s would seem ugly even if it had been extremely effective, and so on.

    I think it is good to engage in these talent discussions provided we are aware of what we are taking for granted. I can go along with the notion that in some players (say Marcelo Rios to name one obvious case) a good amount of the original dough may not have made it into the baked loaf. But how far am I willing to carry this? Did Rios really have more talent than the top players in his generation or in other generations? Did he have more talent than, say, Wilander? Really? I am not convinced.

    Of course Santana, and Newcombe, and Panatta, and Gerulaitis, and Rafter and even Santoro were all very talented. But relative to who? Were they more talented than the players ranked above them? Or did they have something pleasing in their game that you associate with talent?

    So it gets tricky.
     
  16. tennischemist

    tennischemist Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Is there any real way to answer this?

    I would have to say McEnroe due to his success in Tennis in spite of a relatively normal (though privileged) upbringing - ie - not beating thousands of balls every single day, playing a variety of sports. Federer fits into this too.

    Their primes also represent some of the best pure "shotmaking" I've ever seen though I have to confess I am not as well-versed in Tennis history as much of TT seems to be.

    Those two men, though, consistently make my jaw drop.
     
  17. ced

    ced Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    747
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Definitely between Federer and Laver ....runners-up would be Hoad, Gonzales, Rosewall, Kramer, Tilden ...... followed by Borg, Sampras, McEnroe .... then a whole lot of others, because there have been a lot of really good tennis players.
     
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    It's hard to talk about Tilden and Kramer and not Gonzales.
     
  19. Joe Pike

    Joe Pike Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,309

    You guys are so old.
    I have never seen Tilden or Kramer play, grandpa ...
     
  20. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Guys, there are no sure answers in this thread. Frankly I find it odd that some say Federer is no doubt the most talented player ever. Perhaps he is but perhaps he isn't. How do we measure talent? This thread is opinion and discussion. So many in the past have named Lew Hoad as the most talented ever. Many have named Bill Tilden. Many Rod Laver or Borg or McEnroe or Vines. A ton of people have named Nastase, Budge, Federer, Leconte, Kovacs, Cochet.

    One other thing, I don't get how some can write Sampras would lose to Federer nine or eight out of ten when Federer's lifetime winning percentage is 80 percentage against everyone. And Sampras is not ordinary. Incidentally Sampras won 77 percentage against everyone for his career. Not exactly a huge difference.

    Pete's best year was around the 90 percent range, a bit lower than that and Federer's was in the 90 percent plus range. How is that a total mismatch? Just asking. No one knows for sure.

    Results don't always indicate talent. Generally speaking a great player often has great talent but sometimes the greater talent doesn't always win. You cannot argue results and therefore talent but it can be an indicator.

    For example many who saw Lew Hoad play were convinced he was more talented than Pancho Gonzalez. Gonzalez however had the far greater record and is arguably the greatest ever. Hoad was done in perhaps by several factors, one was he was injured and the other was perhaps lack of motivation.

    Ilie Nastase was one of the greatest talents in history but he could get distracted to say the least. Many have exceeded Nastase in record but most believe few if any have exceeded Nastase in talent.

    Did Djokovic increase his talent this year over last year since he's almost unbeatable now or is Nadal losing his talent because he's won only one major this year as opposed to last year with three majors? I don't think either is true.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2011
  21. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I have few doubts that kriek has been of the lost talents.Much better than Rios, and it proves the depth of tennis in Kriek´s time.Borg,Lendl,Connors,Mc and later Wilander,Becker,Edberg and Cash deprived Johan to make a real memorable career.Talent wise, he was as good as many of them.No doubt.
     
  22. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Joe,

    It's an opinion thread and we often go by videos or what we read about a player. I doubt if many here have seen Tilden or Kramer play. I do know people however who have seen many of the all time greats and you have to respect their opinions.

    Now I've seen Steffi Graf play many times (I was there at the US Open for example when she finished her Golden Slam) and I know she's a super gifted player but even if I didn't I would realize what a great talent she was by the videos and from what I've read. A lot of people here have never seen Graf play either. Would you have them reject her as a super talent because they have never seen her?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2011
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I think the big question is not who is the most talented, rather which era gives the greatest amount of talent in the top 10 players...to me, it should be, late 50´s-early 60´s and late 70´s to middle 80´s.You won´t find more talent spread in as many greta players as it happened in those 2 periods.Of course, it is my humble opinion ( backed up by many tv experts that saw all the action)
     
  24. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    There's a good one.

    All that shock for nothing.
     
  25. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, and you are so _________ .
     
  26. ClarkC

    ClarkC Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    3,772
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    Mikhail Youzhny, for sheer artistry and imagination.
     
  27. Hypatia

    Hypatia New User

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    41
    Maybe the most impressive combination of power and finesse in the last few decades till Federer came along.
     
  28. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I would say Kriek's temper and loss of focus played a bigger role in his limited success than his competition. He was the real deal in terms of shotmaking. Few, if any, could out-hit Kriek. He just couldn't keep his head together consistently enough to win more championships.

    Here's a short clip of Kriek's game against a few all timers:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnAKAOA1SiU
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2011
  29. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Regarding your last paragraph, if we take talent as something innate, it doesn't really make sense to say that it can increase or decrease. Its amount is fixed from birth, and is the basis upon which you build your skill, which of course can increase or decrease depending on training, learning, age etc.

    The problem is that talent really cannot be seen by itself in a grown player. You can only see the skill, which will always be a composite of (innate) talent + all the other factors that go into building the skill. Trying to distinguish the talent from all the other stuff can only be guesswork when looking at a grown player. It's easier in a child. Give a racquet to a couple of 3 year olds who have never had one in their hands, and who have been exposed to comparable stimulus up to then, and if one of them quickly shows far superior skill at striking a tennis ball, then you could safely say he has more talent. But even this can be inconclusive. If you repeat the experiment two years later, it's possible the other one learns faster at that age.

    My impression is the talent of ANY of the current top 50 players would have quickly stood out at a very young age if placed among a random sample of other kids their age. Without it
     
  30. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    My friend, I meant when you wrote. Read my last sentence.
     
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    True, a big underachiever, yet 4 GS titles... Rios?????
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He belongs to the GRAFitte era, no doubt
     
  33. Set Sampras

    Set Sampras Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    269

    Quite Simple really.. Sampras is one of the most universally hated all time greats there is. Maybe the most hated.. Even when he was on top of the tennis world, most didn't care for him. They wanted Agassi to be at the top since he was so universally more well loved with the media fans etc.
     
  34. Set Sampras

    Set Sampras Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Anyways.. Who knows who the most talented player to ever grace the court is. So many different all time greats have their strengths and have their weaknesses. Another thing to remember is regardless of talent, you have to possess the other characteristics to be an all time great.

    Talent only gets you so far. Talent combined with drive, focus, mental toughness, etc.. are what all the true greats have/had. to be honest, you can't have one or the other and aspect an all time great career. Very few have all these aspects. The ones that do have historically been the most successful and have carved the best careers for themselves.
     
  35. Joe Pike

    Joe Pike Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    3,309
    Well, then bring on all those Tilden videos ...
     
  36. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,774
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    Agree ...

    GOAT wrt Talent really means ...

    - All eras should be considered
    - Strenght of eras should be considered
    - Anyone who claims Federer or Sampras or McEnroe really should have read about and hopefully reviewed some of the history/video for Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Kramer, Gonzales, Vines, Budge, Tilden, ...

    Sampras vs Federer is a more reasonable debate since there is some overlap with careers and some common opponents. I have always thought Sampras had more difficult and talented era to compete in, thus stats that are not quite as impressive as Federer. Now that Djokovich and Nadal have entered thier primes, I think the Sampras/Fed stats will become even more even, ie winning percentage over career.

    I believe that GOAT and most talented ever kind of comparisons really are unfair to make for different eras. Having said this, I do not think it is fair to say that Gonzales is more talented than Federer, or visa versa.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2011
  37. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Rod Laver could do everything well, had all the shots invented and some not invented..and he did it in the flashiest way...to me this is the closest definition of the absolutest talent.
     
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    I agree with you Joe. That being written I think we all have our opinions on who is more talented. For example I thought Miloslav Mecir was more talented than Ivan Lendl but obviously Lendl accomplished far far more. Many who saw Mecir at the time (late 1980's) thought Mecir was the most talented in the world.
     
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Mecir was a very good player, with a natural talent.But he isn´t more talented than many who achieved more.Maybe he´d rate as one of the top 5 non slam winners, but this is as far as he gets.
     
  40. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    You are so right. Sampras was the least respected great player ever. It was shameful to see. He brought tennis to a whole new level when he was on top. I cheered against him since I was an Agassi fan but even I admired Sampras and how tough he was to beat and topple from the top, and his amazing weapons and all court tennis. His so called lack of personality is a joke. He has more personality than Djokovic or Federer seem to, that is for sure. Djokovics attempt of humour is to say he wants to throw out smelly shoes in an interview, ugh. I was very impressed by his book. It was eloquent and very well written.
     
  41. BrooklynNY

    BrooklynNY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,627
    Agreed, Pete is the most hated of all the all time greats, For christs sakes go take a look at the "Best Volleyer ever" thread, he is rarely mentioned, and somehow on TT he ranks 21st in footwork, behind Andy Murray.

    Some people just hate greatness , look at Kevin Durrant, he is the best player in the NBA, but no one even mentions the guy.
     
  42. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    I thought his book was boring and pointless. It was just:

    "I played pretty well in the 1999 Wimbledon final I guess"

    Agassi's book was the other extreme though. So melodramatic it was actually funny.
     
  43. Set Sampras

    Set Sampras Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    269

    Definitely.. Maybe I was wrong to say "hated", but you phrased it right with "least respected". I think alot of it has to do with maybe more dry humor he employed, he wasn't a big media sensation, paparazzi star looking for attention every other week and making news headlines. Heck he didn't even stay in NY when he played the USO because he didn't want to put up with all the media buzz. He was more introverted and reserved then his predecessors Mac, Connors, Agassi etc. he let his play do the talking, while others let their mouth do the talking many times. Personally I loved both Andre and Pete. Didn't really have a preference, but jeesh I agree, never seen someone so least respected of an all time great then Sampras.. Never. I prefer watching geniuses in play and accomplish great feats. Sports shouldn't be a popularity contest. We have enough of that on tv as it is. If pete was the media mogul that other guys were, I think Pete would no doubt have had his just due. But when people think of Pete they say, "Boring." Why? Because he wasn't Safin or Agassi, of Djokovic or Nadal and Fed etc with the media? The guy could do it all on the court. If he was goofball, immature circus act and dominated or a Paparazzi nightclub guy dragging the media on a leash around him or doing have naked Guess Jeans or Rolex commercials , he would be looked on as a god probably.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  44. Tshooter

    Tshooter Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,225
    "His so called lack of personality is a joke. He has more personality than Djokovic or Federer seem to, that is for sure."

    You may like Sampras but it's clouding your judgement. As far as the public person, Sampras was devoid of personality. Djokovic has a ton and always has. Fed in the middle of those two.
     
  45. Set Sampras

    Set Sampras Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    269
    Yea.. You mean to tell me Pete isn't a top tier volleyer? I can only think of a handful that were better. If that.
     
  46. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    I never thought Sampras was hated as a player. I think the public showed him great respect. I think however in comparison to Federer that he isn't nearly as popular. It's amazing how loved Federer is.

    As far as Sampras being a top tier volleyer, I think he's a superb volleyer but there's been a lot of great volleyers in tennis history so you can be a super volleyer and have some ahead of you. But if you add his awesome serve to his excellent volley it is hard to top that combination.

    For example a lot of people think Edberg is superior as a volleyer to Sampras but who would you rather having to hold serve for the match, Edberg or Sampras? I think most would say Sampras.
     
  47. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    I can think of five players with better volleys off the top of my head.
     
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Question for both of you---How would Sampras rank as a volleyer today?

    Obviously we're getting a bit off topic but I do think volleying is a great talent and shows the quickness in hand/eye coordination so I suppose it can fit here in this thread.
     
  49. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Today? Probably the best. However, I wouldn't say he's light years ahead of a guy like, say, Llodra or anything. Llodra is actually really good.
     
  50. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    You think Llodra is as good at covering the net and hitting volley winners as Pete Sampras?

    Really?

    Jesus... [​IMG]
     

Share This Page