Top spin production in ground strokes -- namely calling for Ash

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by 10isfreak, Aug 1, 2013.

  1. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,381
    I think racket face angle, swing path angle and swing speed all contribute to spin.

    I think a closed face on the same swing path angle and at the same swing speed will produce slightly more topspin.

    And, yes racket face angle also impacts departure trajectory angle.

    TW has a study on serve where that have "proven" that hitting the top 1/2 of the ball produces more spin. A closed face on the topspin FH is in effect hitting the top 1/2 of the ball and you encounter a smidge less resistance at impact and maintain a higher racket speed thru contact resulting in more RPMs on the way out.

    Practically, I don't consciously muck with racket face angle and just use my hands in conjunction with my swing path to get the up/down trajectory that I want. I have accepted that a slightly closed face is good and use this on topspin shots but again, I never think I am closing the racket 2 degrees more than normal. The racket face angle just sort of happens with practice.
     
    #51
  2. TennisCJC

    TennisCJC Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,381
    But, on topspin lobs, the face may be parallel or slightly open since I am trying to get a much higher outbound trajectory.
     
    #52
  3. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    For higher balls, more closed face can be used. Helps keep the shot lower. For lower balls, more open face is safer for net clearance.

    But there are some players with extreme W or H grips who manage to grab a low ball with an extremely closed face and launch it high.
     
    #53
  4. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Don't know how to paste the graphs here, but go to http://twu.tennis-warehouse.com/learning_center/trajectories/trajectories.php and click the boxes for racket swing angle and racket tilt for spin out column.

    FOR A TOPSPIN STROKE

    The greater the swing angle, the greater the spin out.

    Other Effects: Greater swing angle also produces less speed out and a higher launch angle. The distance inceases for a while but begins to decline as the trajectory becomes more and more vertical (see other graphs in the Swing Angle row).

    Spin out is increased by greater ball speed in, racquet tip speed, swing angle, racquet tilt, and impact more toward the tip.

    Spin out is decreased by greater ball spin in and a greater ball angle in. (See other graphs in Spin Out column.)

    FOR A TOPSPIN STROKE

    The greater the forward racquet tilt, the greater the spin out.

    Other Effects: Greater tilt also produces less speed and lower launch angle. The result is shorter shot distance (see other graphs in the Racquet Tilt row).

    Spin out is increased by greater ball speed in, racquet tip speed, swing angle, racquet tilt, and impact more toward the tip.

    Spin out is decreased by greater ball spin in and a greater ball angle in. (See other graphs in Spin Out column.)


    -----------------------------------
    Racket tilt change from 4 degrees to 10 degrees can change RPM from 940 to 1500.
     
    #54
  5. Power Player

    Power Player Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    20,008
    Location:
    On my iPhone
    Low to high motion combined with high racquet head speed.
     
    #55
  6. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Come off it Cheetah, almost every post I've seen you write has been in some way serving your own ego or being condescending towards others.

    In the case of Nadal's forehand - the ones that loop very high over the net, is he hitting those with a relatively perpendicular racket face, or is it severely closed? You can imagine how fast he'd be swinging upwards to get the ball that high when his strings are pointing at the floor when he makes contact with the ball.
     
    #56
  7. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    I post to help others and give my opinion, not to stoke my ego. Yea I'm confident and cocky and competitive. If you don't like it then you can block me. I couldn't care less what you think of my posts. I'll post what I want and how I want.

    You mean the 'moonballs' he hits as you called them in the other thread? First of all they're not moonballs.
    He hits with varying degrees of face angle depending on contact point and the characteristics of the incoming ball. I think he hits with some degree of closed face even on the high arcing ones. (meaning just 1 to 5 degrees or something for his 'moonballs') I think.
     
    #57
  8. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    How would that physically be possible? The ball doesn't care how you're gripping the racquet. Perhaps it just appears that way.
     
    #58
  9. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Look, I love Nadal. I think he's great, but; why do you take issue with the term moonball to describe his moonball shots? Would you prefer the term "heavy ball?" Would you prefer the term hyper-badass-mooball-of-super-power?

    Nadal is able to combine pace, with upper register RPM, with a moonball trajectory creating one of the most frustrating shots to return in professional tennis.

    Doesn't it go without saying that Nadal's moonballs do not have the same hackish qualities of a rec player's moonballs?
     
    #59
  10. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    To me, hitting a hyper-badass-of-super-power-high arcing ball is not a moonball. My definition of moonball includes a lack of pace, heaviness and aggression. Nadal's high shots are high arcing, have a lot of spin, kick up high, are specifically targeted to all areas of the court and are hard to handle generally. He throws them in looking to draw a weak reply or to give a different look.

    A moonball is usually hit with a low degree of spin and pace, generally go back to the center of the court and are usually hit by players with no offensive options in their arsenal in that situation or overall in general, or weren't in correct position so that's all they could manage or they are being tentative and ultra safe hoping that the opponent will eventually make a mistake if they keep moonballing it back. A moonball is not a lob and I"m not referring to balls hit when being stretched out wide so you pop one up deep to give you time to recover.

    That's my definition. Maybe the general consensus on this forum of what a moonball is is different. idk.
     
    #60
  11. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,385
    I just don't see Nadal hitting moonballs a lot. He hits a very hard, fast ball with a lot of spin. I've stood 10' behind him at Indian Wells as he was pounding ball after ball. His net clearance was about 2 feet, which is a lot considering the pace that he was hitting with. Cheetah was standing right next to me.

    Yes, he'll kick up stuff to a right hander's backhand, but everyone does that. Heck, I do that and I suck. But generally he hits really hard, with a lot spin. The ball is heavy and kind of violent.
     
    #61
  12. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,450
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    The more swingspeed you put in, the more topspin you can get.
     
    #62
  13. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Yeah it is probably an illusion that they are scooping up. I think they are hitting at the lower edge of the racket.
     
    #63
  14. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    Doesn't sound like we disagree, I mean; look at what I wrote again. Emphases added.

    Seems to me you just don't like the connotation some have with the term moonball. The moonball, hit in the way Nadal hits it, is an excellent shot, and one that can be replicated (to a much lesser degree) at the rec level to great effect.
     
    #64
  15. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    Maybe. But I think it is you who doesn't like the connotation associated with moonball. I'm perfectly fine with it. The connotation evolved for a reason. There's nothing wrong with a moonball. (per my current definition of moonball). We all hit moonballs.

    According to your definition, the term moonball only refers to the trajectory of the ball then. Is that right? And if so, what would you say the difference is between a moonball and a lob? Degree of arc? What about the difference between a looping topspin shot and a moonball?

    To me, the term moonball is perfectly named. A moon is quiet, slow, un-intimidating, it goes up and it goes down, it's peacefull, the major factor of it's movement is gravity, when ppl see a moon it's time to sleep.

    Maybe we need a new term... like 'Sunball'. Now if you would say Nadal hits a 'sunball' everyone would understand exactly what you mean. It's high, it's hot and heavy, it's spinning, violent, and dangerous, it's huge mass and gravity bends time and space, it creates it own energy and others are affected by it's imposing gravity.

    There. you heard it here first. I've just coined the term 'Sunball'.
    "Nadal's sunballs create havoc on federer's backhand."
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
    #65
  16. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Wow, you so fierce. U reminding me of Beyonce right now.

    Nadal hits topspin moonballs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJpmtCm70Vc

    Btw, it could be an illusion, but in most of the above 'topspin' backhands, it looks like Djokovic is 'scooping' a bit on them, with a slightly open racket face, yet still a topspin low-to-high swing path. If it is indeed the case that the racket head is slightly open (a degree or so), at contact, does that mean these backhands are completely flat, have topspin on them, or have slice on them?
     
    #66
  17. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    Yes I'm fierce. I apologize. Quite passive in person. Internet debating brings out my inner kitty.

    You posted a slow mo vid of djokovic.

    edit: oh wait.. u meant to post that vid. hold on... lemme check it out.
     
    #67
  18. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    #68
  19. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,450
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Nadal consistently get's the most topspin on his groundies because he consistently swings the fastest of any pro tennis player.
    His angle of racket face is incidental, only to control height of the ball leaving his racket.
     
    #69
  20. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,305
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    All other factors being equal, a more closed racket face does increase topspin. It allows for asymmetrical force on the top half of the ball, depending on the nature of the incoming ball.

    For ease of understanding, imagine a perfectly horizontal incoming ball, which has no spin on it. Now just block this ball with the racket face. If the racket face is perfectly vertical, then the ball will be struck in the middle, resulting in no spin and no downward or upward deviation from the horizontal plane (we're ignoring gravity and string deformation etc cos they don't change the underlying trends).

    Now if you close the racket face slightly and block the same horizontal ball, it will result in the ball coming off the racket downwards and with topspin. Why? Because of the asymmetrical force aplied to it. The top part of the ball is blocked, while the bottom part keeps going, which results in the spin.

    Conversely, if you open the racket face slightly to block the same ball, you will end up with an upward trajectory and backspin, because this time you're blocking the bottom part of the ball while the top part keeps going.

    This is the reason why the more open the racket face, the more vertical swingpath (and faster swing speed) you need to achieve the same topspin
     
    #70
  21. LeeD

    LeeD Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    36,450
    Location:
    East side of San Francisco Bay
    Closed racket face without a fast swing ='s a ball hit into the ground.
    Fast swing with an open racket face, but very upwards swingpath, still gives you a topspin lob.
    Need fast swing FIRST.
    Racket face is only to control height of ball over the net.
     
    #71
  22. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,305
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I agree that in the game of tennis the angle of the racket face is used primarily to control trajectory. Just stating the fact that it has an effect on spin production too.

    You can even have a situation when ALL your topspin comes from the racket face being slightly closed, with no upwards swingpath at all. Like putting away a short high ball.
     
    #72
  23. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    Does anyone think pocketing comes into play? I've always felt it does but never gave it much thought. In other words when the ball hits the strings the varying degrees of face closure will affect how the ball pockets into the strings and this would have an effect on the spin produced.

    It seems that most of the formulas and calculators are using hard collision theory like billiard balls but I would think that what's happening is more of an elastic collision. Like since the strings bend and push back there might be some effect of different tensions on the string at different points of the ball thus affecting spin somehow... Or something... idk.

    and maybe a racquet flexes differently depending on how you meet the ball etc etc.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2013
    #73
  24. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Yes that is what I mentioned that I suspect that more closed face increases dwell time. Pros are also using ridiculously low tensions so they may get the closure effect even without much closure because the strings close over the ball more.
     
    #74
  25. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    According to Rod Cross topspin formula:
    1. If direction of the racquet velocity is above of the normal to the racquet string bed, then Djokovic hits topspin backhand.
    2. If direction of the racquet velocity is below of the normal to the racquet string bed, then Djokovic hits backspin backhand.
    This is the main factor that builds ball’s spin. Closed or open racquet doesn’t create topspin, but changes outgoing ball’s trajectory (low or high arc). :):shock:
     
    #75
  26. tennis_hack

    tennis_hack Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,826
    Well, what would be the point of hitting a very hard low-to-high swing path, closed racket face shot?

    The effect would be to create a very heavy topspin shot that goes low over the net so therefore cannot kick up to head-height on the opponent... One of the major advantages of heavy topspin is that it can be used to kick the ball up to above head-height on the opponent, thereby forcing a weak reply. You can hit so high and fast over the net that a spin-less moonball would fly miles long, but the spin will dip the ball in and force people to deal with this bounce. You cannot do this if you hit low over the net - even if you have heavy topspin on the shot, a low shot bounces low.

    I suppose if you hit a heavy topspin shot low over the net you can hit harder and have the ball still dip in before it goes long, but isn't it easier to slow down the swing slightly slower, open the racket face slightly more, and hit more through the ball in a flatter swing path like Berdych and Tomic? They can swing slower because all of their racket-head energy goes into pace, not spin. Their shots will have just as much pace as a heavy topspin shot aimed low over the net.

    It seems to me that you can either go for a high looping shot, in which case heavy topspin is your friend, or a flat kill shot, in which case topspin has little use.

    What is the advantage of a low, heavy topspin shot? You can't exactly say it has high margin for error because it still goes low over the net. You can't exactly say it will cause a nightmare to deal with when it bounces, because it won't kick up to above head-height. I can't see an advantage of this type of shot - if you're hitting low, you may as well hit flat.
     
    #76
  27. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    In my opinion, the term moonball generally refers to the trajectory and the context of the point, for instance; If someone is at the net, and you go over their head with a moonball, it's essentially synonymous with offensive lob. I do believe the moonball has to land deep, and be hit in rally position to classify as a moonball. A defensive lob, which is usually hit considerably higher than an offensive lob, would not qualify as a moonball.

    If someone hits a slow, peaceful, quiet moonball to the middle of the court, I would probably qualify it as a "poor" or a "pushed" moonball. But, if someone crushes a paced, violently spinning moonball to the backhand corner--which you amusingly referred to as a sunball, lol!--I would qualify it as a "good" or "great" moonball.

    You mentioned the looping topspin shot (which I've always thought was a hilarious name for a shot). If you loop a topspin in a rally to the back of the court in a rally (not passing someone), I would call it a moonball. If you hit a high looping topspin short angle, and you don't want to use the term short angle, you could probably say looping topspin short angle. I don't think moonball would qualify in this instance.

    In that video you posted, Nadal clears the net by a little more than 6 feet (9+ feet off the ground). I consider that a great moonball: good trajectory, nice pace, deep, and aimed at the corner.
     
    #77
  28. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    Good post. I think your definition is good.
    I concede.
     
    #78
  29. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    You just broke the Internet, lol!
     
    #79
  30. 10isfreak

    10isfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    Indian Wells isn't peculiarly fast, but it ain't clay either; anyone -- including Nadal -- will try to take advantage of the lower, faster bounces of a hard court. On clay, he hits higher and slower, but good observation.

    Anyone who saw a court level view of a professional tennis match could tell the ball travels lower than what you'd normally expect given the average height an amateur would go for. With that said, bear in mind that the net is 3 feet high at its lowest point and 2 feet of clearance means the ball is still travelling 5 feet above the ground, which is relatively high if you think in terms of an average adult body.
     
    #80
  31. 10isfreak

    10isfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    I can't help but think that the many diagrams of lines and circles in books circumscribed the analysis, as if, because we were shown these as representations of a racket-to-ball collision, we ought to think with them. It would be so much more interesting if that explanation were true, but I suspect it's a question of complexity: balls and strings bend in many ways and we're caught with that, unable to related to it because nothing else compares in our every day lives.
     
    #81
  32. toly

    toly Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,993
    This post is too complicated for me, sorry. :(
     
    #82
  33. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,880
    Location:
    San Diego
    A high bouncing ball isn't the ultimate and only viable goal of a groundstroke. Sometimes you want a ball to bounce low.

    A heavy shot is heavy. That's the benefit. A flat shot has less margin of error. The net is not the only obstacle to overcome. There's also the lines on the other side of the court.

    That's it? What about variety? That's an asset/weapon too.

    . it's heavy. that's enough reason right there.
    . topspin gives margin of error
    . a low trajectory heavily spun ball still kicks. it kicks more forward than up. This is also difficult to deal with especially after lulling the opponent into a semi-groove after hitting them 3-4 higher arcing shots or even a sunball.
    . low w/ hard spin will penetrate the court
    . There's also sidespin to take into account
    . passing shots
    . a heavy topspin flat trajectory shot of pace P is harder to handle than a straight up flat ball of pace P
    . Berdych's forehands have a lot of spin even on the flat appearing shots
     
    #83
  34. Jkramer

    Jkramer New User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    1) think racket face angle, swing path angle and swing speed all contribute to spin.

    Right on. The article's author was incorrect by saying and giving diagram of only two variables which contribute to top spin: racket face angle and swing path angle, and missing the third variable: swing speed. Example: if Fed and Nadal repeat the same shot as shown on the article, but swing slower, then the ball would spin less, and also land into the bottom of the net.

    2) I think a closed face on the same swing path angle and at the same swing speed will produce slightly more topspin.

    Fault. Top spin, or RPM of ball rotation, is depend ONLY on swing path angle and swing speed, period.
    A correct statement should be like this:

    " I think a closed face on the same swing path angle and at the same swing speed will produce slightly lower ball trajectory."

    In other word, as in Physics text book, ball rotation speed after impact depends ONLY on racket speed VECTOR (direction of swing and swing speed). However, a very fast swing as Fed or Nadal FH, impact the ball at 3 o'clock (vertical racket face) would land the ball out side the baseline. Therefore, to keep the ball in at this fast FH, they HAVE TO impact the ball at slightly higher than 3 o'clock position (closed face), which create a downward force to land the ball inside. In other word, the article was right about you can hit topspin with a closed racket face ( as oppose to armchair researcher Vic Braden who insisted that the face never closed). However, the article was WRONG about "topspin was created by closed racket face". Fact is that closed racket face does not create more (or less) topspin. Here is another look about this: brushing the ball at 3 (vertical face) , 2 (20 degree close), or 12 (90 degree close) o'clock position does not change the spin speed, but it changes the ball path after impact.

    Anyway, this serves us no purpose in real life tennis, since we never can tell, during hitting the ball, what is the racket face angle. Through trial and error (practice), we automatically compensate a fast, high topspin shot by slightly closing the racket face without knowing, to keep the ball in the court.
     
    #84
  35. Attila_the_gorilla

    Attila_the_gorilla Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,305
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I'm sorry to quote my own post, but I'd like Jkramer to ponder this:

     
    #85
  36. Jkramer

    Jkramer New User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Originally Posted by Attila_the_gorilla:
    1) "All other factors being equal, a more closed racket face does increase topspin. It allows for asymmetrical force on the top half of the ball, depending on the nature of the incoming ball."

    True, but only if we look at a very minor spin speed here, and only with a much greater than racket angle of 11 (Fed) to 15 (Nadal) degree angle as tennis players do. Try this: lock the racket at 11 deg and shoot a horizontal ball to it, and can you observe any spin on the impacted ball? Almost none.
    So, in math equation, this will product a none zero spin nonetheless. However, no body can close the racket with 30 degree or more to generate any observable spin and still be able to lift the ball over the net -- this guarantees the ball will be at the bottom of the net.

    2) "Now if you close the racket face slightly and block the same horizontal ball, it will result in the ball coming off the racket downwards and with topspin. Why? Because of the asymmetrical force aplied to it. The top part of the ball is blocked, while the bottom part keeps going, which results in the spin."

    If you close the racket face slightly. How much? At 11 deg as Fed did in the article? At this small angle, there is probably 0.0001 RPM spin measured by very sensitive equipments.

    To sum up: The main reason one needs to slightly close the racket face at impact is to lower the trajectory of the ball, not for spin generation. We all do this when caught at no-man-land haft volley, and this keeps the ball low over the net so the other guys couldn't smash the weak high ball, and not for generating spin purpose.
     
    #86
  37. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    See post #54
     
    #87
  38. Jkramer

    Jkramer New User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    I can’t tell the source or validity of the graph, but here is some thing interesting from it: with the test condition as stated, at racket tilt angle 10 deg, the spin out is 1500rpm and the ball travels a distance of 50 ft. Think about this: the incoming ball falling at 5 deg (after bounce I assume) from horizontal at speed 30 mph. This must be an incoming shot that landed close to the base line (shallow angle deep drive), and after you impacted the ball with the stated condition, the ball landed at 50 ft away. Where did it land on the court? Bottom of the net since it is 60 ft away from base line. Validity check anyone?
     
    #88
  39. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,108
    Isn't the court 78 feet long, and each half 39 feet?
     
    #89
  40. Jkramer

    Jkramer New User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    21
    Good point. I was thinking about someone was hitting the ball on the fall (instead of hitting on the rise close to or inside base line) as in France Open, and stood close to back fence, which was 60 ft. All just guessing.
     
    #90
  41. TimeSpiral

    TimeSpiral Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,291
    Location:
    Gotham City
    You reinforced a point I made earlier: for the tennis player, the equation is remarkably simple. Spin the ball over it's X axis with your racquet however you feel comfortable and practice, practice, practice, until you can hit the shots you want to reliably.

    At this level of detail, where physics, angles of incidents, vectors, velocity, complex calculations, and the need for sensitive equipment and scientifically sound experiments are involved, the tennis player is expanding his tennis-related intellect--not his practical tennis skill. I would argue they are only very loosely related.
     
    #91

Share This Page