I'm not greatest player - Roger Federer

timnz · Jan 6, 2013

Ummm, what?

ricki said:
He is no way greatest - simply because of clay impotence

Being the number 2 player on clay in the world clay for 5 years and one year (2009), the top player in the world - is not impotent. In your view was there only one player in the world (Nadal) who was not impotent on the surface from 2005 to 2010? Wow, that is pretty high standards!

Candide · Jan 6, 2013

timnz said:
Being the number 2 player on clay in the world clay for 5 years and one year (2009), the top player in the world - is not impotent. In your view was there only one player in the world (Nadal) who was not impotent on the surface from 2005 to 2010? Wow, that is pretty high standards!

Well said - a perfect riposte. There's so much hyperbole and intemperate shooting off of mouths by armchair generals on this site it boggles the mind sometimes.

jokinla · Jan 6, 2013

Humble as always.

tennissportsrog · Feb 20, 2013

Nadal. "Sampras era was boring and not true tennis."

cknobman · Feb 20, 2013

tennissportsrog said:
Nadal. "Sampras era was boring and not true tennis."

Translation: "Those guys, playing on those surfaces with that type of equipment and string, would have kicked my @ss."

Mustard · Feb 20, 2013

tennissportsrog said:
Nadal. "Sampras era was boring and not true tennis."

Source of this quote? :neutral:

stoo · Feb 20, 2013

Sid_Vicious said:
Federer just can't win this. Federer might as well just say "I'm the GOAT so you can suck it".

Just once, I'd love to hear Fed say this at a major press conference.

ultradr · Feb 20, 2013

Under current tour conditions, we will continue to see #1's winning 3
slams a year. We will soon see #1 achieving at least calendar slam.

If current conditions don't change, the next guy of decade, will collect ~20
slams.

My prediction is that we will see calendar slam within 5-10 years.

Just look at Djokovic. He has better chance to do calendar slam than
Federer who just can't beat Nadal.

Towser83 · Feb 20, 2013

Blocker said:
Upsets happened often before homegenisation, deal with it, and not just in Pete's day, well before Pete was born. Does that make these players better than Sampras? Sampras often got his opponent back and squared up. But getting belted in 3 of the 4 slams on a whole to your greatest rival means, quite simply, your opponent is better. I mean what else can you put it down to? Alright, lets take the FO out FFS...guess what....still 3-2 to Nadal. **** me, what else would you put it down to? Mismatch issues? Mental? Well guess what, that's all part of being a professional tennis player, learn to handle it and get better and beat your direct rival when it matters, instead of sooking. In a big slam final, more people would put their house on Nadal over Fed...is this the only sport where the faith is put on a player playing against the GOAT? Can you see how silly that seems, more people would put their house or life in the hands of Nadal in a big BO5 set slam final...anyt slam final. But obviously *******s can't see how ridiculous that is because all they see is 17, even though slams weren't always the be all and end all for guys like Laver, Borg and others.

If Nadal is simply better than Federer then he should have been winning more slams than Federer right from the first time he proved he was better which was Miami 2004. He beat him the first time they ever played and it was HC, but quite simply he was not better vs the entire field.

There is a match up issue but also timing. By the time Federer played Nadal in a HC slam, he'd already won 8 slams on HC which is more than Sampras or anyone else in history ever won in their whole careers. You could say in terms of peak hc play, Nadal somewhat missed the best of Federer. At Wimbledon Federer was going for 6 in a row when Nadal finally beat him. He was going for something that no one in the game had ever managed to do. at the USO thay have never played, and I think Federer definitely would have won a few meetings if they had played in 2005-2008.

Prior to 2008, people wouldn't have always bet on Nadal to win a slam final vs Federer. After this point Nadal peaked and Federer started on the opposite path.

Tropikal_Knights · Feb 21, 2013

What people must understand is that Federer is a highly intelligent cultured person. 5 languages, humble ticks all the boxes. His intelligence prevents him from comparing himself to the past greats as well as having a tonne of respect for them. Plus he has a lot of class. It would be bad manners to proclaim Hail me I am the greatest.

Jocks like Nadal or Lance are not that cultured. They are basically artificial muscle men with the difference being Novak is the most mentally toughest.

Mustard · Feb 21, 2013

merlinpinpin said:
This, of course, is just a huge bunch of crap. It's all a question of dominance--Federer was ultra-dominant, Sampras not that much (he just benefited from... you know the drill ). Let's take another dominant #1, Lendl. Care to list the upsets he suffered in slams once he hit his stride? Same with Borg. Go on, make a list, and we'll see whether this only comes down to 'homogenisation'.

Lendl? Not the best example. He lost a lot of matches in majors when he was the favourite, even to players like Noah, Leconte, Cash, Svensson, Chang and Wheaton.

steenkash · Feb 21, 2013

People are occasionally dubious over Nadal and Djocvic's personalities, they are on occasions depicted in a negative light, however Federer seems to get away with it, and remains portrayed as this 'classy' and tremendously 'humble man'. There never seems to be a doubt over his personality, I think his personality appears to be constructed by his PR team.

Fiji · Feb 21, 2013

Federer is so humble.

Relinquis · Feb 21, 2013

how can nadal's "personality" be under doubt? most of you guys don't even speak his language!

Tropikal_Knights · Feb 23, 2013

Relinquis said:
how can nadal's "personality" be under doubt? most of you guys don't even speak his language!

well thats a point to consider

mariecon · Feb 23, 2013

steenkash said:
People are occasionally dubious over Nadal and Djocvic's personalities, they are on occasions depicted in a negative light, however Federer seems to get away with it, and remains portrayed as this 'classy' and tremendously 'humble man'. There never seems to be a doubt over his personality, I think his personality appears to be constructed by his PR team.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Federer is a decent, humble, nice guy? Don't you think it would have come out by now if he wasn't? The guy's been on the pro circuit for 15 years.

tennissportsrog · Mar 4, 2013

Roger Federer's hater... lol

tennissportsrog · May 1, 2013

****** fan = "yeasss!!!! Nadal is GOAT!!!!

NadalAgassi · May 1, 2013

Towser83 said:
If Nadal is simply better than Federer then he should have been winning more slams than Federer right from the first time he proved he was better which was Miami 2004.

The issue isnt whether Nadal is better than Federer. I rate Federer 3rd to 5th best of all time, and Nadal 5th to 7th right now, so Nadal lower at the moment. The obvious issue is whether you can be the best ever when you were the total beetch (and despite some Fed fanboy protests he is, like it or not) of your by far biggest era rival, and fellow top tier all time great. I for one definitely dont think you can be, and many others have also expressed similar views. Laver, Gonzales, Sampras, Borg, Tilden, Nadal, and many other greats were never owned by anyone, so the so called GOAT certainly cant be and still hold that title.

firepanda · May 1, 2013

:[

No.

I refuse to accept this.

Sentinel · May 1, 2013

Federer could be the Citizen Kane of tennis

CK is considered by many critics to be the greatest movie of all time. However, it was not well received in the year of release, was booed at the Academy awards and lost Best Picture to How Green is my Valley.

Most critics' List of best 10 or 20 pics will have CK at the top or top 3-5, whereas most lists do NOT contain HGIMV, or have it somewhere way down at #100 or #200.

Anyway, where were we ?

Deleted member 307496 · May 1, 2013

ultradr said:
Under current tour conditions, we will continue to see #1's winning 3
slams a year. We will soon see #1 achieving at least calendar slam.

If current conditions don't change, the next guy of decade, will collect ~20
slams.

My prediction is that we will see calendar slam within 5-10 years.

Just look at Djokovic. He has better chance to do calendar slam than
Federer who just can't beat Nadal.

Conditions were slowing changing beyond 2000, and Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer all at least once reigned as #1 for a certain amount of time with either one or two slams. Never three. So that is false.

Sorana fan · May 1, 2013

Of course you're not

veroniquem · May 1, 2013

It depends how one defines "greatest player". If it is "most fun to watch", it's definitely not Fed.

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

I think when it's all said and done it won't be so much a discussion of who the greatest is, but rather who is the second greatest after Federer

NatF · May 1, 2013

veroniquem said:
It depends how one defines "greatest player". If it is "most fun to watch", it's definitely not Fed.

Most fun to watch is subjective, at best you can say it's not Fed for you.

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
Most fun to watch is subjective, at best you can say it's not Fed for you.

The whole discussion is subjective.

The only thing I can objectively say about Federer is that he is an amazing tennis player and has a lot of giant career statistics. That's the easy part.

But the argument turns into logical fallacy after that. Simple transitive fallacy. If A=B and B=C then A=C.

A) Roger Federer has giant career statistics
B) The greatest ever has giant career statistics
C) Roger Federer is the greatest ever

All we can objectively say about the GOAT discussion is that there is no objective criteria for determining what giant career statistics are the most meaningful.

TMF · May 1, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
I think when it's all said and done it won't be so much a discussion of who the greatest is, but rather who is the second greatest after Federer

Precisely. He has set the benchmark.

NatF · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
The whole discussion is subjective.

The only thing I can objectively say about Federer is that he is an amazing tennis player and has a lot of giant career statistics. That's the easy part.

But the argument turns into logical fallacy after that. Simple transitive fallacy. If A=B and B=C then A=C.

A) Roger Federer has giant career statistics
B) The greatest ever has giant career statistics
C) Roger Federer is the greatest ever

All we can objectively say about the GOAT discussion is that there is no objective criteria for determining what giant career statistics are the most meaningful.

I wasn't commenting on who was or is the greatest of all time. I think the differences between era's make it too difficult really beyond simple truths like Djokovic > Michael Chang etc...

My issue is mainly that I'm for some reason feeling quite irritable today and picking on anything I disagree with :-?

Still if A = B and B = C then logically how A not = C? If we changed B and A to;

A) Roger Federer has the most giant career statistics
B) The greatest ever has the most giant career statistics

Then surely your conclusion C would be appropriate. Obviously if Federer is just one player in a group of other players with lots of giant statistics (the measuring stick for the GOAT) then it's not clear. But I don't see how it's a logical fallacy for some Federer fans to think he has the most big meaningful records and to equate that to him being the best.

abmk · May 1, 2013

veroniquem said:
It depends how one defines "greatest player". If it is "most fun to watch", it's definitely not Fed.

he is for plenty of people........... maybe not for you .... you'd also find quite a few former/current tennis players who themselves would disagree with you ...

Phoenix1983 · May 1, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
I think when it's all said and done it won't be so much a discussion of who the greatest is, but rather who is the second greatest after Federer

That's true for the Open Era. It's difficult to say Fed is definitively greater than Laver though. (I rank Fed ahead of Laver but it's not as if he is on a different tier of achievement by any means...)

NatF · May 1, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
That's true for the Open Era. It's difficult to say Fed is definitively greater than Laver though. (I rank Fed ahead of Laver but it's not as if he is on a different tier of achievement by any means...)

Someone needs to invent a time machine to settle all these debates...

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
That's true for the Open Era. It's difficult to say Fed is definitively greater than Laver though. (I rank Fed ahead of Laver but it's not as if he is on a different tier of achievement by any means...)

Don't think pre open era stock is going up. Fed for better or worse set the benchmark in a way that is both awesome but also detrimental to the remembrance of past greats. Add to that modern emphasis on big events, well established tour, and contemporary athletic physiques and the older times like I said, for better or for worse will be footnotes in history. Not trying to be mean here, just how I see things going forward

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
I wasn't commenting on who was or is the greatest of all time. I think the differences between era's make it too difficult really beyond simple truths like Djokovic > Michael Chang etc...

My issue is mainly that I'm for some reason feeling quite irritable today and picking on anything I disagree with :-?

Still if A = B and B = C then logically how A not = C? If we changed B and A to;

A) Roger Federer has the most giant career statistics
B) The greatest ever has the most giant career statistics

Then surely your conclusion C would be appropriate. Obviously if Federer is just one player in a group of other players with lots of giant statistics (the measuring stick for the GOAT) then it's not clear. But I don't see how it's a logical fallacy for some Federer fans to think he has the most big meaningful records and to equate that to him being the best.

I really don't think you read posts completely. I said exactly why the conclusion is a fallacy.

All we can objectively say about the GOAT discussion is that there is no objective criteria for determining what giant career statistics are the most meaningful.

For every Federer-fan statistic that is shown, a Nadal-fan statistic will be shown, a Laver-fan statistic will be shown. And don't get me started when we start talking about strength of era. It all flies up in the air at that point.

The assertion that A = B = C is a fallacy if any part of A/B/C is subjective.

NatF · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
I really don't think you read posts completely. I said exactly why the conclusion is a fallacy.

For every Federer-fan statistic that is shown, a Nadal-fan statistic will be shown, a Laver-fan statistic will be shown. And don't get me started when we start talking about strength of era. It all flies up in the air at that point.

The assertion that A = B = C is a fallacy if any part of A/B/C is subjective.

I probably don't read posts completely. Even so I don't think it's particularly subjective to say that weeks at #1, how many slams and other big titles are the most important. They are clearly are the biggest.

Perhaps it becomes fallicious when we start to say player A has been in the most quarter finals ever etc...but slams, weeks as #1 are pretty good for seperating the best from the very good. After that I agree it gets tricky.

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
I probably don't read posts completely. Even so I don't think it's particularly subjective to say that weeks at #1

There is no single determining factor for a high number of consecutive weeks at #1. There are several variables involved in that which can influence the number... and often do.

Caroline Wozniacki has the 9th most consecutive weeks at #1 for women. Is she even in the discussion for the 9th greatest female player ever? Probably not. Fallacy exposed. Nadal is 7th in consecutive weeks at #1. Is he not as good as Lendl? Again, fallacy exposed.

Why can I not say that number of titles is more important than weeks at number 1? Is Connors better than Federer? Why can I not say career matches won is more important?

I've said it before... this whole discussion is based on the premise where a fan wants someone to be the GOAT. From there, they backtrack and find the statistics where their idol stands above the rest... and then they weight those statistics the most important.

It is all subjective.

NatF · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
There is no single determining factor for a high number of consecutive weeks at #1. There are several variables involved in that which can influence the number... and often do.

Caroline Wozniacki has the 9th most consecutive weeks at #1 for women. Is she even in the discussion for the 9th greatest female player ever? Probably not. Fallacy exposed. Nadal is 7th in consecutive weeks at #1. Is he not as good as Lendl? Again, fallacy exposed.

Why can I not say that number of titles is more important than weeks at number 1? Is Connors better than Federer? Why can I not say career matches won is more important?

I've said it before... this whole discussion is based on the premise where a fan wants someone to be the GOAT. From there, they backtrack and find the statistics where their idol stands above the rest... and then they weight those statistics the most important.

It is all subjective.

Perhaps you should read my posts better

I was taking about a group of achievements, there's no single achievement which trumps all others. Weeks at #1, combined with big tournament wins together are the most important, and I'm sorry but that's not really subjective at all. There are other stats which perhaps go along side it but it's fairly easy to look at the records of a player and compare them provided their era's aren't far apart.

I think it's fairly obvious that a player who won more big titles than any other and did this over an extended period of time would be in contention. More so than someone who has won less titles and wasn't the most dominant player so often.

It's not subjective it's common sense. Like I've said it gets blurry when achievements are comparable but clearly some records rise above the others.

THUNDERVOLLEY · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
Caroline Wozniacki has the 9th most consecutive weeks at #1 for women. Is she even in the discussion for the 9th greatest female player ever? Probably not. Fallacy exposed. Nadal is 7th in consecutive weeks at #1. Is he not as good as Lendl? Again, fallacy exposed.

Wonderful analysis, and the very reason the hollow "he got consecutive weeks at #1" ploy (to pad the files of players failing to meet the GOAT criteria) is so easily dismissed. As i've said many times, anyone can hold the number one ranking for a run, many can play a number of years and add up majors titles, but few can win the Grand Slam. Moreover, the number one ranking has never been a historic high water mark for being the greatest, otherwise, Wozniacki would be in the conversation of GOAT.

Obviously, the moment Laver or Graf won their respective Grand Slams, they were referred to as GOAT, and it had nothing to do with random titles, fanboy spin jobs or weeks at #1.

I've said it before... this whole discussion is based on the premise where a fan wants someone to be the GOAT. From there, they backtrack and find the statistics where their idol stands above the rest... and then they weight those statistics the most important.

Consecutive weeks at #1...or winning five, non-calendar majors in a row are at the top of that list.

kiki · May 1, 2013

whether anybody is entitled to their opinion, Federer won´t be the greatest till he wins at least one slam.laver won am slam, pro slam and open slam

TMF · May 1, 2013

Besides tennis, golf also view total number of majors to be the most important criteria. It's pivotal for players(Tiger) to win more than nicklaus to consider the greatest.

Michael Jordan can owned endless of NBA records, but had he never won a single championship, it's hard for experts to rank him the greatest.

kiki · May 1, 2013

individual sports are easier than team sports.Ali, Armstrong,Nicklaus,Jordan,Phelps have an easier path to claim to be the greatest than Messi,Jordan,Rice,Robinson,Gretzky and so forth.But being part and leading a dinasty team is a great honour.

I loved how Magic and Bird, later on Jordan took their teams under their wings.That is a sign of greatness.

SLD76 · May 1, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Wonderful analysis, and the very reason the hollow "he got consecutive weeks at #1" ploy (to pad the files of players failing to meet the GOAT criteria) is so easily dismissed. As i've said many times, anyone can hold the number one ranking for a run, many can play a number of years and add up majors titles, but few can win the Grand Slam. Moreover, the number one ranking has never been a historic high water mark for being the greatest, otherwise, Wozniacki would be in the conversation of GOAT.

Obviously, the moment Laver or Graf won their respective Grand Slams, they were referred to as GOAT, and it had nothing to do with random titles, fanboy spin jobs or weeks at #1.

Consecutive weeks at #1...or winning five, non-calendar majors in a row are at the top of that list.

Please.

Anyone can be ranked world number one for consecutive weeks, that's why so many have done it.

Your nonsense gets more ridiculous by the day

abmk · May 1, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Wonderful analysis, and the very reason the hollow "he got consecutive weeks at #1" ploy (to pad the files of players failing to meet the GOAT criteria) is so easily dismissed. As i've said many times, anyone can hold the number one ranking for a run, many can play a number of years and add up majors titles, but few can win the Grand Slam. Moreover, the number one ranking has never been a historic high water mark for being the greatest, otherwise, Wozniacki would be in the conversation of GOAT.

Obviously, the moment Laver or Graf won their respective Grand Slams, they were referred to as GOAT, and it had nothing to do with random titles, fanboy spin jobs or weeks at #1.

Consecutive weeks at #1...or winning five, non-calendar majors in a row are at the top of that list.

and this guy is at again ..yawn .... bet you'd disappear from the forum if the words grand slam/calendar slam are banned.

explain why borg/federer have been referred to as the GOAT many times ( and far more than don budge )

why is navratilova so widely regarded above court ?

and no one sane put graf above navratilova at the end of 88 career wise ....

its never one stat alone, but looking at the whole picture - including majors, dominance, versatility , consistency, longevity etc etc that gives us an idea on how to rate players ... not one parameter alone ....

TMF · May 1, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Wonderful analysis, and the very reason the hollow "he got consecutive weeks at #1" ploy (to pad the files of players failing to meet the GOAT criteria) is so easily dismissed. As i've said many times, anyone can hold the number one ranking for a run, many can play a number of years and add up majors titles, but few can win the Grand Slam. Moreover, the number one ranking has never been a historic high water mark for being the greatest, otherwise, Wozniacki would be in the conversation of GOAT.

Anyone can hold #1 for one week, but can they hold 237 straight weeks? Can they hold 302 weeks overall? NOPE.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Obviously, the moment Laver or Graf won their respective Grand Slams, they were referred to as GOAT, and it had nothing to do with random titles, fanboy spin jobs or weeks at #1.

Consecutive weeks at #1...or winning five, non-calendar majors in a row are at the top of that list.

But these legend including Laver himself said Roger is the greatest. And it has EVERYTHING that Roger has achieved(starting total slam count).

"I have to give it to him," he said. "He's won all the majors[15] now, and he will win a few more. So in my book he is."
-Sampras

“For me he is the greatest player ever to play the game”
-Borg

“Roger is just the greatest player of all time”
-McEnroe

“Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing”
-Laver

Phoenix1983 · May 1, 2013

kiki said:
individual sports are easier than team sports.Ali, Armstrong,Nicklaus,Jordan,Phelps have an easier path to claim to be the greatest than Messi,Jordan,Rice,Robinson,Gretzky and so forth.But being part and leading a dinasty team is a great honour.

I loved how Magic and Bird, later on Jordan took their teams under their wings.That is a sign of greatness.

I don't think Armstrong has any claim to be the GOAT any more.

THUNDERVOLLEY · May 1, 2013

SLD76 said:
Please.

Anyone can be ranked world number one for consecutive weeks, that's why so many have done it.

Your nonsense gets more ridiculous by the day

Translation: you attempt to ignore facts that cannot be twisted to elevate a player's record. Indeed, many have had consecutive weeks at #1, as mightyrick's Wozniacki reference pointed out in glaring detail, but it is also true that only the select few--the greatest ever won the Grand Slam.

So, for the fans who incessantly refer to consecutive weeks at #1 as the marker of a GOAT (yes, the arguments are in several threads), their criteria automatically lifts the major-less Wozniaki to the level of a GOAT.

In any case, continue to pad a certain player's record all you want--it only reveals that it is only a manuver designed to act as a substitution for said players utter inability to win the Grand Slam.

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY · May 1, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
Wait, do I hear a broken record?

Oh wait, it's just THUNDERVOLLEY.

Said the person who spent several threads acting as the genie who would turn Sharapova into Serena's kryptonite...or the guy who thread hops so desperately wishing everyone would forget history so Federer would be the GOAt just because the usual suspects wish it to be true.

Oops.

NatF · May 1, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Translation: you attempt to ignore facts that cannot be twisted to elevate a player's record. Indeed, many have had consecutive weeks at #1, as mightyrick's Wozniacki reference pointed out in glaring detail, but it is also true that only the select few--the greatest ever won the Grand Slam.

So, for the fans who incessantly refer to consecutive weeks at #1 as the marker of a GOAT (yes, the arguments are in several threads), their criteria automatically lifts the major-less Wozniaki to the level of a GOAT.

In any case, continue to pad a certain player's record all you want--it only reveals that it is only a manuver designed to act as a substitution for said players utter inability to win the Grand Slam.

Many players can have consecutive weeks at #1 yes, but how many have 237 consecutive weeks as #1? There's a world of difference between spending a year at #1 and spending 4 years on top. Wozniacki is a far cry from Federer who's also got a host of other records such as being the male grand slam singers leader lol.

THUNDERVOLLEY · May 1, 2013

abmk said:
and this guy is at again ..yawn .... bet you'd disappear from the forum if the words grand slam/calendar slam are banned.

explain why borg/federer have been referred to as the GOAT many times ( and far more than don budge )

Explain why Laver has been called the GOAT for decades--if you can be honest for a mere second.

Hint: it never had a thing to do with overall majors count.

Again...

mightyrick said:
I've said it before... this whole discussion is based on the premise where a fan wants someone to be the GOAT. From there, they backtrack and find the statistics where their idol stands above the rest... and then they weight those statistics the most important.

I'm not greatest player - Roger Federer

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Rookie

NadalAgassi

Guest

Professional

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads