Since 2011, RNadal No Longer The Best Of His Generation

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

From the age of roughly 22 and for a decade onwards, Roger Federer has been indisputably the best of his generation. He so obliterated all his contemporaries, he made contenders like Roddick and Hewitt look like chumps. In fact, he so lorded over his peers, only the very best of the next generation (ie players 5+ years younger) that could keep up. That's perfectly in keeping with generational changes in tennis.

The same could be said of RNadal until the end of 2010. After that, his generational peers have not only caught up, but he's now been surpassed by two of them. Novak and Andy were almost as precocious as Nads, and as non-surface specialists, they didn't enjoy the early success at one slam. But since 2011 Novak has eclipsed Nads, and now Andy holds 2 of the last 4 slams.

Federer: the best of his generation, full stop.
Nadal: the best of his until about 24, then no longer.

Do you agree?

90's Clay · Jul 7, 2013

Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players to Nadal, Nole, and Murray soo... so what

I dont think anyone/anything caught up with Nadal other than injuries. When hes healthy hes far and away the best in the world (and has been for quite some time).

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players to Nadal, Nole, and Murray soo... so what

I dont think anyone/anything caught up with Nadal other than injuries. When hes healthy hes far and away the best in the world (and has been for quite some time)

Just out of curiosity, were you around during 2011??

90's Clay · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Just out of curiosity, were you around during 2011??

Since 2011, Nadal (past his prime mind you) has had the clear advantage over Nole. One season doesn't make a career. And Nadal had his way with Nole before then. He has owned the h2h over ALL top players (something none of the other guys can say)

Nole had one great season where he played above his head.. But thats all it was.. ONE season

Clarky21 · Jul 7, 2013

Suck it up, buttercup.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players

Try telling that to PSampras!! Hewitt in particular beat Sampras on grass and HC, and Roddick had the most feared serve on tour when he first appeared.

Both, IIRC, finished YE#1. Something Murray has been unable to do so far.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Malarky21 said:
Suck it up, buttercup.

As always, your state of denial is hilarious! :lol:

90's Clay · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Try telling that to PSampras!! Hewitt in particular beat Sampras on grass and HC, and Roddick had the most feared serve on tour when he first appeared.

Both, IIRC, finished YE#1. Something Murray has been unable to do so far.

I doubt prime Sampras would have ANY issues whatsoever with Hewitt and Roddick ROFLMAO. Didn't he whip on Roddick during the last slam of his career?

Sampras was at the end of his career during most of those matches with Roddick/Hewitt. So tell Sampras what?? Like they would have done anything to Sampras during his best days.

Antonio Puente · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
Since 2011, Nadal (past his prime mind you) has had the clear advantage over Nole. One season doesn't make a career. And Nadal had his way with Nole before then. He has owned the h2h over ALL top players (something none of the other guys can say)

Nadal has the most Masters, owns the guy who was/is the GOAT, owns all of his competition and has a legitimate shot to finish with the most slams. In desperately attempting to find a new way to spin these things, I think people forget to do the math at times.

zagor · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
I doubt prime Sampras would have ANY issues whatsoever with Hewitt and Roddick ROFLMAO. Didn't he whip on Roddick during the last slam of his career?

Sampras was at the end of his career during most of those matches with Roddick/Hewitt. So tell Sampras what?? Like they would have done anything to Sampras during his best days.

Funny, how past his prime argument doesn't apply to Fed? Even concerning this year's loss to Stakhovsky.

Anyway, Sampras could still whip Agassi at USO so he should have definitely put up a better fight in 2000 and 2001 USO finals, getting beat at his own game by teenage Fed at Wimbledon doesn't help things either.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players to Nadal, Nole, and Murray soo... so what

Well, judging by that logic, PSampras was a vastly inferior player to RFederer. Just look at the 100% head to head, total pwnage.

How quickly you forget what happens duing generational change!

I'll take PSampras's assessment of Hewitt over yours any day:

Sampras heaps praise on Hewitt

ALTHOUGH his added experience always looked like being decisive, there was no need for Pete Sampras to review his assessment that Lleyton Hewitt represents "the future of tennis" as he kept the 19-year-old Australian waiting for his first Grand Slam final.

ALTHOUGH his added experience always looked like being decisive, there was no need for Pete Sampras to review his assessment that Lleyton Hewitt represents "the future of tennis" as he kept the 19-year-old Australian waiting for his first Grand Slam final.

By hitting more aces (28-23) and committing far fewer unforced errors (18-45) than Sampras, Hewitt underlined the growing threat to all-comers within his game.

The key difference, which explains why Sampras avenged his Stella Artois defeat by Hewitt at Queen's Club, 7-6 (9-7), 6-4, 7-6 (7-5), was that the American was always a move ahead mentally on the big points, such as when he pounced on the one lapse of concentration by his opponent in each set.

One cost Hewitt his second set-point in the opening set as he hesitated and then pulled a forehand wide. Another led to the loss of his serve from 30-0 early in the second set, while in the third Hewitt led 4-1 before Sampras began hitting those spectacular returns as if to tell the Australian: "That's far enough."

Sampras, though, was fulsome in his praise of the Australian, who has climbed from 22 to establish himself in the top 10 this year. "He's going to get better and better as he gets older and stronger," he said. "He has the tools."The main one is his speed about the court. "I've always felt that Michael Chang was probably the best mover. I think Lleyton is in the same league," Sampras said. "He has unbelievable footwork. And he returns great."

usopen25Lleyton-Hewitt-US-Open-Champion-Tennis-2001-2_1136657_display_image.jpg

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Antonio Puente said:
Nadal has the most Masters, owns the guy who was/is the GOAT, owns all of his competition and has a legitimate shot to finish with the most slams. In desperately attempting to find a new way to spin these things, I think people forget to do the math at times.

Speaking of math, did you notice the mention of the year 2011? Just a little technicality here, but in the context of this thread it's determinitive.

Since October 2010, RNadal has been outperformed by NDjokovic. And now Murray holds 2 of the past 4 slams. They're both RNadal's generation.

That's a fact, and I suspect, a very inconvenient truth for some.

ibbi · Jul 7, 2013

I think that you're a bit of a troll that is not really worthy of a serious reply, but I just think it's worth pointing out that age is nothing but a number. Nadal broke through, and has been competing at championship level since 2005, couple that length of time with the kind of game he has been playing for all that time, and the mileage of the guy puts him more in Federer's generation than Novak and Andy's.

That said, I'd still pretty comfortably take him over Murray, as there's no real reason yet to do otherwise. As far as Novak is concerned, that's a matchup issue, something Federer fan know all too well about, and it's just a damn shame that Rafa missed so much time, because the rivalry was beginning to even itself out a little before Rosol came along.

Antonio Puente · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Speaking of math, did you notice the mention of the year 2011? Just a little technicality here, but in the context of this thread it's determinitive.

I did and it doesn't help whatever argument you were attempting to make. If it was your intention to say they were better than Nadal during that period of time, you should have left out the word generation. Yet, you tied it to generation, killing whatever argument you were attempting to make. Weak spin job, really.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Antonio Fuentes said:
I did and it doesn't help whatever argument you were attempting to make. If it was your intention to say they were better than Nadal during that period of time, you should have left out the word generation. Yet, you tied it to generation, killing whatever argument you were attempting to make. Weak spin job, really.

Funny you should say weak "spin job"! :lol:

There I am talking about post-2010 and you're braying on about past accomplishments, and desperately trying to invoke semantics. :lol:

Since October 2010 Nads has no longer been the best of his generation. Since October 2010 Djoker has held top spot of tht generation.

Rankings don't lie. :lol:

Nor does that fact that surface specialist RNadal barely held on against non-surface specialist NDjokovic at the one clay slam this year! :lol:

That, my friend, is the sure sign of a spent force! : )

terribleIVAN · Jul 7, 2013

I agree with the OP.

Rafa's game has clearly declined since 2011; he's stubbornly refusing to hit a backhand , so much it becomes almost comical.

You can't hope to beat the best when you have no confidence in your backhand and avoid it at all costs the whole season.

Hoewever is training Rafa should be hanged/ boiled to death because Rafa has excellent potential on BOTH wings but is being discouraged to play normal tennis.

He still can win a few slams because physically he's still better than anyone, but technically it's a bloody catastrophe and this regression has no parallel in tennis history i know of.

Bud · Jul 7, 2013

terribleIVAN said:
I agree with the OP.

Rafa's game has clearly declined since 2011; he's stubbornly refusing to hit a backhand , so much it becomes almost comical.

You can't hope to beat the best when you have no confidence in your backhand and avoid it at all costs the whole season.

Hoewever is training Rafa should be hanged/ boiled to death because Rafa has excellent potential on BOTH wings but is being discouraged to play normal tennis.

He still can win a few slams because physically he's still better than anyone, but technically it's a bloody catastrophe and this regression has no parallel in tennis history i know of.

As someone else stated - Nadal, because of his early success, is closer to Federer's generation as far as competing is concerned. In 2008, Nadal had already won 5 majors (to Djokovic's single AO) and was the runner up in 2006, and 2007 at Wimbledon. Murray first major final was in 2008.

However, when Novak controls their H2H and passes 12 slams we'll talk. Until then, the OP is a joke.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

For the avoidance of doubt, since the start of 2011 the Djok - Nads h2h has been 8-4 for Novak.

Clearly, the only area where RNadal can still beat the top players of his generation is on clay.

And even then, he's merely 3-3 against Djoker.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Bud said:
As someone else stated - Nadal, because of his early success, is closer to Federer's generation as far as competing is concerned.

However, when Novak controls their H2H and passes 12 slams we'll talk. Until then, the OP is a joke.

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. 5 years younger is generally regarded as being part of a different generation.

Your position is almost as absurd as arguing that Becker was part of Lendl's generation.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Bud said:
However, when Novak controls their H2H and passes 12 slams we'll talk.

Novak has thoroughly controlled their H2H since 2011. Have you forgotten who so many of those 2011 victories came against?? :lol:

terribleIVAN · Jul 7, 2013

Bud said:
However, when Novak controls their H2H and passes 12 slams we'll talk. Until then, the OP is a joke.

The joke's entirely on you, buddy.

Novak TOYED with Rafa at Wimbledon and USO in 2011.

Once you stop constantly progressing, you're declining. And Rafa not only stopped progressing, he got misguided in foolishly neglecting one of his wings.

He better hire a real coach or we will be talking retreat inside 2 years.

Bud · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer. 5 years younger is generally regarded as being part of a different generation.

Your position is almost as absurd as arguing that Becker was part of Lendl's generation.

Age has nothing to do with a player's 'generation'. Nadal had won 10 majors when Djokovic was on his 2nd. Nadal had won 12 majors when Murray was still on his first.

Nadal's a year older than the other two but his game matured much earlier and he was competing with Federer for MS1000 titles and majors 5 years before Djokovic or Murray were ever in the picture.

Therefore, as far as playing and competing, Nadal was in Federer's generation. Nadal (like Federer) is currently in the twilight of his career while Djokovic and Murray are now going strong.

Smasher08 said:
Novak has thoroughly controlled their H2H since 2011. Have you forgotten who so many of those 2011 victories came against?? :lol:

Which proves the point that Nadal was closer to Federer's generation. He competed his best from 2005-2010 with 10 major titles - when Djokovic had a single major and Murray had zero. Here's a newsflash - Nadal has been in decline since late 2010 when he won his 10th major.

zagor · Jul 7, 2013

Bud said:
Age has nothing to do with a player's 'generation'. Nadal had won 10 majors when Djokovic was on his 2nd. Nadal had won 12 majors when Murray was still on his first.

Nadal's a year older than the other two but his game matured much earlier and he was competing with Federer for MS1000 titles and majors 5 years before Djokovic or Murray were ever in the picture.

Therefore, as far as playing and competing, Nadal was in Federer's generation. Nadal (like Federer) is currently in the twilight of his career while Djokovic and Murray are now going strong.

Which proves the point that Nadal was closer to Federer's generation. He competed his best from 2005-2010 with 10 major titles - when Djokovic had a single major and Murray had zero. Here's a newsflash - Nadal has been in decline since late 2010 when he won his 10th major.

Nadal is not in the twilight of his career, certainly not nearly as much as Fed is, please.

He won how many titles this year already?

Regarding Nadal supposedly declining since the end of 2010, Nadal fans need to make up their mind whether Nadal is an early bloomer or the guy who started his prime in 2008, can't have it both ways.

OKUSA · Jul 7, 2013

In the coming months Federer could very well win 3 more titles (Mickey mouse clay tournaments, and the real slam) bringing him to 4, just 3 away from Rafa. To note, Rafa has only won 4 titles after the real slam in his career

Omega_7000 · Jul 7, 2013

zagor said:
Nadal is not in the twilight of his career, certainly not nearly as much as Fed is, please.

He won how many titles this year already?

Regarding Nadal supposedly declining since the end of 2010, Nadal fans need to make up their mind whether Nadal is an early bloomer or the guy who started his prime in 2008, can't have it both ways.

Since Nadal won two slams in 2008 and three in 2010...All other years in between, before and after he was not in his prime and/or was injured.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Bug said:
Age has nothing to do with a player's 'generation'. Nadal had won 10 majors when Djokovic was on his 2nd. Nadal had won 12 majors when Murray was still on his first.

Nadal's a year older than the other two but his game matured much earlier and he was competing with Federer for MS1000 titles and majors 5 years before Djokovic or Murray were ever in the picture.

Therefore, as far as playing and competing, Nadal was in Federer's generation. Nadal (like Federer) is currently in the twilight of his career while Djokovic and Murray are now going strong.

Which proves the point that Nadal was closer to Federer's generation. He competed his best from 2005-2010 with 10 major titles - when Djokovic had a single major and Murray had zero. Here's a newsflash - Nadal has been in decline since late 2010 when he won his 10th major.

Um, no. Your assertions are facile and misinformed.

Nadal was the most precocious of his generation, full stop. Nothing will change the fact that he is 5 years younger than Federer. Five years younger is a different generation to the mind of any reasonable, non-biased person.

Similarly, Djoker and Murray stormed onto the scene in 2007, barely two years after Nads claimed his first RG. That makes them contemporaries both chronologically and career-wise.

Moreover, if your specious logic was anything other than weak and flawed, Borg would necessarily be part of Connors' generation, Becker part of Lendl's, and Hewitt part of Agassi's. :lol: Nice try, but it just doesn't work except for those who want to claim that Federer wasn't the best of his generation, when he was.

For the avoidance of any doubt here, I believe Nads will go down in history as predominantly a clay court specialist who was an early bloomer. There's no doubt that since 2010 Djoker has been the player to beat of their generation, and now Murray holds 2 of the past 4 slams. Both accomplishments alone quite arguably outclass Nadal's since 2011.

Omega_7000 · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
And Nadal had his way with Nole before then. He has owned the h2h over ALL top players (something none of the other guys can say)

Yes 10 years down the road, that is the one stat people will remember...Nadal's H2H over his contemporaries...one that was skewed with mostly clay court tournaments because he was not good enough to go deep on other surfaces.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Omega_7000 said:
Since Nadal won two slams in 2008 and three in 2010...All other years in between, before and after he was not in his prime and/or was injured.

Yep, and this is why the Nadochists can't keep their story straight.

Too many people around here use "prime" to mean different things. One's physical prime should probably be considered the ages of 22-25. 27 is typically when the injuries and/or grind start to set in, and by 28 their reaction time can be noticeably slowing and the next generation will start to have their breakthroughs.

Some use the word "prime" to denote someone's peak playing years, and while these will usually correlate with someone's physical prime, that clearly isn't always the case.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Omega_7000 said:
Yes 10 years down the road, that is the one stat people will remember...Nadal's H2H over his contemporaries...one that was skewed with mostly clay court tournaments because he was not good enough to go deep on other surfaces.

QFT. But you're not mentioning the fact that Nadal deliberately tries to skew his H2H by withdrawing from tournaments he knows he won't go deep in. See AO 2013, SW19 2009, etc.

Towser83 · Jul 7, 2013

90's Clay said:
Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players to Nadal, Nole, and Murray soo... so what

I dont think anyone/anything caught up with Nadal other than injuries. When hes healthy hes far and away the best in the world (and has been for quite some time).

though smasherer is being a troll about Nadal, the truth is Nadal is certainly not the best on hc whether healthy or not. Novak on form has always been better (well since 2007)

also if Fed's generation like Safin and hewitt are vastly inferior to Novak, Murray etc, what does that say about Hewitt and Safin beating Pete in straight sets at the USO in 2000 and 2001 (plus hewitt bagelling him on indoor hard/carpet and beating him at queens on grass twice) when Federer owned both those guys and still holds his own vs the vastly superior Novak/Murray in HIS old days?.. (don't forget, though Fed is looking bad this year, pete had retired by this age)

mistik · Jul 7, 2013

Omega_7000 said:
Yes 10 years down the road, that is the one stat people will remember...Nadal's H2H over his contemporaries...one that was skewed with mostly clay court tournaments because he was not good enough to go deep on other surfaces.

9 major finals outside of clay and 4 major titles. He wasnt good enough to go deep in other surfaces.

İt isnt Rafas problem he can beat anyone on a given day on any surface but they cant beat him on clay.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

mistake said:
İt isnt Rafas problem he can beat anyone on a given day on any surface but they cant beat him on clay.

Orly?

pds999 · Jul 7, 2013

terribleIVAN said:
I agree with the OP.

Rafa's game has clearly declined since 2011; he's stubbornly refusing to hit a backhand , so much it becomes almost comical.

You can't hope to beat the best when you have no confidence in your backhand and avoid it at all costs the whole season.

Hoewever is training Rafa should be hanged/ boiled to death because Rafa has excellent potential on BOTH wings but is being discouraged to play normal tennis.

He still can win a few slams because physically he's still better than anyone, but technically it's a bloody catastrophe and this regression has no parallel in tennis history i know of.

Nonsense. The backhand looked as good as I have ever seen it at RG this year.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Towser83 said:
though smasherer is being a troll about Nadal

Nope. The thread is done in earnest, although I recognize that it can inspire debate.

tennisMVP · Jul 7, 2013

Nadal has the best win/loss record in 2013, has won the most titles, made the most finals, has won the equal most slams and leads the ATP points race. And last year, he won the equal most slams too.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

pds999 said:
Nonsense. The backhand looked as good as I have ever seen it at RG this year.

The knee and stamina as well.

Towser83 · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Nope. The thread is done in earnest, although I recognize that it can inspire debate.

you're just using the Murray win to try and knock Nadal down a bit. There might be genuine discussion here, but the reason for the post is because you hate Nadal. Come on man, be honest..

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

tennisMVP said:
Nadal has the best win/loss record in 2013, has won the most titles, made the most finals, has won the equal most slams and leads the ATP points race. And last year, he won the equal most slams too.

The year is not over and his titles were inflated by his southern swing. Had Djok or Muzz played some 250s, they would have likely won them as well.

Last year a different person won each slam. But Djoker was in the most finals. Djoker's also been in every slam final so far this year.

rosewallGOAT · Jul 7, 2013

It is pretty simple. Nobody will consider Djokovic as good a player as Nadal unless he wins 13 slams (probably more as Nadal will atleast add another couple French Opens). Just the same way Nadal will never be as good as Federer unless he wins 17 or 18 majors.

Very rare does it come down to anything but slam count today. It is an easy way to compare current players, unlike the past greats who are far more complicated for obvious reasons.

mistik · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Orly?

The only reason Fed managed to win RG. I remember that.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Towser83 said:
you're just using the Murray win to try and knock Nadal down a bit. There might be genuine discussion here, but the reason for the post is because you hate Nadal. Come on man, be honest..

Nope. I do, however, genuinely hate Murray.

Towser83 · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
Nope. I do, however, genuinely hate Murray.

lol... yeah I don't like him much either, but he was the better guy today. Novak needs to sort himself out

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

mistake said:
The only reason Fed managed to win RG. I remember that.

ROFL, the moment your previous assertion is destroyed, you're off on your next Fed-hating troll post! :lol:

Funny how you don't feel the same about Nads' win at USO!! :lol:

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

Towser83 said:
lol... yeah I don't like him much either, but he was the better guy today. Novak needs to sort himself out

Agreed on both counts, but I think Nole was almost running on fumes.

And to put everything in perspective, bear in mind that Sampras had Agassi nipping at his heels for the majority of his career (occasionally there was a guy called Krajicek), Nads has now been overtaken on a day-in-day-out basis by Nole and Murray. But no-one from that generation clawed back Fred.

That's not a knock against any of the other guys, but a testament to just how good the boy from Basel is.

(and btw, "Smasherer" gave me the best giggle!)

The Dark Knight · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
From the age of roughly 22 and for a decade onwards, Roger Federer has been indisputably the best of his generation. He so obliterated all his contemporaries, he made contenders like Roddick and Hewitt look like chumps. In fact, he so lorded over his peers, only the very best of the next generation (ie players 5+ years younger) that could keep up. That's perfectly in keeping with generational changes in tennis.

The same could be said of RNadal until the end of 2010. After that, his generational peers have not only caught up, but he's now been surpassed by two of them. Novak and Andy were almost as precocious as Nads, and as non-surface specialists, they didn't enjoy the early success at one slam. But since 2011 Novak has eclipsed Nads, and now Andy holds 2 of the last 4 slams.

Federer: the best of his generation, full stop.
Nadal: the best of his until about 24, then no longer.

Do you agree?

Nadal and Fed same generation. Lendl and Borg had an even greater age difference. Mac and Borg were 3 years apart while Nadal and fed z4 years.

Nadal is just better than Frd..and quite frankly so is Murray and joker.

It's becoming
Sinfully obvious tha Feds 17 slams happened because he was at the tight place at the right tine

zagor · Jul 7, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Nadal and Fed same generation. Lendl and Borg had an even greater age difference. Mac and Borg were 3 years apart while Nadal and fed z4 years.

Nadal is just better than Frd..and quite frankly so is Murray and joker.

It's becoming
Sinfully obvious tha Feds 17 slams happened because he was at the tight place at the right tine

You forgot Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga.

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
It's becoming
Sinfully obvious tha Feds 17 slams happened because he was at the tight place at the right tine

:lol: Thanks for the awesome quote!! :lol:

Smasher08 · Jul 7, 2013

zagor said:
You forgot Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga.

:lol: . . . and Darcis and Stakhovsky!! :lol:

zagor · Jul 7, 2013

Smasher08 said:
:lol: . . . and Darcis and Stakhovsky!! :lol:

Of course, how could I forget those grasscourt behemoths.

Problem is, this means Nadal can in no way or shape be considered to be a CC GOAT, this era is so pitifully weak that a worse CC player (we'll presume Dork Knight meant on all surfaces since he didn't specify) than Murray can reach 5 FO finals, win a FO title and win 6 CC masters titles, this is unprecedented.

Muster, Agassi, Courier, Bruguera, Guga, Bruguera, Borg, Vilas, Panatta, Moya etc. are all better CC players than Nadal, they just played in a 100 times tougher CC era.

smoledman · Jul 7, 2013

Clarky21 said:
Suck it up, buttercup.

Since 2011, RNadal No Longer The Best Of His Generation

Legend

Banned

Legend

Banned

Banned

Legend

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads