Federer is suffering BIG TIME because of the slow courts

tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
As evidenced by his match vs Murray at the Australian Open. Murray was just happy retrieving balls all day and waiting for an error and he had the look of "I expect myself to win" written all over his face. Even with the full package of skills Federer just wasn't going to beat Murray (in fact I'm quite pleased with his efforts to push it to a 5th set).

It's not even about the high bounce after the ball makes contacts with the ground, it's purely about speed of the surface. So what was Federer supposed to do to beat Murray? He couldn't serve and volley as Murray would just pass him left and right before Fed even noticed, despite Federer still being able to imply that tactic with success from time to time. He couldn't consistently hit through Murray with like 10 shots, all of which would've been winners if the surface wasn't so slow. So what was left for him to do? Grind, grind and grind once more - that was the only way. And since Federer is older, doesn't have the stamina, speed and concentration as his 25-year old version, he just wasn't going to win. To be honest it would've been ugly if he pulled a miracle and played Djokovic in the final. so at least I'm happy for that.

Ok back on topic. I feel that Federer even now at 31-32 could be way more competitive with the likes of Murray and Djokovic if the surfaces were faster. Yes, he would be more prone to losing early himself but so would the likes of Murray and Djokovic but he would have a great shot at beating them in a grass/hard court slam on a normal day. Right now, he has to keep GOATing just to stay in touch.

I also feel because of the "every court must be slow cause we want top 4 in semis" policy Federer is suffering the most because he's the oldest ergo the least fit of the pack. Because of that, I'm losing interest in tennis FAST even with Federer still around. I used to be such a huge tennis fan a few years back when there was a GS match between a top player and a guy ranked 50 or something but if he zoned in he could take him out. Right now if he's in the zone he's going to push 1 set to a breaker.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
As evidenced by his match vs Murray at the Australian Open. Murray was just happy retrieving balls all day and waiting for an error and he had the look of "I expect myself to win" written all over his face. Even with the full package of skills Federer just wasn't going to beat Murray (in fact I'm quite pleased with his efforts to push it to a 5th set).

It's not even about the high bounce after the ball makes contacts with the ground, it's purely about speed of the surface. So what was Federer supposed to do to beat Murray? He couldn't serve and volley as Murray would just pass him left and right before Fed even noticed, despite Federer still being able to imply that tactic with success from time to time. He couldn't consistently hit through Murray with like 10 shots, all of which would've been winners if the surface wasn't so slow. So what was left for him to do? Grind, grind and grind once more - that was the only way. And since Federer is older, doesn't have the stamina, speed and concentration as his 25-year old version, he just wasn't going to win. To be honest it would've been ugly if he pulled a miracle and played Djokovic in the final. so at least I'm happy for that.

Ok back on topic. I feel that Federer even now at 31-32 could be way more competitive with the likes of Murray and Djokovic if the surfaces were faster. Yes, he would be more prone to losing early himself but so would the likes of Murray and Djokovic but he would have a great shot at beating them in a grass/hard court slam on a normal day. Right now, he has to keep GOATing just to stay in touch.

I also feel because of the "every court must be slow cause we want top 4 in semis" policy Federer is suffering the most because he's the oldest ergo the least fit of the pack. Because of that, I'm losing interest in tennis FAST even with Federer still around. I used to be such a huge tennis fan a few years back when there was a GS match between a top player and a guy ranked 50 or something but if he zoned in he could take him out. Right now if he's in the zone he's going to push 1 set to a breaker.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, Murray was very aggressive all match long. He hit 60 winners including 21 aces. And contrary to popular belief, Murray is a good fast court player.

While it's true Federer would benefit more on faster courts, it wouldn't have had a huge impact yesterday.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
As evidenced by his match vs Murray at the Australian Open. Murray was just happy retrieving balls all day and waiting for an error and he had the look of "I expect myself to win" written all over his face. Even with the full package of skills Federer just wasn't going to beat Murray (in fact I'm quite pleased with his efforts to push it to a 5th set).

It's not even about the high bounce after the ball makes contacts with the ground, it's purely about speed of the surface. So what was Federer supposed to do to beat Murray? He couldn't serve and volley as Murray would just pass him left and right before Fed even noticed, despite Federer still being able to imply that tactic with success from time to time. He couldn't consistently hit through Murray with like 10 shots, all of which would've been winners if the surface wasn't so slow. So what was left for him to do? Grind, grind and grind once more - that was the only way. And since Federer is older, doesn't have the stamina, speed and concentration as his 25-year old version, he just wasn't going to win. To be honest it would've been ugly if he pulled a miracle and played Djokovic in the final. so at least I'm happy for that.

Ok back on topic. I feel that Federer even now at 31-32 could be way more competitive with the likes of Murray and Djokovic if the surfaces were faster. Yes, he would be more prone to losing early himself but so would the likes of Murray and Djokovic but he would have a great shot at beating them in a grass/hard court slam on a normal day. Right now, he has to keep GOATing just to stay in touch.

I also feel because of the "every court must be slow cause we want top 4 in semis" policy Federer is suffering the most because he's the oldest ergo the least fit of the pack. Because of that, I'm losing interest in tennis FAST even with Federer still around. I used to be such a huge tennis fan a few years back when there was a GS match between a top player and a guy ranked 50 or something but if he zoned in he could take him out. Right now if he's in the zone he's going to push 1 set to a breaker.
Click to expand...

Murray hit 62 winners to Federer's 43.

This, on the same court that Roger straight setted Murray on in 2010 - except it was playing a bit faster this year.


You need to have a bit of a lie down mate.
 
Yes, I think these slow conditions is worse for him when he plays against Djokovic, Murray or Nadal, but.....it is actually better for him against any other player.

So, on one hand, on faster conditions he maybe would fare better against Djokovic, Nadal or Murray IF he gets to SF/Final, but on the other hand, he very well may be suffering QF or earlier upsets against players like Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro or other big hitters.

I am sure of one thing: on a very fast court (and with fast balls), no matter how fast a player is (if he is a grinder, I mean). The one best at hitting aggresive winner shots will always win. And we don't see that kind of game anywhere anymore in the current era, which is a shame.
 
batz said:
Murray hit 62 winners to Federer's 43.

This, on the same court that Roger straight setted Murray on in 2010 - except it was playing a bit faster this year.


You need to have a bit of a lie down mate.
Click to expand...

You need one yourself. I see you post every time when you see the word "Murray" in a thread. I might as well say "Summoning batz....and.....ANDY MURRAY" and watch you respond in 30 seconds.

Murray hitting more winners than Federer means that Federer couldn't hit through Murray, not that Murray was more aggressive. Also, he served way better than Fed and last time I checked aces count as winners. For further proof - who do you think hit more winners in the Djokovic-Del Potro match at the US open last year? And who played more aggressively?

If you followed tennis, not just Andy Murray, you'd know that hitting more winners doesn't neccessarily mean being more aggressive.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
You need one yourself. I see you post every time when you see the word "Murray" in a thread. I might as well say "Summoning batz....and.....ANDY MURRAY" and watch you respond in 30 seconds.

Murray hitting more winners than Federer means that Federer couldn't hit through Murray, not that Murray was more aggressive. Also, he served way better than Fed and last time I checked aces count as winners.
Click to expand...

actually no batz was correct murray hit more winners if it was anything federer pushed federer got lucky to take it to a 5th it could of EASILY been straights
 
This might be a bit off the mark, but when Federer has to play either Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal in best of five or even best of three contest, it seems like such a daunting proposition for him to win. I guess with the exception of grass or indoor hard court, I never expect Federer to beat any of these guys. The recent match with Murray is a great example. It did go five sets, but I felt that it could have been straight sets just as easily. But just watching point in and point out, the game is so physical that I just can't fathom Federer being able to keep it up, even if he's playing better tennis. How is Federer supposed to beat someone like Novak or Nadal and now Murray on a slow court surface? If Federer is anything short of 95-100%, he can get blown out. These guys return too well, they retrieve everything, and they apparently don't get tired. In 2013, it's be a miracle if he records a match victory over any of these guys. I actually predict that if Federer has to play either Murray, Nadal, or Djokovic--which he likely will--he will not win a major in 2013, and neither will he win a masters event.
 
tennis_pro said:
You need one yourself. I see you post every time when you see the word "Murray" in a thread. I might as well say "Summoning batz....and.....ANDY MURRAY" and watch you respond in 30 seconds.

Murray hitting more winners than Federer means that Federer couldn't hit through Murray, not that Murray was more aggressive. Also, he served way better than Fed and last time I checked aces count as winners.
Click to expand...

Yet everyone is saying Murray was aggressive. Have you considered the possibility he actually was?
 
axel89 said:
actually no batz was correct murray hit more winners if it was anything federer pushed federer got lucky to take it to a 5th it could of EASILY been straights
Click to expand...

Del Potro hit 25 winners in the 2012 US quarters against Djokovic compared to 43 for Novak, now please tell me Del Potro pushed in that match.
 
It might be the norm that an aggressive player hits more winners, its true for the most part but not on these super slow courts when actually a grinder or a counter puncher can actually pass the ball when the other offensive player tries to S&V which happened many times i think in the match. Also i saw fed many times trying to be more aggressive but murraa can grind and counter punch till he finds a suitable to place to put the ball in
 
tennis_pro said:
As evidenced by his match vs Murray at the Australian Open. Murray was just happy retrieving balls all day and waiting for an error and he had the look of "I expect myself to win" written all over his face. Even with the full package of skills Federer just wasn't going to beat Murray (in fact I'm quite pleased with his efforts to push it to a 5th set).

It's not even about the high bounce after the ball makes contacts with the ground, it's purely about speed of the surface. So what was Federer supposed to do to beat Murray? He couldn't serve and volley as Murray would just pass him left and right before Fed even noticed, despite Federer still being able to imply that tactic with success from time to time. He couldn't consistently hit through Murray with like 10 shots, all of which would've been winners if the surface wasn't so slow. So what was left for him to do? Grind, grind and grind once more - that was the only way. And since Federer is older, doesn't have the stamina, speed and concentration as his 25-year old version, he just wasn't going to win. To be honest it would've been ugly if he pulled a miracle and played Djokovic in the final. so at least I'm happy for that.

Ok back on topic. I feel that Federer even now at 31-32 could be way more competitive with the likes of Murray and Djokovic if the surfaces were faster. Yes, he would be more prone to losing early himself but so would the likes of Murray and Djokovic but he would have a great shot at beating them in a grass/hard court slam on a normal day. Right now, he has to keep GOATing just to stay in touch.

I also feel because of the "every court must be slow cause we want top 4 in semis" policy Federer is suffering the most because he's the oldest ergo the least fit of the pack. Because of that, I'm losing interest in tennis FAST even with Federer still around. I used to be such a huge tennis fan a few years back when there was a GS match between a top player and a guy ranked 50 or something but if he zoned in he could take him out. Right now if he's in the zone he's going to push 1 set to a breaker.
Click to expand...

You clearly did not watch the match. The more offensive, attack minded player won. Federer got pumped, deal with it.
 
Federer will have more chances if it is a faster court.

However i dont want to take any credit away from Murray.

Federer's serve was totally off. It is not possible for Fed to win against the top 4 with such low first serve percentage and also without placement.

Murray was not his usual self. He played to win, not defend. His serve was awesome. Those made the difference. Not the court alone. If it was a grindfest, i would have agreed with you.
 
Tiebreak100 said:
You clearly did not watch the match. The more offensive, attack minded player won. Federer got pumped, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Just because Murray hit more winners it doesn't mean he was more aggressive than Federer.

I agree Murray wasn't in his complete pushfest mode but not once in his career was he more aggressive in a match vs Federer.
 
tennis_pro said:
You need one yourself. I see you post every time when you see the word "Murray" in a thread. I might as well say "Summoning batz....and.....ANDY MURRAY" and watch you respond in 30 seconds.

Murray hitting more winners than Federer means that Federer couldn't hit through Murray, not that Murray was more aggressive. Also, he served way better than Fed and last time I checked aces count as winners. For further proof - who do you think hit more winners in the Djokovic-Del Potro match at the US open last year? And who played more aggressively?

If you followed tennis, not just Andy Murray, you'd know that hitting more winners doesn't neccessarily mean being more aggressive.
Click to expand...


I make no apologies for posting in threads where people spout garbage about Murray - and you have spouted garbage my friend.

Only in the mind of a butthurt ******* could the statements in bold be true.

Murray was aggressive against Roger last night - he was also better than Roger last night. You need to learn to deal with it and stop crying and whining about surfaces.

Like I already said - Roger beat Murray on straights on this very court 3 years ago. I didn't see you posting about court speeds back then. Why was that?


If you followed tennis, rather than Roger Federer, you wouldn't be constantly making whiny threads about court surfaces.
 
Last edited:
kalyan4fedever said:
It might be the norm that an aggressive player hits more winners, its true for the most part but not on these super slow courts when actually a grinder or a counter puncher can actually pass the ball when the other offensive player tries to S&V which happened many times i think in the match. Also i saw fed many times trying to be more aggressive but murraa can grind and counter punch till he finds a suitable to place to put the ball in
Click to expand...


This would be the same super slow court on which Roger straight setted Murray in 2010, right?

Jeez, the ****s are butthurt tonight. Is it a full moon or something?
 
Last edited:
batz said:
Only in the mind of a butthurt ******* could the statements in bold be true.
Click to expand...

In their 2012 US Open match:
Djokovic hit 43 winners.
Del Potro did 25.

oh and before you answer please watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy1FC8LClbw cause Im sure you didnt as murray wasnt playing

Please explain how's that possible.

batz said:
Murray was aggressive against Roger last night - he was also better than Roger last night. You need to learn to deal with it and stop crying and whining about surfaces.
Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't better but better he was AIDED by the surface speed.

batz said:
Like I already said - Roger beat Murray on straights on this very court 3 years ago. I didn't see you posting about court speeds back then. Why was that?
Click to expand...

Well DUH, when did I register under this specific name?

batz said:
If you followed tennis, rather than Roger Federer, you wouldn't be constantly making whiny threads about court surfaces.
Click to expand...

Other than this obviously, name one. NO WAIT you cant'.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
Just because Murray hit more winners it doesn't mean he was more aggressive than Federer.

I agree Murray wasn't in his complete pushfest mode but not once in his career was he more aggressive in a match vs Federer.
Click to expand...

Federer is more adventurous than Murray, nobody would doubt that, but Andy is gradually improving with regard to stepping up the court. By modern standards, the court in Shanghai was relatively quick last year, yet Murray outplayed the Swiss in every area.
 
batz said:
This would be the same super slow court on which Roger straight setted Murray in 2010, right?

Jeez, the ****s are butthurt tonight. Is it a full moon or something?
Click to expand...

The fact is, Federer was 3 years younger which is huge. He was redlining his game, serving fantastic, owned Murray with his backhand alone, the forehand worked great. And Murray underperformed.

Just because Federer won it doesn't mean that the surface was fast, LOL.
 
Murray won as he served and returned better than Fed, which created constant pressure in his service games.

The court may have been slower, but Federer had been doing well in these conditions so its not an excuse. He beat Murray on such a court 3 years ago and the WTF is slow too (although Indoor, which Murray likes also). Murray simply played better.

Murray played well, Fed played well, Murray could have won quicker, Federer faught till the end and made it a great match rather than a blowout.

Both looks like factors in this coming year. Both can beat the other. Fed fans please stop looking for excuses. You make some of us look bad.
 
@tennis_pro

In their 2012 US Open match:
Djokovic hit 43 winners.
Del Potro did 25.

Please explain how's that possible.


What part of this being possible are you struggling with? Why do you think Delpo should've have hit more winners than Nole while getting beat?


I never said he wasn't better but better he was AIDED by the surface speed.

You said nothing about anyone being aided. What you said was:

As evidenced by his match vs Murray at the Australian Open. Murray was just happy retrieving balls all day and waiting for an error and he had the look of "I expect myself to win" written all over his face.


This is patent bollocks. Anybody who saw the match could see that one of those guys could hit through the other guy but one of them couldn't. Now 3 years ago, ON THE VERY SAME COURT, the little soldier who couldn't, could. Now he can't. So what has changed? Is it the court? NO! Could it be the players? By jove, I might just be on to something. So in 2010, these slow courts didn't cause Roger to suffer BIG time - but they are now? Please.

Murray wasn't happy retreiving balls - he was happy blasting winners past Roger.
 
Last edited:
batz said:
This would be the same super slow court on which Roger straight setted Murray in 2010, right?

Jeez, the ****s are butthurt tonight. Is it a full moon or something?
Click to expand...

2010 conditions are different than what is today and a whole lot of other factors can affect the outcome. also aren't you a part fed fan ;) ?
 
kalyan4fedever said:
2010 conditions are different than what is today and a whole lot of other factors can affect the outcome. also aren't you a fed fan ;) ?
Click to expand...

Never claimed to be a Fed fan. And for the record, there's a difference between Fed fans and ****s.

I wouldn't see Zagor making graceless, whiny threads about court surfaces - but then he's not a ****.
 
kalyan4fedever said:
2010 conditions are different than what is today and a whole lot of other factors can affect the outcome. also aren't you a part fed fan ;) ?
Click to expand...

Yep - in 2010it was SLOWER! Yet Roger won.

There was much buzz at the start of the AO that this year's courts were playing faster. There were threads on here about it. Roger spoke about it.
 
batz said:
What part of this being possible are you struggling with? Why do you think Delpo should've have hit more winners than Nole while getting beat?
Click to expand...

Usually, if one plays more aggressively than the other but loses in straight sets he hits more winners (or at least makes it even) but way more unforced errors. Del Potro just couldn't hit through Djokovic's defences consistently enough. It was the same story with Federer and Murray. Go and watch the Del Potro-Djokovic match and tell me who played more aggressively. Cause what I saw was Del Potro smacking every ball 10 times in a rally which 7 out of 10 times ended in an unforced error and 3 with a winner.

If you could see further than "stats prove everything" you'd know this.

batz said:
Murray wasn't happy retreiving balls - he was happy blasting winners past Roger.
Click to expand...

Completely different scenarios. Federer was younger, he was coming off of a great year so was full of confidence. He was in fantastic form, one of his best ever in a slam. It was a slam final so Murray's balls..."puts in the Wilander quote".
 
batz said:
Yep - in 2010it was SLOWER! Yet Roger won.

There was much buzz at the start of the AO that this year's courts were playing faster. There were threads on here about it. Roger spoke about it.
Click to expand...

Yea, he said sarcastically that it was just a tiny margin and now you make it sound as if it was ultra fast haha.
 
Fed is suffering because he is older. Plain and simple. Prime federer would be beating everyone right now regardless of what speed the courts played.
 
tennis_pro said:
Yea, he said sarcastically that it was just a tiny margin and now you make it sound as if it was ultra fast haha.
Click to expand...

Slower implied no quantum - those are your words, not mine. You're now making stuff up and throwing out chaff to try and divert from the drivel in your OP.

Roger is on the decline and you are looking for reasons to explain it. That's fine - we're all entitled to our opinions and theories - but you don't need to knock other players to support those theories - especially when there is zero evidence to support your contention.

There are Fed fans on here telling you to stop it mate. How about you put away your **** hat and stick your Roger Fan cap on. What do you say?
 
batz said:
Slower implied no quantum - those are your words, not mine. You're now making stuff up and throwing out chaff to try and divert from the drivel in your OP.

Roger is on the decline and you are looking for reasons to explain it. That's fine - we're all entitled to our opinions and theories - but you don't need to knock other players to support those theories - especially when there is zero evidence to support your contention.

There are Fed fans on here telling you to stop it mate. How about you put away your **** hat and stick your Roger Fan cap on. What do you say?
Click to expand...

I say - for once in your life try to stay out from a thread that has the word "Murray" in the OP. I feel you're like a Murray PR manager version of 5555 and your job is to clear his name on these boards.
 
tennis_pro said:
You know batz and his unconditioned reflex to defend Murray once someone dares to critisize him. I expect Mainad to join in the party soon.
Click to expand...

Stop acting like an idiot. The majority of posters have acknowledged that Murray was not only the better, but also the more aggressive player. This hasn't got anything to do with Batz or any of the other Murray fans but with you being wrong.
 
Gonzo_style said:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7080753&postcount=5
Click to expand...

6a00d8341c09fc53ef014e8692f994970d-320wi
 
tennis_pro said:
As evidenced by his match vs Murray at the Australian Open. Murray was just happy retrieving balls all day and waiting for an error and he had the look of "I expect myself to win" written all over his face. Even with the full package of skills Federer just wasn't going to beat Murray (in fact I'm quite pleased with his efforts to push it to a 5th set).

It's not even about the high bounce after the ball makes contacts with the ground, it's purely about speed of the surface. So what was Federer supposed to do to beat Murray? He couldn't serve and volley as Murray would just pass him left and right before Fed even noticed, despite Federer still being able to imply that tactic with success from time to time. He couldn't consistently hit through Murray with like 10 shots, all of which would've been winners if the surface wasn't so slow. So what was left for him to do? Grind, grind and grind once more - that was the only way. And since Federer is older, doesn't have the stamina, speed and concentration as his 25-year old version, he just wasn't going to win. To be honest it would've been ugly if he pulled a miracle and played Djokovic in the final. so at least I'm happy for that.

Ok back on topic. I feel that Federer even now at 31-32 could be way more competitive with the likes of Murray and Djokovic if the surfaces were faster. Yes, he would be more prone to losing early himself but so would the likes of Murray and Djokovic but he would have a great shot at beating them in a grass/hard court slam on a normal day. Right now, he has to keep GOATing just to stay in touch.

I also feel because of the "every court must be slow cause we want top 4 in semis" policy Federer is suffering the most because he's the oldest ergo the least fit of the pack. Because of that, I'm losing interest in tennis FAST even with Federer still around. I used to be such a huge tennis fan a few years back when there was a GS match between a top player and a guy ranked 50 or something but if he zoned in he could take him out. Right now if he's in the zone he's going to push 1 set to a breaker.
Click to expand...

Fed wasn't hitting spots with his serve well enough and his FH lacked its usual bite (which was the case against Jo as well), Murray had more pace on both his groundies and his serve and this time around was clearly the more aggressive of the two.

Faster court would have made no difference in the end result given their respective level of play on that day (heck might have not even pushed it to five), don't fool yourself.

Fed needs to rediscover the mojo on his FH, he fought harder than I've ever seen him in a match but if his game is lacking, that won't be enough to beat the top guys, irregardless of the surface.
 
Last edited:
zagor said:
Fed wasn't hitting spots with his serve well enough and his FH lacked its usual bite (which was the case against Jo as well), Murray had more pace on both his groundies and his serve and this time around was clearly the more aggressive of the two.

Faster court would have made no difference in the result given their respective level of play on that day, don't fool yourself.
Click to expand...

You might as well not bother zagor - he chooses to ignore common sense.
 
Aaarrrggh! It's really annoying. I want to belittle Murray and make excuses for the flukey win...but the truth is I have nothing to work with here. Murray was more aggressive and he played better. I don't think the court speed played a major role in Roger's defeat. Fed was a bit slow and weak (on serve and FH, BH was excellent) that could be due to him being old, tired from the previous match or simply because he was being shown up by Murray.
 
Last edited:
zagor said:
Fed wasn't hitting spots with his serve well enough and his FH lacked its usual bite (which was the case against Jo as well), Murray had more pace on both his groundies and his serve and this time around was clearly the more aggressive of the two.

Faster court would have made no difference in the end result given their respective level of play on that day (heck might have not even pushed it to five), don't fool yourself.

Fed needs to rediscover the mojo on his FH, he fought harder than I've ever seen him in a match but if his game is lacking, that won't be enough to beat the top guys, irregardless of the surface.
Click to expand...

This, times a million.

Actually I was really surprised by the lack of power in his forehand. In the South American tour (granted, they were exhos) he was crushing it with the forehand. I really hope it starts clicking again by the time grass court season starts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mike danny
Does the big 4 exist because of Roger?
Replies
41
Views
4K
90's Clay
90's Clay
Frying Pan Forehand
The guys of old versus slow courts:
Replies
7
Views
2K
90's Clay
90's Clay
WhiskeyEE
Djokovic’s impressive record against the rest of the Big 4 on slow HC
Replies
3
Views
1K
akind
A
D
Federer suffering more than Nadal
2
Replies
83
Views
7K
I am the Greatest!
I
Zardoz7/12
  • Poll Poll
Is this a controversial statement? There was never a "big 4" just a "big 3".
2
Replies
86
Views
4K
mavsman149
mavsman149
Back
Top