OE top 5 adjusted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barton
  • Start date Start date
Drob said:
Premise 1 not correct at all. A McEnroe myth extended by the media.

Premise 2 not correct - Sampras did beat all rivals (except on clay - "no goals to chase"?), but he retired because he was an old player (for that time, and any time until very recently) and was slipping.

The two are close.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I have to trust the Media you know.

Borg could be close to Sampras but I think Sampras is above Borg for sure because Sampras was more ahead of his peers than Borg was. In Sampras's time he was at times unbeatable and these are not my words, these are said by Navratilova in an interview, I saw her speaking. She won 9 wimbledons and if she can say this about Sampras then for sure he must have looked so to her.

Also as I said in another thread, the players Boris Becker onwards could play today's tennis if they improved their rally tolerance and stamina with time, that would happen, they were not lacking in power/athleticism compared to modern day guys. Borg-Mac-Laver-Connors etc etc who played with wood just would not hold up vs modern players in intensity or even in stroke play. They are just not good enough.

Rosstour said:
If “alpha” means disagreeable and cold, Sampras is as alpha as it gets.

But if “alpha” is someone that ppl gravitate to, enjoy being around and want to do things for, while still fearing that person’s judgment/rejection, then it’s Fed or Alcaraz.

I don’t subscribe to the Alpha/Beta dichotomy. Bc in wolf packs, most alphas only got there bc they were Betas once and took over when the alpha dies hunting or fighting.

Dominance in humans is a little different, dominant primates have to build alliances and share resources to maintain their position….things Sampras has no interest in doing. He’s too selfish to ever be a leader of anything. Maybe in an individual sport you can say that doesn’t matter.

But if I go into a room and I see Alcaraz working the room with a huge smile, while PETE stands aloof and not emoting at all, the extroverted/agreeable guy stands out as the leader. Not only is PETE not magnanimous, he’s the exact opposite.
Click to expand...


One thing which works in Borg's favor and against Sampras for me is Borg was extremely popular and Sampras was a dud in popularity, similar to Djokovic.

So if we go by what you posted above regarding an alpha being a face that unites everyone than just being a cold-remorseless destroyer then the Trio of Federer-Borg-Alcaraz will look better than the trio of Djokovic-Sampras-Sinner.

Interestingly Nadal is in between, he is neither as cheerful as the former trio nor as cold like the latter. I don't know where he fits in because he has been that guy who was ruthless on court but off the court he tries to warm up to people, connects with kids a lot, signs autographs even after losing matches (wimbledon 2018SF loss, dustin brown loss and some others losses where we could find him signing balls of fans after losing and walking back, that was weird but he tries to be good to fans always)..... So I don't know where Nadal fits in. In some ways Nadal has been pretty alpha in his own way, when he arrived in the 2000s his body language was always of the guy who is most the powerful physically. He was not intimidated by ANYONE even as a Teenager and so a case could be raised for Nadal being the most alpha of the 3.
 
Last edited:
Rosstour said:
If “alpha” means disagreeable and cold, Sampras is as alpha as it gets.

But if “alpha” is someone that ppl gravitate to, enjoy being around and want to do things for, while still fearing that person’s judgment/rejection, then it’s Fed or Alcaraz.

I don’t subscribe to the Alpha/Beta dichotomy. Bc in wolf packs, most alphas only got there bc they were Betas once and took over when the alpha dies hunting or fighting.

Dominance in humans is a little different, dominant primates have to build alliances and share resources to maintain their position….things Sampras has no interest in doing. He’s too selfish to ever be a leader of anything. Maybe in an individual sport you can say that doesn’t matter.

But if I go into a room and I see Alcaraz working the room with a huge smile, while PETE stands aloof and not emoting at all, the extroverted/agreeable guy stands out as the leader. Not only is PETE not magnanimous, he’s the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
There is no way to manipulate a definition of an alpha such that Sampras can be weaseled out of it. Insulting the character of a man you don't know is a sad response to that reality.
 
Holmes said:
There is no way to manipulate a definition of an alpha such that Sampras can be weaseled out of it. Insulting the character of a man you don't know is a sad response to that reality.
Click to expand...


Complete off topic. But do you know that Alpha concept of the Wolf pack is actually found out to be invalid in recent study?

The leader of , or more accurately yet, the prime couple of a wolf pack is not because they are the most powerful or dominant but simply because they are the father and mother of 90% of the pack.

They are the leaders because essentially they made the pack.
 
ForehandCross said:
Complete off topic. But do you know that Alpha concept of the Wolf pack is actually found out to be invalid in recent study?

The leader of , or more accurately yet, the prime couple of a wolf pack is not because they are the most powerful or dominant but simply because they are the father and mother of 90% of the pack.

They are the leaders because essentially they made the pack.
Click to expand...

The standard definition of alpha is the guy who leads ..... now whether someone is a loved leader or a cruel capricious dictator, but he is a leader all the same who shall be followed.... by love or by force, you've got no choice.

Federer always a smile to his face after thrashing Roddick/Hewitt, they could just respond with "too good mate". SO no matter how much Fed tried to look classy in victory, like low key celebrations as described by Roddick, that does not change the fact that Roddick still loses. Same for ALcaraz too, nice guy but he will still beat you, isn't it ? His smile is supposed to make it any better? Whats the difference between that and Djokovic inviting Kyrgios to dinner before wimbledon final just to make Nick feel overwhelmed and too happy just to be there playing Novak.... so in the end the result is defeat

Alpha mentality would be to not accept that smile of Federer/Alcaraz or to not be overwhelmed by Novak buying you dinner in some expensive restaurant.

Nadal when he came on tour he had the mentality like he is here to win.... now that is alpha mentality .... Djokovic even more, after 06 french open loss to Nadal he felt he was in control of the match in between rallies... that is also confidence in one's self. Same as Novak saying in 2007 that Federer is going down, such words irked Federer and his camp but that was alpha mentality from Novak.

So Federer who was all smiles/super gracious at Roddick/Hewitt after beating them, even celebrating low key is now suddenly irked by the confidence of a young dude who feels he will rise ??? Why ? In stark contrast Nadal laughed it off at the press conference in a smug way when he was asked to comment on Novak's statements after the match. So Federer's behavior was not alpha but Nadal's enough.

So Sampras, Alcaraz, Novak were/are all alpha in their own way if they dominated tennis in their time, there is no requirements to look more pleasing in victory or expressing lot of emotions.
 
pierceforehands said:
I personally think Nadal is someone who can't be GOAT since there is no possible way to argue him being above Djokovic. As he has fewer slams, a losing head to head, and inferior stats in almost every other category too. That is why I specifically said I could see Federer possibly being above both Djokovic and Nadal (personally how I have it), behind both Djokovic and Nadal, and behind Djokovic but ahead of Nadal, but could see no possible argument for Nadal being above Djokovic. Yes I am saying I rank Federer above Djokovic and Nadal, but acknowledge there is still a case to put Nadal ahead of Federer, but no case to put Nadal over Djokovic. And obviously if you rank Federer above Djokovic, you then automatically have to rank him over Nadal IMO, while can still rank him over Nadal without ranking him over Djokovic as well.
Click to expand...

I think they're all close enough that you can rank them in whatever order you want.

It ain't exact science, there's always gonna be a degree of subjectivity involved.
 
Barton said:
Part of me believes that Lendl should be Tier 1 ATG.
Click to expand...

No he is not a Tier 1 ATG.

First of all he won 0 Wimbledons, that itself eliminates him from the conversation. Nobody who is a Tier 1 can afford to win 0 wimbledons, the most important slam has to be won at least 2 times.

Secondly, Lendl won 2 AOs which were minnow level slams back then, those are not rated so high I think.

So 3FO and 3USOs are his case for greatness, that and his titles on various surfaces which are great but not when you look at his slam count.


Tier 1 ATGs are the Big 4 [ Big 3 and Sampras ] and maybe Borg.
 
pierceforehands said:
I personally think Nadal is someone who can't be GOAT since there is no possible way to argue him being above Djokovic. As he has fewer slams, a losing head to head, and inferior stats in almost every other category too.
Click to expand...
How do you argue for Fed above Djoker out of interest though? By ignoring stats, surely?
 
Razer said:
No he is not a Tier 1 ATG.

First of all he won 0 Wimbledons, that itself eliminates him from the conversation. Nobody who is a Tier 1 can afford to win 0 wimbledons, the most important slam has to be won at least 2 times.

Secondly, Lendl won 2 AOs which were minnow level slams back then, those are not rated so high I think.

So 3FO and 3USOs are his case for greatness, that and his titles on various surfaces which are great but not when you look at his slam count.


Tier 1 ATGs are the Big 4 [ Big 3 and Sampras ] and maybe Borg.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your harsh opinion of Lendl's career but if I had a Tier One for the OE, it would be Big3 plus Sampras and Borg.
 
pierceforehands said:
I personally think Nadal is someone who can't be GOAT since there is no possible way to argue him being above Djokovic. As he has fewer slams, a losing head to head, and inferior stats in almost every other category too. That is why I specifically said I could see Federer possibly being above both Djokovic and Nadal (personally how I have it), behind both Djokovic and Nadal, and behind Djokovic but ahead of Nadal, but could see no possible argument for Nadal being above Djokovic. Yes I am saying I rank Federer above Djokovic and Nadal, but acknowledge there is still a case to put Nadal ahead of Federer, but no case to put Nadal over Djokovic. And obviously if you rank Federer above Djokovic, you then automatically have to rank him over Nadal IMO, while can still rank him over Nadal without ranking him over Djokovic as well.
Click to expand...
That’s true. Djokovic beats Nadal in every stat and they are definitely too close in era (basically playing alongside all their careers even if there are small deviations in peak/prime). You can theoretically argue for every player as GOAT who dominated his era as cross-era comparisons are next to impossible, however, you cannot argue for anyone who was only No.2 in his own era.
 
Razer said:
No he is not a Tier 1 ATG.

First of all he won 0 Wimbledons, that itself eliminates him from the conversation. Nobody who is a Tier 1 can afford to win 0 wimbledons, the most important slam has to be won at least 2 times.

Secondly, Lendl won 2 AOs which were minnow level slams back then, those are not rated so high I think.

So 3FO and 3USOs are his case for greatness, that and his titles on various surfaces which are great but not when you look at his slam count.


Tier 1 ATGs are the Big 4 [ Big 3 and Sampras ] and maybe Borg.
Click to expand...
Lendl played during a time where the notion of Wimbledon > rest of the slams was definitely strong. On top, one of his AO wins is a little fishy given that his final opponent Edberg had to retire. He is definitely not Tier 1 with only 8 slams without a Wimbledon, however his other stats, 270 weeks at No.1, 11 slam runner-ups, 94 tournament wins, 5 YECs with 9 consecutive finals are definitely more tier 1 like than in the Mac/Agassi region (Connors being debatable).
 
alexio said:
to me...
tier 1 pete, borg, big 3
tier 2 lendl, agassi, mcenroe, connors
tier 3 edberg, becker
Click to expand...
You have Mats not in tier3? I agree he is the weakest of the three but I think he still belongs to the same tier. Clearly above the Courier/Murray/Vilas trio. Also I find Newcombe hard to place.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
You have Mats not on tier3? I agree he is the weakest of the three but I think he still belongs on the same tier. Clearly above the Courier/Murray/Vilas trio. Also I find Newcombe hard to place.
Click to expand...
sorry, i forgot about him, yes hes in tier 3 too
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
That’s true. Djokovic beats Nadal in every stat and they are definitely too close in era (basically playing alongside all their careers even if there are small deviations in peak/prime). You can theoretically argue for every player as GOAT who dominated his era as cross-era comparisons are next to impossible, however, you cannot argue for anyone who was only No.2 in his own era.
Click to expand...
Only fanboys have Nadal ahead of Djokovic. He is not ahead in any serious list.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Lendl played during a time where the notion of Wimbledon > rest of the slams was definitely strong. On top, one of his AO wins is a little fishy given that his final opponent Edberg had to retire. He is definitely not Tier 1 with only 8 slams without a Wimbledon, however his other stats, 270 weeks at No.1, 11 slam runner-ups, 94 tournament wins, 5 YECs with 9 consecutive finals are definitely more tier 1 like than in the Mac/Agassi region (Connors being debatable).
Click to expand...

Yes Lendl's overall stats look good, but not winning wimbledon surely eliminates him from the conversation, he is surely tier 2. He is no better than Mcenroe, infact Mcenroe is the highest of Tier 2, he was solid strong for 1/2 of the decade and after his decline Lendl piled up all the numbers. Mcenroe lead Lendl in H2H like 14-12 or so until 1985-86, it is only after Lendl accumulated a lot of wins to surge far ahead in the H2H, that era was different when players enjoyed partying and staying awake all night, then coming to play next day. This is the same case with Borg and Mceroe both, I think John said it recently that they took pride in staying awake all night with friends and then coming to play unlike today's Big 3 or Sinner etc.... Lendl was probably fully into fitness and accumulated wins after 1985 when his rivals fell off the rails, lol..

Lendl is overrated on TTW by people saying he ruled the 80s. He just ruled 50% of the 80s, rest 50% was ruled by Mcenroe and Borg ruled the 50% of the 1970s. This is how it, Borg was a perhaps a bit better than these 2 and was at the wrong end of age too (remember he is 3-4 years older and having a lifestyle of staying awake night, partying and then coming to fight... similar Mike Tyson who was also like this) ... such people decline quicker.

So Lendl is equal to Mcenroe and nothing more. Mac has more prestigious slams while Lendl has more titles and h2h edges, levels out.

Agassi is overrated too, he is only as good as Becker but his 8 slams makes him being compared to Mac, Lendl, Connors which is a joke. Agassi never ruled any era and was a firm 2 to Pete.

This is how it should be

Tier 1 : Big 3, Sampras and maybe Borg
Tier 2 : Mcenroe, Lendl and Connors
Tier 3 : Agassi, Becker, Wilander, Edberg and maybe ALCARAZ (a bit early but we can put him here tentatively)
Tier 4 : Courier, Vilas, Newcombe
Tier 5 : Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Arthur Ashe, Kuerten, Stanimal ... roddick, ivanisevic, krajicek etc too... I dont see these 1 slam winners a tier below Murray tbh...
 
Last edited:
Razer said:
Tier 5 : Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Arthur Ashe, Kuerten, Stanimal ... roddick, ivanisevic, krajicek etc too... I dont see these 1 slam winners a tier below Murray tbh...
Click to expand...
krajicek in no way should be on the same tier with guys like roddick, stanimal or murray, hes more like soderling type of player, i guess:D
 
alexio said:
krajicek in no way should be on the same tier with guys like roddick, stanimal or murray, hes more like soderling type of player, i guess:D
Click to expand...
Kraj is a slam winner unlike Soderling and he has individual match performances a guy like Murray can only dream about.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Kraj is a slam winner unlike Soderling and he has individual match performances a guy like Murray can only dream about.
Click to expand...
doesnt matter if hes a slam winner and soderling not, they both had one epic run, problem is sod faced fred while krajicek didnt.. without fred, sod is slam winner too, you refuted yourself here by saing krajicek is a slam winner, unlike sod, so murray is also a slam winner, three times to boot, unlike fluke krajicek
 
Razer said:
Yes Lendl's overall stats look good, but not winning wimbledon surely eliminates him from the conversation, he is surely tier 2. He is no better than Mcenroe, infact Mcenroe is the highest of Tier 2, he was solid strong for 1/2 of the decade and after his decline Lendl piled up all the numbers. Mcenroe lead Lendl in H2H like 14-12 or so until 1985-86, it is only after Lendl accumulated a lot of wins to surge far ahead in the H2H, that era was different when players enjoyed partying and staying awake all night, then coming to play next day. This is the same case with Borg and Mceroe both, I think John said it recently that they took pride in staying awake all night with friends and then coming to play unlike today's Big 3 or Sinner etc.... Lendl was probably fully into fitness and accumulated wins after 1985 when his rivals fell off the rails, lol..

Lendl is overrated on TTW by people saying he ruled the 80s. He just ruled 50% of the 80s, rest 50% was ruled by Mcenroe and Borg ruled the 50% of the 1970s. This is how it, Borg was a perhaps a bit better than these 2 and was at the wrong end of age too (remember he is 3-4 years older and having a lifestyle of staying awake night, partying and then coming to fight... similar Mike Tyson who was also like this) ... such people decline quicker.

So Lendl is equal to Mcenroe and nothing more. Mac has more prestigious slams while Lendl has more titles and h2h edges, levels out.

Agassi is overrated too, he is only as good as Becker but his 8 slams makes him being compared to Mac, Lendl, Connors which is a joke. Agassi never ruled any era and was a firm 2 to Pete.

This is how it should be

Tier 1 : Big 3, Sampras and maybe Borg
Tier 2 : Mcenroe, Lendl and Connors
Tier 3 : Agassi, Becker, Wilander, Edberg and maybe ALCARAZ (a bit early but we can put him here tentatively)
Tier 4 : Courier, Vilas, Newcombe
Tier 5 : Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter, Arthur Ashe, Kuerten, Stanimal ... roddick, ivanisevic, krajicek etc too... I dont see these 1 slam winners a tier below Murray tbh...
Click to expand...
McEnroe is overrated because a) he was American b) a loud mouth c) he has the aura of being incredibly talented and somehow an underachiever because he fell off the cliff after his, admittedly incredible 1984 d) was a high peak player (see c)) e) stayed in the tennis world as a pundit and still playing on the seniors tour so is famous even among younger generation. All in all Lendl is above him imho.
 
alexio said:
doesnt matter if hes a slam winner and soderling not, they both had one epic run, problem is sod faced fred while krajicek didnt.. without fred, sod is slam winner too, you refuted yourself here by saing krajicek is a slam winner, unlike sod, so murray is also a slam winner, three times to boot, unlike fluke krajicek
Click to expand...
Nobody straight setting Stich and peak Sampras at Wimbledon is a fluke slam winner. We are talking tiers here not who is better. Murray is clearly more successful than Kraj no objection here, but Krajicek has the higher peak.
 
alexio said:
doesnt matter if hes a slam winner and soderling not, they both had one epic run, problem is sod faced fred while krajicek didnt.. without fred, sod is slam winner too, you refuted yourself here by saing krajicek is a slam winner, unlike sod, so murray is also a slam winner, three times to boot, unlike fluke krajicek
Click to expand...

If I may barge in just to give one important point of note :

There were two extraordinary performances by Sod against Fedal in back to back years , both are GOAT tier players.

But Sod's misfortune was meeting the other in the final after beating the first. Pretty sure Krajicek didn't run into that kind of issue. And if the argument is Krajicek was playing some kind of unfathomable level, what could be more unfathomable than beating Rafael Freaking Nadal on Phillip Chatrier.


Murray was in 14 slam finals winning 3. Krajicek can only dream of that kind of consistency .Two of his slam wins came against the Greatest player ever too.
 
ForehandCross said:
If I may barge in just to give one important point of note :

There were two extraordinary performances by Sod against Fedal in back to back years , both are GOAT tier players.

But Sod's misfortune was meeting the other in the final after beating the first. Pretty sure Krajicek didn't run into that kind of issue. And if the argument is Krajicek was playing some kind of unfathomable level, what could be more unfathomable than beating Rafael Freaking Nadal on Phillip Chatrier.


Murray was in 14 slam finals winning 3. Krajicek can only dream of that kind of consistency .Two of his slam wins came against the Greatest player ever too.
Click to expand...
agree, by the same token we can write soderling into tier where murray is, but it would be really cute isnt it, one great/epic run is good no doubt, but its not enough
 
ForehandCross said:
Complete off topic. But do you know that Alpha concept of the Wolf pack is actually found out to be invalid in recent study?

The leader of , or more accurately yet, the prime couple of a wolf pack is not because they are the most powerful or dominant but simply because they are the father and mother of 90% of the pack.

They are the leaders because essentially they made the pack.
Click to expand...
And Sampras made the 90s. The entire decade, as well as current GOAT concept was made by him. Him not smiling big enough or being popular in the locker room doesn't change that.
 
alexio said:
krajicek in no way should be on the same tier with guys like roddick, stanimal or murray, hes more like soderling type of player, i guess:D
Click to expand...

Krajicek had winning h2h over Sampras and he won wimbledon, so he was a big player in the era of surface specialization.

BorgTheGOAT said:
McEnroe is overrated because a) he was American b) a loud mouth c) he has the aura of being incredibly talented and somehow an underachiever because he fell off the cliff after his, admittedly incredible 1984 d) was a high peak player (see c)) e) stayed in the tennis world as a pundit and still playing on the seniors tour so is famous even among younger generation. All in all Lendl is above him imho.
Click to expand...

Mcenroe was the best player in the world from 1981 to 1984, all 4 years ranked 1, he cannot be overrated because he has W and USO 3 a piece and those are the premier slams, then comes french and last comes AO. At least in his era, this was the case, isn't it? People skilled French too but nobody skipped US open and W, so those were the premier slams.

Why should Lendl be above Mcenroe if Mcenroe was leading Lendl in the H2H till the end of 1986? Mcenroe was 27 in 1986, plus he and Borg in that era were believers of partying all night and then coming to play slams, they said it themselves. So even if Lendl stayed very fit and piled stats later on in the second half of the 80s, why should he rated ahead ? He has 0 wimbledons, thats not something which can be ignored.

They are the same, also lets not forget Mcenroe-Borg were the Fedal type famous rivalry of that era, Lendl was the 3rd wheel sort of guy, he is overrated for sure.
 
alexio said:
doesnt matter if hes a slam winner and soderling not, they both had one epic run, problem is sod faced fred while krajicek didnt.. without fred, sod is slam winner too, you refuted yourself here by saing krajicek is a slam winner, unlike sod, so murray is also a slam winner, three times to boot, unlike fluke krajicek
Click to expand...

Is Federer a great clay courter ?

Why did Soderling lose vs him?

Soderling built Fed's clay resume, do you know that? Federer is not a great player on clay, the mistake is of Soderling to lose to him.
 
GabeT said:
You need to win Wimby at least 3 times

Sorry, I don’t make the rules
Click to expand...
Holmes said:
You need to win Wimby at least 7 times. I didn't make them either.
Click to expand...

Wimbledon is the premier slam. So definetely more you win, the better and a tier 1 guy needs lot of W titles.

Djokovic has gained a lot of respect by winning W 7 times, let's no pretend that all slams are same, they are not.

Nadal is the only tier 1 guy with 2W which is very poor but Nadal's 14 frenchs are out of this world. That and his iconic win over Federer is what compensates for lack of enough Wimbledon titles.

Lendl is nowhere close to Tier 1 with his 0W and those 2 weak AOs, a slam that people skipped for decades ...
 
Razer said:
Krajicek had winning h2h over Sampras and he won wimbledon, so he was a big player in the era of surface specialization.



Mcenroe was the best player in the world from 1981 to 1984, all 4 years ranked 1, he cannot be overrated because he has W and USO 3 a piece and those are the premier slams, then comes french and last comes AO. At least in his era, this was the case, isn't it? People skilled French too but nobody skipped US open and W, so those were the premier slams.

Why should Lendl be above Mcenroe if Mcenroe was leading Lendl in the H2H till the end of 1986? Mcenroe was 27 in 1986, plus he and Borg in that era were believers of partying all night and then coming to play slams, they said it themselves. So even if Lendl stayed very fit and piled stats later on in the second half of the 80s, why should he rated ahead ? He has 0 wimbledons, thats not something which can be ignored.

They are the same, also lets not forget Mcenroe-Borg were the Fedal type famous rivalry of that era, Lendl was the 3rd wheel sort of guy, he is overrated for sure.
Click to expand...
JMac has three Wimbledons and *four* USOs.
 
Backspin1183 said:
For me it's:

1. Nadal
2. Djokovic
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Alcaraz
Click to expand...
How can you have Djokovic ahead of Sampras Borg and Alcaraz? Sampras Borg and Alcaraz dominated/dominate their main rivals at the slams as did Nadal. Djokovic has never done that and is more Agassi type in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SamprasisGOAT
Top 5 peak level on each surface
2 3 4
Replies
182
Views
12K
tarutani
tarutani
BGod
Is Nadal a Top 10 OE player off-clay?
Replies
12
Views
796
LuckyR
LuckyR
smoledman
My top 5(Open Era)
Replies
19
Views
948
Deleted member 733170
D
topspin_forehand
Adjusted slam race
Replies
14
Views
877
Slicehand
S
D
  • Poll Poll
The Top 5
Replies
49
Views
4K
BLACKOUT
B
Back
Top