Slam distribution objectively doesn't matter

ADuck

Hall of Fame
You should strike a balance like Fed and also be ATG on multiple slams and surfaces

8 majors at Wimbledon which is more than anyone achieved anywhere bar Rafa and still 11 HC (6+5)
Federer has 20 slams and Rafa 17 so there's no question who is better right now. IF both had the same numbers, where Federer outshines Nadal in versatility, Nadal would make up for in domination at a single slam. And then it would come down to a matter of preference of what you value more, versatility or domination. Since I see no reason that one is better than the other, I'd say slam distribution doesn't matter.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
If you wish to make an extreme hypothetical example, of course slam distribution matters. Which player's legacy would be looked upon more favorably by tennis historians? ---

Player A: Wins 12 majors which consists of three CYGS's.

Player B: Wins the AO 12 times with no other majors.

And obviously it matters to all those guys who won 3/4 majors, but couldn't bag the elusive one: Boris, Pete and Stefan with the FO, Lendl with Wimbledon, etc.
Imagine how badly player B would be slagged compared to player A even though they have the same number of majors at the end of the day.
 
The easiest way to explain to the total count believers is in market share.

If a company has 90% market share in one country, that's great, but the company that has 50% market share in 3 countries is simply put the more global company even if the company with 90% share has the same revenue. And why? Because it may well have to pay more in taxes and the revenue in that country can be more mitigated.

That's basically the way you have to look at it. Now in tennis terms, dominating at 2 Slams is surely more impressive than dominating at 1. If you happen to grab an equal total but lopsided at 1 event it clearly means you were only able to dominate one event and over time get a favorable draw in the others.

In the Nadal vs. Federer scenario, let's give Nadal 3 more French Opens only so it's 20-20.

It's not just:
1-14-2-3
6-1-8-5

Or the 6-0 at the 5th biggest event (WTF) but here's how they would have performed from their first SF:

Nadal
SF-W-Q-Q-F-A-F-Q-1R-F-Q-F= Somewhat consistent contention overall but no period of dominance with of course 1 title.
W-W-W-W-4R-W-W-W-W-W-Q-INJ-W-W-W-W-W= Absolute dominance throughout with 2 small gaps.
F-F-W-A-W-F-2R-1R-4R-2R-A-4R-SF= Serious contender for an extended period but no dominance with 2 of 3 titles.
SF-SF-W-F-A-W-A-3R-4R-W-SF= Not even close despite 3 seasons participated yielding 2 titles. Last title notably lucky.


Federer we know but to summarize, 5 in a row at two Slams, 3 of 4 at the AO with a very long contending streak and one last back to back run showing longevity.

Then we throw in the WTF and it's a done deal.
 
Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than both Federer and Djokovic. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>>>>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Other than that, your arguments are correct. Federer and Djokovic can be criticized for not being super dominant on any single Grand Slam (none has 10 titles on any Major).
65% of his GS are from the FO. Without the FO Nadal wouldn't be in the discussion. So his total of GS are not well distributed.

Nadal dominates the GS with less competition that's why none has 10 titles on any majors.
 
Federer has 20 slams and Rafa 17 so there's no question who is better right now. IF both had the same numbers, where Federer outshines Nadal in versatility, Nadal would make up for in domination at a single slam. And then it would come down to a matter of preference of what you value more, versatility or domination. Since I see no reason that one is better than the other, I'd say slam distribution doesn't matter.
Domination? Nadal has never dominated the tour the way Fed and Novak have.

Season 2005 2006 and 2015.

In Nadal's case there's a lack of domination distribution and achievements. (0 YEC)
 
Nadal has dominated two Majors, as he has 3 US Opens which is ATG defining on it's own. Kuerten has 3 FOs and look at his status, Hewitt his whole career got 2 Majors for example. To say Nadal is 'mediocre' at the US Open is laughable really. 3 Us opens and his 2 Wimbledons and AO are the careers of Becker and Edberg and not far off Mcenroe and Lendl. when his FO record is added to his resume it is why so many consider him the greatest athlete of all time let alone tennis player.

The measure of greatness is titles won and against whom they were won.


Nadal has been dominated at the AO Wimb and Us open by Fed and Novak.
 
Nadal has been dominated at the AO Wimb and Us open by Fed and Novak.
Sadly the facts make your comment redundant. Nadal has a better record at US open than Federer when both peak at same time by a comfortable margin and also better than Djokovic with a winning h2h in three finals played. Wimbledon has been dominated by Djokovic as has Australia and the French Open may as well be the Nadal Open.

Those are the facts and they are hard to dispute.
 
Sadly the facts make your comment redundant. Nadal has a better record at US open than Federer when both peak at same time by a comfortable margin and also better than Djokovic with a winning h2h in three finals played. Wimbledon has been dominated by Djokovic as has Australia and the French Open may as well be the Nadal Open.

Those are the facts and they are hard to dispute.
Fed 7 finals 5 wins in a row 10 Sf 41 matches won in a row.
Nadal 4 finals 3 wins 7 SF lost to Pouille Fognini

Who has got the better record?
 
It is who wins what when at their peak at same time...clearly Nadal and Djokovic have far better records than Federer. 0 wins. bottom line.
Totally agree when Nadal loses, it is because of injuries or a bad referee.

Us open 2017 was a perfect example. He reached his peak to beat Anderson in the final and Lajovic Rublev Daniel Mayer and dogolopov

I agree his record at the us open is more impressive than Fed. Winning 3 times losing to Pouille and Fognini is better than winning 5 times 41 matches in a row.

Totally agree.
 
Last edited:
I would not say that it does not matter at all. It demonstrates versatility, otherwise, things like Career Grand Slam would not have much meaning. In fact it does, even as much that Agassi states in this book, that for most players winning all four would mean way much than total number of slams (even though we know why he is saying this).
However, the importance of distribution is blown way out of proportion here in this forum. In my opinion, once you have won all four the importance of distribution diminishes rapidly. Metrics like dominating xy in 3 out of 4 slams is actually pretty meaningless especially if we are talking small differences.
For example, imagine two players with 20 Slams both:
A) 3-3-3-11
B) 5-5-5-5

Why should player B be better? Only because he "dominates" the other one on 3 of the 4 Slams? No, that wouldn’t value that the dominance of player A on the fourth Slam is way bigger. And that HAS to count for something. That’s why the total number is the best factor already. It evens everything out.
This is also completely correct. Nadal has dominated a surface like nobody else in the history of tennis. To hold this against him and say it does not count for nothing as he was not able to dominate the other slams is complete crap. In the end it is just a matter of opinion what you value more - dominance or versatility, but both things are very impressive nonetheless.
 
Totally agree when Nadal loses, it is because of injuries or a bad referee.
To be fair. Djokovic and Federer fans also come up with a lot of bs excuses (windy conditions in USO final 2012 against Murray, windy conditions in 2004 USO against Agassi, Mono, injuries, robbed by Pascal Maria's umpiring, clay skewed H2H). There are bad examples of each fan base here, which is why I prefer the FPP section.
 
To be fair. Djokovic and Federer fans also come up with a lot of bs excuses (windy conditions in USO final 2012 against Murray, windy conditions in 2004 USO against Agassi, Mono, injuries, robbed by Pascal Maria's umpiring, clay skewed H2H). There are bad examples of each fan base here, which is why I prefer the FPP section.
Windy conditions in 2004 and 2012? that's true.

Carlos Benarbes banned from unpiring Nadal? true

 
Well, the one with great slam distribution actually performed exceptionally somewhere.
Not necessarily. A player who wins each slam twice would have won a double Career GS which nobody in the OE has managed so far (Djokovic has the great chance this year) but I would not really say, that winning a slam twice is exceptional. On the other hand a guy who wins one slam 8 times has the same number of slams, zero versatility but great dominance (Actually would be GOAT or co-GOAT at this particular slam if it wasn't the FO).
But you are generally right of course if we exclude such unrealistic examples.
 
Windy conditions in 2004 and 2012? that's true.
I did not say it was not true but it is dumb to hold this as an excuse why Djokovic lost to Murray or why Federer needed 5 sets to beat Agassi. Conditions are playing against both, it is not that the wind magically favored Murray/Agassi. Who was talking about Benarbes by the way??
 
Federer has 20 slams and Rafa 17 so there's no question who is better right now. IF both had the same numbers, where Federer outshines Nadal in versatility, Nadal would make up for in domination at a single slam. And then it would come down to a matter of preference of what you value more, versatility or domination. Since I see no reason that one is better than the other, I'd say slam distribution doesn't matter.
8 Wimbledon is domination.
 
I did not say it was not true but it is dumb to hold this as an excuse why Djokovic lost to Murray or why Federer needed 5 sets to beat Agassi. Conditions are playing against both, it is not that the wind magically favored Murray/Agassi. Who was talking about Benarbes by the way??
It did favor Murray as a matter of fact. He lost many encounters to Novak in GS but won with the wind.

Agassi was known to play well in the wind. 5 sets at the us open 2004 3 in Australia 2005 and 4 at Us open 2005.

Carlos Benarbes? U were trying to imply that Fed Novak were bad losers as bad as Nadal. Not the case.
 
It did favor Murray as a matter of fact. He lost many encounters to Novak in GS but won with the wind.

Agassi was known to play well in the wind. 5 sets at the us open 2004 3 in Australia 2005 and 4 at Us open 2005.
Are you serious here? Not sure if you are joking. The fact that they did better than in other encounters is proof for you that the wind favored them. In USO 2005 there was no wind as far as I know. Murray beat Djok in Wimbledon 2013 eve without wind.
Carlos Benarbes? U were trying to imply that Fed Novak were bad losers as bad as Nadal. Not the case.
I was not implying any of this. I was not talking about the Big three being bad losers but about their fan bases here coming up with excuses. One particular poster here (Djokovic fan) was crying for years about Pascal Maria's umpiring in the FO semifinal 2013, nothing to do with Benarbes. I do not know why you cannot understand what I am writing. As a matter of fact I would say that Djokovic is by far the best loser of the big three, most gracious in defeat.
 
I would not say that it does not matter at all. It demonstrates versatility, otherwise, things like Career Grand Slam would not have much meaning. In fact it does, even as much that Agassi states in this book, that for most players winning all four would mean way much than total number of slams (even though we know why he is saying this).
However, the importance of distribution is blown way out of proportion here in this forum. In my opinion, once you have won all four the importance of distribution diminishes rapidly. Metrics like dominating xy in 3 out of 4 slams is actually pretty meaningless especially if we are talking small differences.
I agree with everything you said! Even though I explained why distribution doesn't matter much for me, I share the opinion that every ATG player should have won all four Slams at least once.

Of course that doesn’t mean Borg or Sampras are not ATG players, but they have a hole in their legacy. Still Agassi is way too far behind in total accomplishments to eclipse them IMO.
 
I agree with everything you said! Even though I explained why distribution doesn't matter much for me, I share the opinion that every ATG player should have won all four Slams at least once.

Of course that doesn’t mean Borg or Sampras are not ATG players, but they have a hole in their legacy. Still Agassi is way too far behind in total accomplishments to eclipse them IMO.
Even comparing Borg's legacy with the current players is a travesty.

Seeing how Nadal whines about the smallest thing, if he was in Borg's position, he would have run crying when he was 19.

:cool:
 
I have always said that distribution doesn’t matter for a career. Quite honestly, if I had 17 slam titles right now while another guy had 20 and a guy younger than I that is currently 3 levels above everybody else had 15, then I would prefer a 11-3-2-1 spread to say, a 5-4-4-4 spread At least with Nadal’s actual spread of slams, he can say that he is by far the best FO player ever. But with a 5-4-4-4 spread, he would not be the king of anything.

Nadal’s 11 FO titles is a really cool thing for him. As a matter of fact, I wish that Fed had an 11-5-3-1 spread instead of his actual 8-6-5-1 spread. 11 Wimbledons would be incredible. I could see how somebody down the road might be a Martina and bag 9 Wimbledon titles in the ATP. But I think 11 is safe.
 
Clay is a specialist surface with less competition than Hard courts.

Winning mostly on clay only makes you the king of clay not the GOAT.
Grass is far more a specialist surface than clay, as there are many more clay court tournaments than grass tournaments, since the AO changed from grass to hard courts.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
The word exceptional doesn't encapsulate well what I'm trying to say. How about 'otherworldly.' Federer performed otherworldy nowhere. And Federer has 20 slams so it's not an even comparison to Nadal. If he had 17 he would be even in terms of slam greatness with Nadal imo.

We know that both being correct is impossible, yet both have equal footing on a subjective basis. What other conclusion would you come to?

Is the fact you consider Federer an ATG at 3 slams because you are bagging 5+ slams all into the same category? That is just an attempt to put 7/8 and 11 into the same category when they are not. 11 is in a category of it's own, so whatever category 11 is in, Federer is not considered that in any of the slams. But Federer has 3 slams more than Nadal so that doesn't matter anyway. If they had the same number, they would both be equally great at the slams imo if you consider all the slams to be of equal value. Federer leads right now in 2 slams not 3. If 2 other players A and B came along and won 11 W and 11UO respectively, Federer is leading nowhere. Would that diminish his legacy? Course not, which is why it doesn't matter if you are leading in the slams or not because it depends on only 50 years or so of history.
Really? 8 titles and 1 slam, winning it 5 in a row and reaching 7 straight finals is not otherwordly?
 

3lite

Professional
Does anyone really consider Federer a true FO champion?

It took the entire world to pause on its axis just for Federer to have his stars aligned to luck out. I wonder if Federer sends a special thank you card to Soderling every year.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Really? 8 titles and 1 slam, winning it 5 in a row and reaching 7 straight finals is not otherwordly?
Things to be mindful of here. I put Nadal's career in the OP as an example, and now you're trying to compare him to a guy who has 3 more slams than him, and then trying to factor in stuff like winning 5x in a row and other things like more finals and more consistency which is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here. I'm not saying all that stuff shouldn't be taken into account, if we are comparing Federer and Nadal in some hypothetical where both had 20 slams or both had 17 slams, but it's not an argument of distribution. Second, why is it you choose to argue over what word I use to describe 11 when compared to a number like 5,6,7? The fact is that 11 is in a different league to those numbers and I'm just trying to use a word which shows that.
 
Really? 8 titles and 1 slam, winning it 5 in a row and reaching 7 straight finals is not otherwordly?
Unfortunately, I agree with Mr. Duck on this one. Borg also had 5 straight titles and he had 6 straight finals. Sampras won 7 titles. So although Fed is the Wimbledon GOAT, he has guys close to him. I really wish that Fed had bagged the 2008 trophy. I would happily trade one of Fed’s AO trophies for the 2008 Wimbledon trophy. Had Fed beaten Nadal, that would be 7 straight Wimbledon titles and a 73-0 record on grass from 2003-2009. Instead, it’s only 6 titles and a 72-1 record on grass during those 7 years.

Nobody is in the same universe as Nadal at RG
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Op, what distribution of Nadal are you comfortable with should he get 20 majors ?

Or we can compare when Fed was at 17

4-1-7-5 vs 1-11-2-3. Which is better ?
My opinion is that based on distribution alone, neither one is better than the other. You would have to look at other factors like competition and consistency
 
Does anyone really consider Federer a true FO champion?

It took the entire world to pause on its axis just for Federer to have his stars aligned to luck out. I wonder if Federer sends a special thank you card to Soderling every year.
This statement is so biased, that Lew nearly blushed. The guy made it to 5 FO titles in a 6 year span. Name one other player in the Open era that went to 5 finals in 6 years at the same slam event, yet has 0 titles to show for it. You cannot name one because it has never happened. The greatest player at any one surface in history by a long shot blocked Fed from 4 titles. He finally beat the guy that slugged Nadal off of the court. And in the process, he tied Sampras’ record with his 14th slam title.

At the end of the day, Fed is only a one-time FO champion. But in just about any other era, I would bet that he bags 2-3 titles.

The sad thing is that Nadal has actually slipped a bit. Somebody like Thiem or Zverev will enventually bag a FO title. And one of these guys will be put in the same clay category as Federer when that happens.
 

3lite

Professional
This statement is so biased, that Lew nearly blushed. The guy made it to 5 FO titles in a 6 year span. Name one other player in the Open era that went to 5 finals in 6 years at the same slam event, yet has 0 titles to show for it. You cannot name one because it has never happened. The greatest player at any one surface in history by a long shot blocked Fed from 4 titles. He finally beat the guy that slugged Nadal off of the court. And in the process, he tied Sampras’ record with his 14th slam title.

At the end of the day, Fed is only a one-time FO champion. But in just about any other era, I would bet that he bags 2-3 titles.

The sad thing is that Nadal has actually slipped a bit. Somebody like Thiem or Zverev will enventually bag a FO title. And one of these guys will be put in the same clay category as Federer when that happens.
Absolutely not.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
So 0-17-0-0 is also fine with you and comparable to 4-4-5-4 ?
In such an extreme scenario, I'd still use other factors outside slam distribution to determine who was better. You would be more inclined to believe that the second player faced better competition and reached more slam finals etc because you get the impression he was more versatile, which would probably be true. BUT, in reality the first player could have reached multiple slam finals outside his best slam and had tightly contested battles but lost them. I'd still say it would come down to factors like slam finals and competition. So yes, it is still comparable. If the first player reached more finals and it was unanimously agreed he played better and had tougher opposition, then would you still go with the second player? Here's another example:
Player A: 14-1-1-1
Player B: 17-0-0-0
Is player A still better if he reached less slam finals and played worse competition?
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
This statement is so biased, that Lew nearly blushed. The guy made it to 5 FO titles in a 6 year span. Name one other player in the Open era that went to 5 finals in 6 years at the same slam event, yet has 0 titles to show for it. You cannot name one because it has never happened. The greatest player at any one surface in history by a long shot blocked Fed from 4 titles. He finally beat the guy that slugged Nadal off of the court. And in the process, he tied Sampras’ record with his 14th slam title.

At the end of the day, Fed is only a one-time FO champion. But in just about any other era, I would bet that he bags 2-3 titles.

The sad thing is that Nadal has actually slipped a bit. Somebody like Thiem or Zverev will enventually bag a FO title. And one of these guys will be put in the same clay category as Federer when that happens.
Closest guy I can think of is Murray who reached 5 finals in 7 years at the AO.

Btw, agree with the above.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
We know that both being correct is impossible, yet both have equal footing on a subjective basis. What other conclusion would you come to?
Your argument is invalid. If two people have different opinions on a topic, it does NOT follow that the topic "doesn't matter." That's completely illogical.

Person A believes the painting is beautiful.
Person B believes the painting is ugly.
Therefore, we conclude that aesthetics are "objectively" irrelevant? Sorry, no.

If anything, the existence of strong but divergent opinions reinforces the importance of the subject under consideration, since people care enough to actually have those opinions.
 
In such an extreme scenario, I'd still use other factors outside slam distribution to determine who was better. You would be more inclined to believe that the second player faced better competition and reached more slam finals etc because you get the impression he was more versatile, which would probably be true. BUT, in reality the first player could have reached multiple slam finals outside his best slam and had tightly contested battles but lost them. I'd still say it would come down to factors like slam finals and competition. So yes, it is still comparable. If the first player reached more finals and it was unanimously agreed he played better and had tougher opposition, then would you still go with the second player? Here's another example:
Player A: 14-1-1-1
Player B: 17-0-0-0
Is player A still better if he reached less slam finals and played worse competition?
And what about YEC?
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Your argument is invalid. If two people have different opinions on a topic, it does NOT follow that the topic "doesn't matter." That's completely illogical.

Person A believes the painting is beautiful.
Person B believes the painting is ugly.
Therefore, we conclude that aesthetics are "objectively" irrelevant? Sorry, no.

If anything, the existence of strong but divergent opinions reinforces the importance of the subject under consideration, since people care enough to actually have those opinions.
Can a painting be objectively beautiful or ugly? That is something that is entirely subjective. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Totally agree when Nadal loses, it is because of injuries or a bad referee.

Us open 2017 was a perfect example. He reached his peak to beat Anderson in the final and Lajovic Rublev Daniel Mayer and dogolopov

I agree his record at the us open is more impressive than Fed. Winning 3 times losing to Pouille and Fognini is better than winning 5 times 41 matches in a row.

Totally agree.
Why has Federer failed to win a single US Open during the prime of Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray?
 
This statement is so biased, that Lew nearly blushed. The guy made it to 5 FO titles in a 6 year span. Name one other player in the Open era that went to 5 finals in 6 years at the same slam event, yet has 0 titles to show for it. You cannot name one because it has never happened. The greatest player at any one surface in history by a long shot blocked Fed from 4 titles. He finally beat the guy that slugged Nadal off of the court. And in the process, he tied Sampras’ record with his 14th slam title.

At the end of the day, Fed is only a one-time FO champion. But in just about any other era, I would bet that he bags 2-3 titles.

The sad thing is that Nadal has actually slipped a bit. Somebody like Thiem or Zverev will enventually bag a FO title. And one of these guys will be put in the same clay category as Federer when that happens.
Nadal was injured in 2009 when he lost to Soderling.
 
No, he wasn't. He was blown off the court.
Except it was proven he was injured by what he and his camp said. I'll listen to the guy who has barely lost a set in 11 years at an event to the casual fans. 11 French Opens, that is Laver's entire career, it just is amazing.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Can a painting be objectively beautiful or ugly? That is something that is entirely subjective. Correct me if I'm wrong.
What does that have to do with what I just explained? YOU are the person who is trying to derive some sort of objective truth (slam distribution doesn't matter) from the mere existence of subjective disagreement (people have different opinions about what sort of slam distribution is best). Again, your argument is simply illogical. Focus on that.
 
Why has Federer failed to win a single US Open during the prime of Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro and Murray?

Fed won 41 matches in a row between 2004 and 2009. Djokovic is close to Fed's achievements at the USO having played 8 finals 11 SF.

Fed never played Nadal at the US open but he still won the USO in Nadal's prime in 2007 and 2008.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Does anyone really consider Federer a true FO champion?

It took the entire world to pause on its axis just for Federer to have his stars aligned to luck out. I wonder if Federer sends a special thank you card to Soderling every year.
Quite funny coming from a fan of someone who needed both Nadal and Wawrinka to be taken out for him to win the FO.
 
unequal conditions, irrelevant comparison, nadal had 2x attempts per year than djoko(fed)..
better be well-rounded than narrow-focused (not only in tennis but everywhere else)
Excuses. It is a fair comparison. There are 2 Grand Slams on hard courts. Nadal has 4 Grand Slams on hard courts. 4 ÷ 2 = 2. Nadal averages 2 titles per Grand Slams on hard courts. Djokovic only averages 1 title per Grand Slam on clay.

2 >>> 1. Nadal averages more titles per Grand Slam on hard courts than Djokovic on clay.

Thus, fair comparison. Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has at least 2 Grand Slams in each surface (hard, grass and clay). Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 >>> 1. Djokovic needs to win 3 Roland Garros titles to have his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. Thus, Nadal is more well-rounded in Slams.
 
Wrong. Fair comparison. There are 2 Grand Slams on hard courts. Nadal has 4 Grand Slams on hard courts. 4 ÷ 2 = 2. Nadal averages 2 titles per Grand Slams on hard courts. Djokovic only averages 1 title per Grand Slam on clay.

2 >>> 1. Nadal averages more titles per Grand Slam on hard courts than Djokovic on clay.

Thus, fair comparison. Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has at least 2 Grand Slams in each surface (hard, grass and clay). Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 >>> 1. Djokovic needs to win 3 Roland Garros titles to have his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal.


11 out of 17= 65% on one of the specialist surface.
7 out of 15= 46% on a non specialist surface allowing players to play an all around game.

By the way Novak has won everything in tennis All 4 slams holding all 4 of them at the same time 5 WTF all masters 1000. He's beaten Nadal at every GS WTF Masters 1000 but you're telling us that it is Nadal who has the more evenly distributed GS.
 
Last edited:
Top