Slam wins by generation

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
Birth YearTotal OE SlamsNotable Players
50-5417Connors (8)Vilas (4)Panatta (1)Gerulaitis (1)Tanner (1)Teacher (1)Edmondson (1)Gottfried (0)Solomon (0)Dibbs (0)
55-5920Borg (11)McEnroe (7)Kriek (2)Clerc (0)Mayer (0)Teltscher (0)Curren (0)Pecci (0)Smid (0)Mcnamara (0)
60-6417Lendl (8)Wilander (7)Gomez (1)Noah (1)Mecir (0)Gilbert (0)Mayotte (0)Leconte (0)Jarryd (0)Nystrom (0)
65-6916Edberg (6)Becker (6)Muster (1)Cash (1)Stich (1)Korda (1)Forget (0)Pioline (0)Sanchez (0)Chesnokov (0)
70-7435Sampras (14)Agassi (8)Courier (4)Kafelnikov (2)Bruguera (2)Rafter (2)Chang (1)Ivanisevic (1)Krajicek (1)Corretja (0)
75-797Kuerten (3)Moya (1)Costa (1)Gaudio (1)Johansson (1)Rios (0)Haas (0)Ljubicic (0)Phillippousis (0)Grosjean (0)
80-8426Federer (20)Hewitt (2)Safin (2)Roddick (1)Ferrero (1)Ferrer (0)Davydenko (0)Nalbandian (0)Coria (0)Soderling (0)
85-8948Djokovic (20)Nadal (20)Murray (3)Wawrinka (3)Del Potro (1)Cilic (1)Berdych (0)Tsonga (0)Nishikori (0)Monfils (0)
90-941Thiem (1)Raonic (0)Dimitrov (0)Goffin (0)Carreno Busta (0)Pouille (0)Schwartzman (0)Sock (0)Basilashvili (0)Karatsev (0)
95-990Zverev (0)Medvedev (0)Tsitsipas (0)Rublev (0)Berrettini (0)Kyrgios (0)Khachanov (0)Shapovalov (0)Hurkacz (0)De Minaur (0)
00-040Sinner (0)Auger-Aliassime (0)Alcaraz (0)Korda (0)Musetti (0)Nakashima (0)Seyboth Wild (0)Cerundolo (0)

Takeaways:
  • 85-89 is the strongest generation in tennis history, 70-74 is 2nd strongest
  • 75-79 is quite weak
  • 90-94 is pathetically weak and the weakest generation in tennis history by a longshot
  • 95-99 is also quite weak, probably along the lines of 75-79
  • Obviously jury is still out on 00-04
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
The data is interesting but the conclusions are all wrong. You can’t compare generation strengths based on how many slams they won.
 

Jonas78

Legend
I agree with you but i also agree with @GabeT that you can’t compare generation strengths based on just how many slams they won.

There are two main reasons i agree with you.

1. Noone stands out among the younger players. Noone can consistently go deep in slams. If someone was beating the field but consistently lost to Nole, you could claim Nole is simply "too good", but thats not the case. They usually lose too early to face Novak more than 1-2x pr season. Everybody loses to everybody.

2. Their stats are too weak. Top players through history are about 60%+- on games won and 55%+- on points won in their prime. And there can be more than one player reaching these numbers, in other words: Novak cant prevent others from reaching these numbers. They are simply too weak, its on them.

The top level of tennis is going down, with players like Stan, Murray and Delpo already gone without players of the same quality stepping up. Federer is also done imo without anyone taking his place, maybe also Nadal.
 
Last edited:

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
The data is interesting but the conclusions are all wrong. You can’t compare generation strengths based on how many slams they won.
Provide a counterpoint, then.

I'm not saying or agreeing that this is definitive proof, but it's interesting and I think I did something similar in a post quite a while ago. It's easy to put TOO much stock in this, I'm not. However, for me, the numbers and the eye test do kind of line up on this.

I wouldn't make too deep conclusions on this, but it does seem to bare out what we've seen.
 

beard

Legend
Lol, again wrong conclusion on right data... Just take away Rafas and Novaks slams from this table, add to generations after them, wait few years till their careers finish and score would be usual...

Problem is that Rafa (specially at FO) and Novak are two goats so they stopped next gens... Anyway, wait till all players from the table retire to get proper results and conclusions... You write like all this players are already retired, while all from last two gens can play next 10 or 15 years...

Good for science you are not scientists... Although reviewers would stop you on time, lol...
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Looking at this really highlights how 80-84 is super overlooked as a "weak era" because Federer is single-handedly holding that age bracket up with 20 of the 26 slams. The rest of it tho pretty much agrees with how i think for eras that are the greatest for players. Big 3/4 being the best period followed by the Sampras/Agassi period. That's what most would agree upon, right?
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
Lol, again wrong conclusion on right data... Just take away Rafas and Novaks slams from this table, add to generations after them, wait few years till their careers finish and score would be usual...

Problem is that Rafa (specially at FO) and Novak are two goats so they stopped next gens... Anyway, wait till all players from the table retire to get proper results and conclusions... You write like all this players are already retired, while all from last two gens can play next 10 or 15 years...

Good for science you are not scientists... Although reviewers would stop you on time, lol...
I said 90-94 was very weak, 95-99 is prob not quite as weak, and 00-04 is unknown, dummy
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Looking at this really highlights how 80-84 is super overlooked as a "weak era" because Federer is single-handedly holding that age bracket up with 20 of the 26 slams. The rest of it tho pretty much agrees with how i think for eras that are the greatest for players. Big 3/4 being the best period followed by the Sampras/Agassi period. That's what most would agree upon, right?
Fed's era is fine. Lost Gen + Next Gen is the real weak era.

Of course not many slams are going to be won when Fed is that good and his guys were also unlucky with injuries. They never lacked ability, just proper health.

There's also Roddick who made the mistake of tinkering with his game.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Looking at this really highlights how 80-84 is super overlooked as a "weak era" because Federer is single-handedly holding that age bracket up with 20 of the 26 slams. The rest of it tho pretty much agrees with how i think for eras that are the greatest for players. Big 3/4 being the best period followed by the Sampras/Agassi period. That's what most would agree upon, right?
You could also make the same argument about 85-89. Other than Djokodal, the others have won a combined 8 slams, not much different to Fed's guys winning 6 outside him.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
You could also make the same argument about 85-89. Other than Djokodal, the others have won a combined 8 slams, not much different to Fed's guys winning 6 outside him.
You could spin in both ways i agree but i think Djokovic/Nadal both being on 20 in that age bracket says it all. That is 2 players on 20 slams + the other 8 slams. It's not 1 player dominating the age bracket. Even the other generations have a similar pattern with Sampras/Agassi, Borg/McEnroe ect. There is at least 2 players ahead of the field with others still winning slams, not just 1 player.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
You could spin in both ways i agree but i think Djokovic/Nadal both being on 20 in that age bracket says it all. That is 2 players on 20 slams + the other 8 slams. It's not 1 player dominating the age bracket. Even the other generations have a similar pattern with Sampras/Agassi, Borg/McEnroe ect. There is at least 2 players ahead of the field with others still winning slams, not just 1.
Agassi won only 3 slams until 99. There wasn't much dominating on his side.

I don't see much difference in 2 guys mopping up a lot of titles vs 1. Especially since it keeps happening and not ending even in their mid 30's.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Any distribution between players cannot show anything about weak or strong era. It’s all relative.

Just think about the points distribution in a soccer table. Any league between the highest and the lowest can be lopsided or closed. Says nothing about the playing level at all.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The difference is they play each other. Federer can't play himself. His age bracket is weak.
Their matches haven't exactly been spectacular save for a couple of ones since about 2014. I don't see anything strong in beatdowns like AO 2019 and RG 2020. Plus, Nadal not winning a single set on HC for 8 years.

Plus, they haven't played many slam matches in the last 7 years either. They also won lots of slams avoiding each other. Hasn't Djokovic won like only 3 slams against Nadal out of his last 14?
 
LOL.

This is not a statistically valid comparison of entire generations.

Just take two players - Djokodal out of 85-89, and that whole "generation" would not be dominant anymore, but the Next one probably.

It's not about generations, it's about the
fact that two great players Djokodal are born just year apart. And that's all.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
LOL.

This is not a statistically valid comparison of entire generations.

Just take two players - Djokodal out of 85-89, and that whole "generation" would not be dominant anymore, but the Next one probably.

It's not about generations, it's about the
fact that two great players Djokodal are born just year apart. And that's all.
That's all? Explain how Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Cilic won slams during Djokodal's prime and while Federer was still good but the subsequent generations can't win any slams even when Djokodal are older. Thiem was extremely lucky that Djokovic got defaulted for TKO'ing a Karen otherwise he would be at 0 too.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Birth YearTotal OE SlamsNotable Players
50-5417Connors (8)Vilas (4)Panatta (1)Gerulaitis (1)Tanner (1)Teacher (1)Edmondson (1)Gottfried (0)Solomon (0)Dibbs (0)
55-5920Borg (11)McEnroe (7)Kriek (2)Clerc (0)Mayer (0)Teltscher (0)Curren (0)Pecci (0)Smid (0)Mcnamara (0)
60-6417Lendl (8)Wilander (7)Gomez (1)Noah (1)Mecir (0)Gilbert (0)Mayotte (0)Leconte (0)Jarryd (0)Nystrom (0)
65-6916Edberg (6)Becker (6)Muster (1)Cash (1)Stich (1)Korda (1)Forget (0)Pioline (0)Sanchez (0)Chesnokov (0)
70-7435Sampras (14)Agassi (8)Courier (4)Kafelnikov (2)Bruguera (2)Rafter (2)Chang (1)Ivanisevic (1)Krajicek (1)Corretja (0)
75-797Kuerten (3)Moya (1)Costa (1)Gaudio (1)Johansson (1)Rios (0)Haas (0)Ljubicic (0)Phillippousis (0)Grosjean (0)
80-8426Federer (20)Hewitt (2)Safin (2)Roddick (1)Ferrero (1)Ferrer (0)Davydenko (0)Nalbandian (0)Coria (0)Soderling (0)
85-8948Djokovic (20)Nadal (20)Murray (3)Wawrinka (3)Del Potro (1)Cilic (1)Berdych (0)Tsonga (0)Nishikori (0)Monfils (0)
90-941Thiem (1)Raonic (0)Dimitrov (0)Goffin (0)Carreno Busta (0)Pouille (0)Schwartzman (0)Sock (0)Basilashvili (0)Karatsev (0)
95-990Zverev (0)Medvedev (0)Tsitsipas (0)Rublev (0)Berrettini (0)Kyrgios (0)Khachanov (0)Shapovalov (0)Hurkacz (0)De Minaur (0)
00-040Sinner (0)Auger-Aliassime (0)Alcaraz (0)Korda (0)Musetti (0)Nakashima (0)Seyboth Wild (0)Cerundolo (0)

Takeaways:
  • 85-89 is the strongest generation in tennis history, 70-74 is 2nd strongest
  • 75-79 is quite weak
  • 90-94 is pathetically weak and the weakest generation in tennis history by a longshot
  • 95-99 is also quite weak, probably along the lines of 75-79
  • Obviously jury is still out on 00-04
Why are your generations starting at the beginning of a decade and mid-decade? These are artificial constructions. Tennis doesn't operate in decades.
 
That's all? Explain how Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Cilic won slams during Djokodal's prime and while Federer was still good but the subsequent generations can't win any slams even when Djokodal are older. Thiem was extremely lucky that Djokovic got defaulted for TKO'ing a Karen otherwise he would be at 0 too.
Djokodal are that good. Yes.

Djokovic is stil (near) his prime level.

One day, when Djokodal start declining,
slam numbers of NextGens will increase.

We don't see the whole picture at this moment in time yet.

Big3 are like massive stars which pull all slams towards them with their giant gravitational forces, leaving not much to the rest of the field.
 

ibbi

Legend
It's nice to look at, but 5 years really is too wide a spread to consider a single generation. 4 years is about as deep as you can stretch it.
 
Birth YearTotal OE SlamsNotable Players
50-5417Connors (8)Vilas (4)Panatta (1)Gerulaitis (1)Tanner (1)Teacher (1)Edmondson (1)Gottfried (0)Solomon (0)Dibbs (0)
55-5920Borg (11)McEnroe (7)Kriek (2)Clerc (0)Mayer (0)Teltscher (0)Curren (0)Pecci (0)Smid (0)Mcnamara (0)
60-6417Lendl (8)Wilander (7)Gomez (1)Noah (1)Mecir (0)Gilbert (0)Mayotte (0)Leconte (0)Jarryd (0)Nystrom (0)
65-6916Edberg (6)Becker (6)Muster (1)Cash (1)Stich (1)Korda (1)Forget (0)Pioline (0)Sanchez (0)Chesnokov (0)
70-7435Sampras (14)Agassi (8)Courier (4)Kafelnikov (2)Bruguera (2)Rafter (2)Chang (1)Ivanisevic (1)Krajicek (1)Corretja (0)
75-797Kuerten (3)Moya (1)Costa (1)Gaudio (1)Johansson (1)Rios (0)Haas (0)Ljubicic (0)Phillippousis (0)Grosjean (0)
80-8426Federer (20)Hewitt (2)Safin (2)Roddick (1)Ferrero (1)Ferrer (0)Davydenko (0)Nalbandian (0)Coria (0)Soderling (0)
85-8948Djokovic (20)Nadal (20)Murray (3)Wawrinka (3)Del Potro (1)Cilic (1)Berdych (0)Tsonga (0)Nishikori (0)Monfils (0)
90-941Thiem (1)Raonic (0)Dimitrov (0)Goffin (0)Carreno Busta (0)Pouille (0)Schwartzman (0)Sock (0)Basilashvili (0)Karatsev (0)
95-990Zverev (0)Medvedev (0)Tsitsipas (0)Rublev (0)Berrettini (0)Kyrgios (0)Khachanov (0)Shapovalov (0)Hurkacz (0)De Minaur (0)
00-040Sinner (0)Auger-Aliassime (0)Alcaraz (0)Korda (0)Musetti (0)Nakashima (0)Seyboth Wild (0)Cerundolo (0)

Takeaways:
  • 85-89 is the strongest generation in tennis history, 70-74 is 2nd strongest
  • 75-79 is quite weak
  • 90-94 is pathetically weak and the weakest generation in tennis history by a longshot
  • 95-99 is also quite weak, probably along the lines of 75-79
  • Obviously jury is still out on 00-04
No, these are artificial 5-year-period-glued generations.

The "best generation" is 87.

Simply because one player - Novak was born in it. :D :giggle:
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
Djokodal are that good. Yes.

Djokovic is stil (near) his prime level.

One day, when Djokodal start declining,
slam numbers of NextGens will increase.

We don't see the whole picture at this moment in time yet.

Big3 are like massive stars which pull all slams towards them with their giant gravitational forces, leaving not much to the rest of the field.
You still haven't explained how various other players from Djokodal's generation won several slams during Djokodal's prime and the subsequent generations can't win any. If these nextgens are just as good as previous generations there is no need to wait for Djokodal's decline.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
Why are your generations starting at the beginning of a decade and mid-decade? These are artificial constructions. Tennis doesn't operate in decades.
Obviously any grouping of players into bins by year will be based on arbitrary cutoffs. The generations outlined above generally make sense based on how we regard contemporaries and eras in tennis history.
 
You still haven't explained how various other players from Djokodal's generation won several slams during Djokodal's prime and the subsequent generations can't win any. If these nextgens are just as good as previous generations there is no need to wait for Djokodal's decline.
Generation of players actually has hundreds of players.

You can not derive conclusions on the entire generation,
based on several or one exceptional individual born in each one.

Btw Novak said he's the most complete he has ever been.
 
Last edited:
Obviously any grouping of players into bins by year will be based on arbitrary cutoffs. The generations outlined above generally make sense based on how we regard main contemporaries and eras in tennis history.
No they dont.

Just put a line between Djoko and Nadal, 86-87 year,

and you get a
completely different picture.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
Generation of players actually has hundreds of players.

You can not derive conclusions on the entire generation,
based on several or one exceptional individual born in each one.

Btw Novak said he's the most complete he has ever been.
You're right, we should consider the millions of novices in rec leagues rather than the handful of top players that people actually care about.
 
Explain how that's a better cutoff when every reasonable person in the tennis world regards Nadal and Djokovic to belong to the same generation.
You're right, we should consider the millions of novices in rec leagues rather than the handful of top players that people actually care about.
LOL.

The problem isn't simply if they belong to the same generation (86, 87),

but statistical fallacy of your conclusions.

Not a single reasonable person, knowledgeable in statistics, would draw conclusions on entire, artificially merged generations of players which highly depend
on just one/two players in it.

It's ridiculous.

Fedalovic are a phenomen, exception,
1 in a century.
In their absence, your "conclusions" on entire generations of players would change dramatically.

It's like saying
"people born in Einstein's generation" are smarter than people nowadays, because no one is making such big contributions to science as he did.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
LOL.

The problem isn't simply if they belong to the same generation (86, 87),

but statistical fallacy of your conclusions.

Not a single reasonable person, knowledgeable in statistics, would draw conclusions on entire, artificially merged generations of players which highly depend
on just one/two players in it.

It's ridiculous.

Fedalovic are a phenomen, exception,
1 in a century.
In their absence, your "conclusions" on entire generations of players would change dramatically.

It's like saying
"people born in Einstein's generation" are smarter than people nowadays, because no one is making such big contributions to science as he did.
We're talking about slam winners. By the very nature of the topic the sample size of players under consideration will be limited. Furthermore, assigning data into bins to discretize a continuous variable such as time is perfectly valid. Your assignment for the weekend is to learn about histograms - you may return to this thread once you have grasped the concept.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Nope, still an interesting discussion. Feel free to leave.

P.S. do you understand how histograms work?
I understand how tennis works and it doesn't fit into simplistic little charts dictating that generations neatly start at the exact beginning of each decade and half decade.

Start your data sets from years beginning in 2 and 7 rather than 0 and 5 (both arbitrary starting points) and Nadal and Djokovic move into separate generations and you have a completely different set of results.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
I understand how tennis works and it doesn't fit into simplistic little charts dictating that generations neatly start at the exact beginning of each decade and half decade.

Start your data sets from years beginning in 2 and 7 rather than 0 and 5 (both arbitrary starting points) and Nadal and Djokovic move into separate generations and you have a completely different set of results.
Sure, you can do that and report the results here.

First, every statistic is a simplification of reality. If you are arguing that statistics cannot be useful to understand reality, including tennis, you are wrong. Second, you have intentionally selected your intervals so that two key players we know to belong to the same generation are placed into different bins - your approach of cherry-picking is clearly more susceptible to bias than mine, which is a standard approach to selecting 5-year intervals. Nonetheless, I welcome you to report the results of your approach. Third, once you have completed your exercise you will find that the takeaways are similar. The NextGen players did not magically win more slams because of your suggested intervals.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Sure, you can do that and report the results here.

First, every statistic is a simplification of reality. If you are arguing that statistics cannot be useful to understand reality, including tennis, you are wrong. Second, you have intentionally selected your intervals so that two key players we know to belong to the same generation are placed into different bins - your approach of cherry-picking is clearly more susceptible to bias than mine, which is a standard approach to selecting 5-year intervals. Nonetheless, I welcome you to report the results of your approach. Third, once you have completed your exercise you will find that the takeaways are similar. The NextGen players did not magically win more slams because of your suggested intervals.
There is no point completing it because it gives you completely arbitrary results.

"Two key players we know to belong to the same generation are placed into different bins - your approach of cherry-picking is clearly more susceptible to bias than mine."
That is absurd. The amount of bias is equal in both sets. There is no objective reason for your starting point. Tennis didn't start at the beginning of a decade. The Open Era didn't start at the beginning of a decade. Nothing related to tennis fits into your reductive approach.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
There is no point completing it because it gives you completely arbitrary results.

"Two key players we know to belong to the same generation are placed into different bins - your approach of cherry-picking is clearly more susceptible to bias than mine."
That is absurd. The amount of bias is equal in both sets. There is no objective reason for your starting point. Tennis didn't start at the beginning of a decade. The Open Era didn't start at the beginning of a decade. Nothing related to tennis fits into your reductive approach.
"The amount of bias is equal in both sets"
The bias I am referring to is in the approach to selecting intervals, not in the intervals themselves. You specifically chose your intervals so that Djokovic and Nadal would fall into different intervals. This is precisely cherry-picking. My approach did not include any cherry picking.

"There is no objective reason for your starting point."
Using standard 5-year intervals, which begin at at the start of decades and half-decades, is perfectly valid unless there is a more valid reason to use different intervals.

"Nothing related to tennis fits into your reductive approach."
Again, every statistic is simplification of reality. Your claim that histograms that discretize time are meaningless in tennis is ridiculous. My approach is a reasonable way to compare the number of slams won by different generations of tennis players. Perhaps you do not like the results, in which case you should correct your confirmation bias.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
"The amount of bias is equal in both sets"
The bias I am referring to is in the approach to selecting intervals, not in the intervals themselves. You specifically chose your intervals so that Djokovic and Nadal would fall into different intervals. This is precisely cherry-picking. My approach did not include any cherry picking.

"There is no objective reason for your starting point."
Using standard 5-year intervals, which begin at at the start of decades and half-decades, is perfectly valid unless there is a more valid reason to use different intervals.

"Nothing related to tennis fits into your reductive approach."
Again, every statistic is simplification of reality. Your claim that histograms that discretize time are meaningless in tennis is ridiculous. My approach is a reasonable way to compare the number of slams won by different generations of tennis players. Perhaps you do not like the results, in which case you should correct your confirmation bias.
The problem you have is that time periods related to tennis are not arbitrary. There are specific moments in time from which we can gather statistics: the first tournament, the first time all 4 majors were open to all amateur players, the start of the Open Era. Your method of splitting generations by decade has no relevance to tennis. Applying your methodology to slam winning stats from 65-69 and you would have an almighty mess of amateur slams, pro slams and Open slams.

Your method has NO application to tennis. You'll have to go back to the drawing board.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
The problem you have is that time periods related to tennis are not arbitrary. There are specific moments in time from which we can gather statistics: the first tournament, the first time all 4 majors were open to all amateur players, the start of the Open Era. Your method of splitting generations by decade has no relevance to tennis. Applying your methodology to slam winning stats from 65-69 and you would have an almighty mess of amateur slams, pro slams and Open slams.

Your method has NO application to tennis. You'll have to go back to the drawing board.
It has a clear and obvious application to tennis - it provides further evidence that the NextGens are the weakest generations in modern tennis history. If this result upsets you, I am here to comfort you and let you know everything will be ok. I assigned another poster the task of reading up on histograms. That poster will be submitting a summary of his newfound knowledge on Monday. You are to complete the same assignment independently. Hope you learn something!
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
It has a clear and obvious application to tennis - it provides further evidence that top players born 90-94 comprise the weakest generation in modern tennis history.
People born 90-94 are not part of a separate tennis generation.

Player A born at 11:59pm on December 31st 1994 is part of one generation; Player B born at 12:01 am on January 1st 1995 is part of a different generation? So Player A is considered part of the same generation as someone almost five years younger but a different generation than Player B born two minutes after him?

It's absurd. Please. Stop posting nonsense that has no relevance to tennis.
 

csmoove899

Semi-Pro
People born 90-94 are not part of a separate tennis generation.

Player A born at 11:59pm on December 31st 1994 is part of one generation; Player B born at 12:01 am on January 1st 1995 is part of a different generation? So Player A is considered part of the same generation as someone almost five years younger but a different generation than Player B born two minutes after him?

It's absurd. Please. Stop posting nonsense that has no relevance to tennis.
We are going in circles, but you will understand once you complete your assigned homework to learn about histograms.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
We are going in circles, but you will understand once you complete your assigned homework to learn about histograms.
Player A born at 11:59pm on December 31st 1994;
Player B born at 12:01 am on January 1st 1995
Two players born two minutes apart.
You say they are from different generations!
:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D
 
Top