leazes.ender Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why were there so many empty seats tonight towards the top behind the goal? I noticed this as well. Thought it was just me seeing things. Surely they're not restricted view or anything like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Far far better than watching Barcelona and Arsenal. I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 20 pass move leading to a simple tap in > 3 pass incisive counter-attack leading to a goal, in my opinion. Both are obviously much more favourable than fouling when you can't get the ball to slow the other team down, diving again and again to win penalties, camping in your own half for 180 minutes trying not to lose a goal and every other shit that teams pull when they play Barca. Barca ftw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Ballack couldn't have tried any harder to not block that! he should have been sent off for his protests over the pen that wasn't given Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why were there so many empty seats tonight towards the top behind the goal? I noticed this as well. Thought it was just me seeing things. Surely they're not restricted view or anything like that. Its UEFA regulations, fans have to be a certain distance from the pitch or something. So at SJP are a ok as there is an area between pitch and the stand but stam bridge is right on the pitch so they have to have empty seats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Bang on. Specially the last sentence, was another boring match up until the end tonight I thought, much more exciting when Chelsea were in possession too. Only really boring because of one team, unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Ballack couldn't have tried any harder to not block that! he should have been sent off for his protests over the pen that wasn't given Agreed. So should Drogba for persisting to abuse the referee after being booked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Agree also, but further than just as a spectacle, attacking in the style of a Man Utd is way more effective than Arsenal/Barca's walk-it-in strategy. Invariably sides with good defenders/grafters will just park the bus, and it will be somewhat ineffectual for Barca/Arsenal. I think France struggled in the same way after they won Euro 2000 - they struggled in qualifiers to break down poor, poor teams and drew 0-0 against Israel etc because despite their plethora of talent, they had no penetration. "No edge... no eye of the tiger " Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Why were there so many empty seats tonight towards the top behind the goal? I noticed this as well. Thought it was just me seeing things. Surely they're not restricted view or anything like that. Its UEFA regulations, fans have to be a certain distance from the pitch or something. So at SJP are a ok as there is an area between pitch and the stand but stam bridge is right on the pitch so they have to have empty seats. It was the back 5/6 rows though of the upper tier of the Mathew Harding stand I think its called. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Far far better than watching Barcelona and Arsenal. I agree. Not that there's anything wrong with Barcelona and Arsenal at their best either, btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Bang on. Specially the last sentence, was another boring match up until the end tonight I thought, much more exciting when Chelsea were in possession too. Only really boring because of one team, unfortunately. Not totally, Barca's need to keep the ball no matter what kills the game stone dead iyam, yes they're great at keeping the ball but they try to over do it. They take any pace and excitement out the game but this dreary three yard pass and move game that a lot of the time gets them nowhere is very boring to me. Give me a premiership game any day of the week, not as pretty but a hell of a lot more entertaining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Agree also, but further than just as a spectacle, attacking in the style of a Man Utd is way more effective than Arsenal/Barca's walk-it-in strategy. Invariably sides with good defenders/grafters will just park the bus, and it will be somewhat ineffectual for Barca/Arsenal. I think France struggled in the same way after they won Euro 2000 - they struggled in qualifiers to break down poor, poor teams and drew 0-0 against Israel etc because despite their plethora of talent, they had no penetration. "No edge... no eye of the tiger " I can't believe you've just said that. There's a thing called 'small sample size' in statistics, look it up. Just because Barca couldn't score in one game against Chelsea doesn't mean that you can conclude that their style is ineffective. In fact, I'd say the 100 (yes, one fucking hundred) goals they've scored in the league this season, plus the 30 they've scored in the CL (leading the charts in terms of total scored and goals scored per match) shows that their style is incredibly effective. I'd like you to say to the other 37 teams in La Liga, especially Real Madrid, who've been thumped for 8 goals this season, that all they needed to do was park the bus and that's Barca contained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Agree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Only just had a chance to catch a small glimpse of Jamie Redknapps reaction....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. utter s*** opinion, but it is your opinion the majority watching tonight wanted to be entertained, the fans of those clubs wanted to win regardless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. utter shit opinion, but it is your opinion He's right though. I'd eat the FA Cup and shit it out again just to see us win it. How we played en route would make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Bang on. Specially the last sentence, was another boring match up until the end tonight I thought, much more exciting when Chelsea were in possession too. Only really boring because of one team, unfortunately. Not totally, Barca's need to keep the ball no matter what kills the game stone dead iyam, yes they're great at keeping the ball but they try to over do it. They take any pace and excitement out the game but this dreary three yard pass and move game that a lot of the time gets them nowhere is very boring to me. Give me a premiership game any day of the week, not as pretty but a hell of a lot more entertaining. They only do it because teams have 11 men behind the ball. There isn't any space for them to play through balls or dribble into. It's all congested because of the other team's defensive strategy (which has been effective about 4 or 5 times out of 50 = 10% success rate). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Your spot on it goes back to that ridiculous quote we got tagged with: "we'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0" of course we'd rather win, but Chelsea weren't even playing to win they were playing not to get beat, particulalrly in the first leg. Chelsea are good enough to play a bit of football and still win, if I was a season ticket holder at Stamford Bridge I'd be completely underwhelmed by what I saw tonight. They literally had two banks of five in front of the keeper for large parts of the game, is that really playing to win? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio[b/]. Agreed. But it's one game. Let's hold off the 'Barca isn't as good as everyone thought' crap and look at the other 50 games they've played this season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 This wasn't justice for football it was justice for the paying fan. Did those thousands of Chelsea fans want to be bored silly by their own team? Do millions of homes across the country pay sky subscriptions to watch ten men line up behind the ball? No because the paying fan is the most neglected person in football. I agree Hiddink had every right to set up the way he did. Going toe to toe with Barca would of been footballing suicide but you've got to have a balance. Chelsea are supposed to be one of the best teams in Europe, they are capable of playing some good stuff but instead they hid because getting the final was more important to them than providing a bit of entertainment to their fans. No they weren't being asked to go and take Barca apart but they could of at least tried to play a bit of football. Yes I know they created the odd chance but each and every one of those chances came from a long ball pumped out from the back four. This was a justice for the fan because at the end of the day its the fans game. I'd weep the day I see two teams playing such negative, defensive football week in-week out. I understand why Chelsea did it, the need for a result, the pressure to get the final and the riches that go along with it but at the end of the day football is still a fans game. It may be an ever expanding business but I along with supporters all over the country do not put money into these greedy wankers pockets to see that kind of football. That is why, for me, justice was done. You've put it much better than I've tried to for the past hour. Thanks I appreciate that football should be played to be won, as opposed to not being beaten. However, Football is a sport, not an entertainment business - fans want to win, not to be entertained. Your spot on it goes back to that ridiculous quote we got tagged with: "we'd rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0" of course we'd rather win, but Chelseas weren't even playing to win they were playing not to get beat, particulalrly in the first leg. Chelsea are good enought to play a bit of football and still win, if I was a season ticket holder at Stamford Bridge I'd be completely underwhelmed by what I saw tonight. They literally had two banks of five in front of the keeper for large parts of the game, is that really playing to win? Spot on tactics in the first game, gave them a great chance to win it today. Early goal scored, they're winning at this point. They reckoned the best chance of them to get the win was by parking the bus, and they really couldn't have been closer to being successful, against the team that is arguably the best on the planet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i personally much prefer direct attacking football of the sort man utd play (or liverpool in the past couple of months) over barca or arsenal's pass-pass-pass. the quick incisive counter-attack that Ronaldo scored from last night gives me far more pleasure than when barca or arsenal pass it in the middle of the opposition half pointlessly for half an hour and finally walk it in. Barcelona tonight failed to find a final ball 99% of the time and all their big stars went missing big time, particular Etoo, Messi and Alves, though at least the latter tried even if his delivery was shocking. if they're not making penetrative use of their possession then it's as boring as any catenaccio. Spot on! I hate to say it, but I love watching Man U at their best. Agree also, but further than just as a spectacle, attacking in the style of a Man Utd is way more effective than Arsenal/Barca's walk-it-in strategy. Invariably sides with good defenders/grafters will just park the bus, and it will be somewhat ineffectual for Barca/Arsenal. I think France struggled in the same way after they won Euro 2000 - they struggled in qualifiers to break down poor, poor teams and drew 0-0 against Israel etc because despite their plethora of talent, they had no penetration. "No edge... no eye of the tiger " I can't believe you've just said that. There's a thing called 'small sample size' in statistics, look it up. Just because Barca couldn't score in one game against Chelsea doesn't mean that you can conclude that their style is ineffective. In fact, I'd say the 100 (yes, one fucking hundred) goals they've scored in the league this season, plus the 30 they've scored in the CL (leading the charts in terms of total scored and goals scored per match) shows that their style is incredibly effective. I'd like you to say to the other 37 teams in La Liga, especially Real Madrid, who've been thumped for 8 goals this season, to say that all they needed to do was park the bus and that's Barca contained. Alright, alright, hold your horses mate! I know you like Barca and you've been doggedly defending them all night, but breathe first... In fairness to the point I'm making, I do mean at the very top level - which is why I think Barcelona have had so little luck cutting open English sides, let alone thumping them as easily as they do everyone else over the past few years. My statement wasn't formed from just these two legs [the last half hour of which I missed!!]. Granted, you may say that Barcelona are a better side this year than they have been in previous years, but their attacking mentality has always been there. This serves to prove my point that if you do want to win playing like Brazil 1970, you have to be Brazil 1970 in quality - ie. capable of cutting up clubs at the highest level consistently. If not, you need a more penetrative style. EDIT: Or at least the capability of a more penetrative style. Do you know how devastating Arsenal would be if they shot more than once every 20 minutes? You're entitled to your opinion, and this is hardly something I can quantify for you, but there you go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 http://ext2.elmundodeportivo.es/videos/md2007/20090506/goliniestamp3mp3-1241644636736.mp3 great reactions dave and andy were sooooo poised you know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts