And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Where fellow sufferers gather to share the pain, longing and unrequited transfer requests that make being a Wanderer what it is...

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 20898
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:39 pm

It's possible there's a deflection masked by the camera angle. ie it flicks directly away from or indeed towards the camera.

Nobody's emerging doused in glory.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:47 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:39 pm
It's possible there's a deflection masked by the camera angle. ie it flicks directly away from or indeed towards the camera.

Nobody's emerging doused in glory.
Yeah its possible. But it looked like initially it wrong footed Gilks - to which you can't blame him. But it actually went in between his left hand and the near post - not ideal! I don't think as you say its good for anyone that goal - defence, midfield, keeper all shocking.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21481
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by Prufrock » Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:07 pm

I've watched that first one about ten times and can't work out what happened :lol:

No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:18 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:07 pm
I've watched that first one about ten times and can't work out what happened :lol:

No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
I'd put most blame on Gilks but Rico for me was a bit sluggish there and I feel he could have got a bit closer. Depends how you look at it. If the lad was good enough to drag it back and put him on his arse then fair play? I get your point about showing him outside but I think he's too slow at the start so the PV lad has a reasonable angle still and not much pressure on the shot. Never should go in like. That's the main issue. Don't let the shot in and nobody discusses owt else.

truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by truewhite15 » Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm

The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21481
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by Prufrock » Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:36 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:18 pm
Prufrock wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:07 pm
I've watched that first one about ten times and can't work out what happened :lol:

No way having the blame on the second on Rico (unless he f*cked up the line to let them in)! Proper "defending with hindsight" that! He's 1v1 alone in 1/3 of a pitch, that's damage limitation, show them down the line narrow the angle and make them rush it, he did all that. He's hit it well but Gilks should be stopping it. No idea what people want Rico to do, gamble? Go get tight and try to make a tackle? Win the ball and it's great, don't and you give a pen away or get chopped inside and it's a tap in. Defending there is about maximising your chances and I think he did the right thing.
I'd put most blame on Gilks but Rico for me was a bit sluggish there and I feel he could have got a bit closer. Depends how you look at it. If the lad was good enough to drag it back and put him on his arse then fair play? I get your point about showing him outside but I think he's too slow at the start so the PV lad has a reasonable angle still and not much pressure on the shot. Never should go in like. That's the main issue. Don't let the shot in and nobody discusses owt else.
I get the logic but I don't think it's fair. If he had been quick enough to get there and put the guy under pressure before he had it properly under control then fair enough (doesn't look like it to me but tough to tell from the video). Once he has it under control it's very tough with no help (no other defender is in the picture). Attackers have the advantage, they know what they are going to do, all you can do as a defender is minimise the risk and make it as hard as you can. If he drops back further he gives the guy the option to chop back in or go outside. 1v1 defending in space is very hard! I imagine the thought process was "he's slightly wide, I'm quick, if I eliminate the chance of him coming inside I've got a good chance of blocking the shot and even if not from there at that angle with time to set the keeper should save". Sometimes defenders stand too far off but I'm not sure that's fair there, he has a look at a nibble a bit earlier, he's not yards away. The guy does well to get a good shot off, but Gilks should save it.

It's what I mean about defending with hindsight. A few years ago on MOTD Shearer did analysis on two headers from crosses Newcastle conceded, the first was over the defenders head at the far post. He reckons he was too narrow, should have been further back. The second, the defender had done exactly that, but the strike nipped in front and suddenly there's too big a gap between the centre backs. It's easier to defend once you know what's happened! I'm hindsight Rico should have gone hard to tackle him because he was going to score anyway :D
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

DJBlu
Site Admin
Posts: 5218
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:38 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by DJBlu » Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:00 pm

Kachunga was slow on the track back when the initial ball is played through which ironically allows a deflection to the chap who scored. Belting pass by Port Vale though.

Still chuckling at Brockbanks reaction to the 2nd. :lol:

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm

truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.

truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by truewhite15 » Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pm

truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.
Attachments
27B9AE05-5420-48BE-AC12-E79D9B9A822D.png
27B9AE05-5420-48BE-AC12-E79D9B9A822D.png (6.38 MiB) Viewed 202 times

truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by truewhite15 » Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.
I. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.

You're wrong.

Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 21481
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by Prufrock » Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:08 pm

Sheehan played half an hour and got booked in a 0-0 friendly draw.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pm

truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.
I. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.

You're wrong.
I’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.

Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?

truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by truewhite15 » Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:20 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.
I. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.

You're wrong.
I’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.

Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
Yes, because I was literally there, right behind it! It took a deflection and went past his RIGHT hand. You have taken a screenshot of a moving image, on which it's difficult to track the ball from the camera angle, and are using it as definitive proof to try and deny my FIRST HAND view of the goal from maybe twenty yards behind the goal in question.

It DIDN'T hit the post, it hit the back of Liam Gordom. And if you watch your precious replay, it should be reasonably obvious from the eyelines of the players, as well as the velocity of the ball, that THAT is your irrefutable fact. It deflects off Gordon, then goes between Gilks and Baptiste into the net.

BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 29046
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by BWFC_Insane » Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:38 pm

truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:20 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.
I. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.

You're wrong.
I’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.

Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
Yes, because I was literally there, right behind it! It took a deflection and went past his RIGHT hand. You have taken a screenshot of a moving image, on which it's difficult to track the ball from the camera angle, and are using it as definitive proof to try and deny my FIRST HAND view of the goal from maybe twenty yards behind the goal in question.

It DIDN'T hit the post, it hit the back of Liam Gordom. And if you watch your precious replay, it should be reasonably obvious from the eyelines of the players, as well as the velocity of the ball, that THAT is your irrefutable fact. It deflects off Gordon, then goes between Gilks and Baptiste into the net.
In which case I apologise to you and Gilks.

It really does look like it slips by his left hand. He even moves it that way. But clearly as you say it’s a trick of the camera angle.

Apologies.

truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2272
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by truewhite15 » Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:40 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:38 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 9:20 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:43 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 7:59 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:36 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:27 pm
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 6:01 pm
truewhite15 wrote:
Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:11 pm
The first one was definitely deflected. I was in the North Stand sitting right behind it. Shoddy and chaotic defending gave him that opportunity, but when the ball was hit it was going to Gilks's left. It takes a deflection off a white shirt trying desperately to block it and flies in past Gilks's right. Unfortunate but self-inflicted
It went in at Gilks near post. Slow the replay down. Beats him at his near post. It might be deflected but I’m unconvinced. It looked at first glance like he was wrong footed by a deflection but I don’t think that’s what happened.
BWFC-I - I was there. Sitting right behind it. It was deflected. Gilks hops to his left to track the initial flight path, and then it's deflected in to his right.
Added attachment as ball goes past Gilks. Goes in at his near post past his left hand. It literally goes in at the near post. That’s just a fact. It looks like it goes to his right as it hits the post and flies to other side of the goal. But it beats him at his near post. As the image clearly shows.
I. WAS. THERE. Sitting right behind it. You've seen a replay online.

You're wrong.
I’ve shown you a literal freeze frame of the ball as it passes Gilks. You being there is irrelevant. The ball passes his left hand. The picture shows it clearly. It doesn’t deflect it hits the inside of the post.

Are you honestly telling me that the image I’ve posted is anything other than irrefutable?
Yes, because I was literally there, right behind it! It took a deflection and went past his RIGHT hand. You have taken a screenshot of a moving image, on which it's difficult to track the ball from the camera angle, and are using it as definitive proof to try and deny my FIRST HAND view of the goal from maybe twenty yards behind the goal in question.

It DIDN'T hit the post, it hit the back of Liam Gordom. And if you watch your precious replay, it should be reasonably obvious from the eyelines of the players, as well as the velocity of the ball, that THAT is your irrefutable fact. It deflects off Gordon, then goes between Gilks and Baptiste into the net.
In which case I apologise to you and Gilks.

It really does look like it slips by his left hand. He even moves it that way. But clearly as you say it’s a trick of the camera angle.

Apologies.
Accepted. Sorry to become so brusque, but it's difficult to be told something is one way when you know for a fact that it's another!

Harry Genshaw
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8123
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: Half dead in Panama

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by Harry Genshaw » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:26 am

That was my view of it too from the East Lower. How come you were in the North stand? You're not a steward or ball person are you?!!
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"

LeverEnd
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9236
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:18 pm
Location: Dirty Leeds

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by LeverEnd » Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:06 am

Quote from Evatt on Tutte and a midfield without Williams pretty much confirms what's been said on here.

“Tonight we slightly changed it. Normally we’ll go with one pivot and two eights, but today we went with a double pivot and a 10. We’ve got that fluidity and option to be able to so that."

He can't be directly replaced so tactical tweaks are required. Good to see that flexible thinking. Many managers are criticised for not showing it.
...

The_Gun
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 9:54 am

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by The_Gun » Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:33 am

LeverEnd wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:06 am
Quote from Evatt on Tutte and a midfield without Williams pretty much confirms what's been said on here.

“Tonight we slightly changed it. Normally we’ll go with one pivot and two eights, but today we went with a double pivot and a 10. We’ve got that fluidity and option to be able to so that."

He can't be directly replaced so tactical tweaks are required. Good to see that flexible thinking. Many managers are criticised for not showing it.
With Sheehan definitely not playing on Monday and Lee's fitness uncertain, do you think there's a chance we see Tutte start alongside MJ?

LeverEnd
Legend
Legend
Posts: 9236
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:18 pm
Location: Dirty Leeds

Re: And a Po(r)t o Vale, Papa John please. 7-0clock Unibol.

Post by LeverEnd » Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:01 am

I think Lee will be back from what's been said but if not I expect Tutte to be above Thomasson in the pecking order.
...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests