Remove this ad

Lead

Jun 8 17 11:20 PM

Tags : :

Qatar is ranked higher (All Time) than several other countries that have hosted.

EDIT: Qatar has not been playing internationally longer than other countries that have hosted, i was wrong about this.

commentary: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_mEMvPwv0N--RevIQ_aDV_k9enM4kZ-2

all time ratings: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/index.php/home/load_all_time/5

2017 rankings: http://internationalsports.nfshost.com/index.php/home/load_sports/5/2017


*all Middle Eastern nations and nations that have hosted or are scheduled to host the FIFA World Cup are listed below (including football tournaments at the Summer Olympics and Intercalated Games before the FIFA World cup)

 

ALL TIME RANK (year initiated into wealth and population adjusted Elo ratings)

  • #3: Uruguay (1922)
  • #4: Brazil (1922)
  • #7: Argentina (1922)
  • #12: Spain (1922)
  • #28: Italy (1920)
  • #30: England (1872)
  • #32: Chile (1924)
  • #33: Germany (1922) note: this includes West Germany
  • #41: Mexico (1934)
  • #47: Russia (1993) note: Soviet Union was initiated in 1958
  • #48: Netherlands (1911)
  • #49: Sweden (1914)
  • #52: Iran (1972)
  • #53: Jordan (1984)
  • #58: Bahrain (1981)
  • #61: Egypt (1928) | #61: Kuwait (1973)
  • #62: Qatar (1980)
  • #64: Syria (1971)
  • #65: Greece (1934) #65: South Korea (1961)
  • #68: Israel (1954)
  • #69: Iraq (1971)
  • #72: Belgium (1912)
  • #73: Turkey (1937)
  • #74: Switzerland (1921)
  • #78: France (1911) #78: Oman (1989)
  • #83: Saudi Arabia (1976)
  • #93: Lebanon (1974)
  • #108: Yemen (1993) note: South Yemen was initiated in 1976 and North Yemen in 1985
  • #109: Palestine (2001) #109: South Africa (1993)
  • #111: United Arab Emirates (1960)
  • #117: Cyprus (1965)
  • #135: Japan (1971)
  • #153: United States (1930)
  • #155: Afghanistan (2003)

 

CURRENT RANK (year initiated into wealth and population adjusted Elo ratings)

  • #1: Brazil (1922)
  • #4: Chile (1924)
  • #6: Argentina (1922)
  • #10: Uruguay (1922)
  • #12: Belgium (1912)
  • #16: Spain (1922)
  • #18: Germany (1922)
  • #20: France (1911)
  • #23: Mexico (1934)
  • #33: Italy (1920)
  • #35: England (1872)
  • #39: Egypt (1928) #39: Turkey (1937)
  • #43: South Korea (1961)
  • #45: Saudi Arabia (1976)
  • #47: Iran (1972)
  • #51: Jordan (1984)
  • #52: Netherlands (1911)
  • #54: Switzerland (1921)
  • #56: Greece (1934)
  • #58: Sweden (1914)
  • #63: Palestine (2001)
  • #64: Syria (1971)
  • #68: Japan (1971)
  • #73: Bahrain (1981)
  • #80: Iraq (1971)
  • #83: Israel (1954)
  • #86: United Arab Emirates (1960)
  • #87: South Africa (1993)
  • #88: United States (1930)
  • #90: Lebanon (1974)
  • #92: Cyprus (1965)
  • #94: Russia (1993) note: Soviet Union was initiated in 1958
  • #95: Qatar (1980)
  • #102: Yemen (1993) note: South Yemen was initiated in 1976 and North Yemen in 1985
  • #110: Oman (1989)
  • #110.5: Kuwait (1973) note: rating from 2015
  • #115: Afghanistan (2003)

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 15 17 2:41 AM. Edited 5 times

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jun 10 17 9:20 PM

What is the connection between your ranking tables above and the claim you make in the title of this post?   How are you justifying your claim based on the data?   Why is hosting validity influenced by a ranking of any sort?  

I don't follow the transition that occurs at minute 2:25 of your video.  Before that you are talking about where countries are placed in a ranking (of your own creation), and afterwards you just assert that this placing somehow defines qualification to host a tournament.   Much the same as in your post here, there is no justification of the claim, there is just a table of rankings with an assertion in the title.  I missed the part where the connection between these two things is made.   Presumably you see something obvious in the numbers which makes the case, but you still need to set out the argument you're making, or at least the counter-argument which you are refuting, if you want to convince anybody.  *Why* is "everyone" saying that Qatar is unqualified to host?  What are their reasons for saying that, and how do your data refute those reasons?  


> Qatar is ranked higher and has been playing internationally seriously longer than other countries that have hosted

Qatar is not ranked higher than any other hosts in your current ranking.  Presumably you refer only to the all-time ranking (which I will discuss below), in which case why bother to post the current ranking which doesn't help your argument?  What has (say) Switzerland's ranking in 2017 got to do with the fact that it hosted in 1954?

Qatar has not been playing "internationally seriously longer" than any other hosts.  The only countries in your all-time ranking which are hosts *and* start later than Qatar (1980) are South Africa (1993), which is an anomalous case due to apartheid exclusion, and Russia (1993) which is an irrelevant case due to being a successor team.  Are you basing your claim solely on these two erratic data-points?

If so, then you could equally say that *any* team which became active in your ranking before 1993 has been "playing internationally seriously longer" than Russia and South Africa and can thus claim to have enough tradition and history to host.   Similarly, you could say that *any* team ranked higher than a couple of World Cup hosts is equally valid to be a host itself.  Given that USA is #153 and Japan #135, this means about 2/3 of teams would be valid hosts by the same argument you appear to be making in your video.

Besides this, the years in which teams first become active in your list are based on your own choice of how many games (or which competitions) to include for your ranking purposes in the first place.  Hardly objective data on which to build such a claim.

Also, more importantly, the chronology of the comparison is wrong all round.  A comparison between Qatar's and (say) Greece's ranking positions *now* is irrelevant. Greece hosted the Olympics over 100 years ago - what it has done since then is irrelevant for the comparison and the claim. You should consider only data relevant to the time at which the hosting took place, or better, when the hosting decision was made.

Or as in the other example I mentioned above, the fact that Switzerland is ranked lower than Qatar *nowadays* is rather irrelevant given that they hosted in 1954.  The Swiss ranking in the 1950s should be in the comparison. Not the Swiss ranking in 2017 (or all-time up to 2017).   Similarly for the other hosts - use the ranking at the time they hosted.  Otherwise the comparison is badly skewed and doesn't relate to the point you're trying to contest.

On a less important note, I'm also not sure why you've included other Middle Eastern nations in your list.  To me, this simply shows that Qatar is ranked at a similar level (all-time) and a worse level (now) to many other Arab nations and thus has no more claim to be a "valid" host than any of them, or any other nation in the world really.  Also I'm not sure why Cyprus and Afghanistan are on your list (possibly considered extended Middle Eastern? in which case there may be several other countries omitted).

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Jun 13 17 5:41 AM



What is the connection between your ranking tables above and the claim you make in the title of this post?   How are you justifying your claim based on the data?   Why is hosting validity influenced by a ranking of any sort?  

this is pretty simple... if a country is able to rank above average in a sport with such high amounts of competition and quality such as soccer football, they certainly have validated themselves as having "tradition and history" in the sport. many of the arguments against Qatar are regarding this. considering this, Qatar has even more of a right to host the world cup than did countries like South Africa, United States, South Korea, and Japan.

Qatar is not ranked higher than any other hosts in your current ranking.  Presumably you refer only to the all-time ranking (which I will discuss below), in which case why bother to post the current ranking which doesn't help your argument?  What has (say) Switzerland's ranking in 2017 got to do with the fact that it hosted in 1954?

i was just showing that Qatar is ranked just as high as Russia who is about to host the world cup. the other countries are there for a relative perspective.

Qatar has not been playing "internationally seriously longer" than any other hosts.  The only countries in your all-time ranking which are hosts *and* start later than Qatar (1980) are South Africa (1993), which is an anomalous case due to apartheid exclusion, and Russia (1993) which is an irrelevant case due to being a successor team.  Are you basing your claim solely on these two erratic data-points?

no. admittedly this was a terrible argument and manner of explanation on my part. however, i wasn't using my years to justify when a country should host... i was actually pointing out that those years don't matter because it doesn't show when the country actually started playing football, which is why i used the example of Japan afterwards. the reason i included this is because the years are on my website, and i would have to explain why those years shouldn't matter for determining when a country can host. so no, Qatar has not been playing seriously longer than other hosts. but they have been playing since the 1940s which is certainly long enough.

On a less important note, I'm also not sure why you've included other Middle Eastern nations in your list.  To me, this simply shows that Qatar is ranked at a similar level (all-time) and a worse level (now) to many other Arab nations and thus has no more claim to be a "valid" host than any of them, or any other nation in the world really.  Also I'm not sure why Cyprus and Afghanistan are on your list (possibly considered extended Middle Eastern? in which case there may be several other countries omitted).

i think it's important to include other Middle Eastern countries to compare them in terms of performance (which implies history and tradition in the sport). the reason for this is because we want the world cup to be hosted somewhere outside of Europe and South America from time to time, and the Middle East is due for this. so this refutes any argument that Qatar isn't justified by Middle Eastern standards, when they are certainly just as good (historically) as most any other country in the region. i included Cyprus and Afghanistan because they are traditionally viewed as part of the Middle East.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 13 17 5:45 AM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Jun 13 17 3:40 PM

> if a country is able to rank above average ... they certainly have validated themselves as having "tradition and history" in the sport

How?   It just means they've won a few matches.  "Tradition and history" is not the same as winning some matches.  And neither of those two things implies hosting validity.


> i was just showing that Qatar is ranked just as high as Russia who is about to host the world cup.

So Russia has a middling ranking (currently) and is a host, you're saying this means that any other country with a similar ranking in your system would be an equally valid host ?  


> those years don't matter because it doesn't show when the country actually started playing football

Those years do matter, more than anything else in your data.  1980 is when Qatar had played "enough" to be ranked in your system, based on your own threshold of international matches.  So this is essentially your own measure of the beginning of international participation historically.  Therefore 1980 is the most relevant figure for Qatar's "tradition and history" out of all the data you posted.  It shows that, before 1980, Qatar had not been sufficiently engaged in international competition to even show up in the rankings.

Alternatively, if your view is that some earlier years are the more relevant ones for the discussion, then why not just post a table of those years instead?


> but they have been playing since the 1940s which is certainly long enough.

I don't think this is correct (or I don't know what you mean by it). Qatar began playing regular international matches in the early 1970s.  That is significantly later than all other hosts, for what it's worth.  


> this refutes any argument that Qatar isn't justified by Middle Eastern standards, when they are certainly just as good (historically) as most any other country in the region

It's true that Qatar is not terrible on a Middle Eastern scale.  However, based on your video, I thought that you were originally trying to refute critics of the choice of Qatar (and/or the Middle East overall), who say that Qatar is "undeserving" compared to previous "traditional" World Cup hosts, e.g. England, Germany, Spain etc.   How are you going to refute them by using a ranking which shows that Qatar is actually less deserving than (say) Jordan and Bahrain? 


> we want the world cup to be hosted somewhere outside of Europe and South America from time to time, and the Middle East is due for this

If this is generally accepted, then why bother with all the data?  Just say that because Qatar is in the Middle East, it is qualified to host.  Or at least, not much less qualified than Jordan or Bahrain.  

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Jun 13 17 6:55 PM



How?   It just means they've won a few matches.  "Tradition and history" is not the same as winning some matches.  And neither of those two things implies hosting validity.

they didn't just "win a few games" they consistently rank above average. tradition and history is needed in a sport to rank so high... a country just doesn't wake up randomly one day and perform that well.

So Russia has a middling ranking (currently) and is a host, you're saying this means that any other country with a similar ranking in your system would be an equally valid host ?  

yes, within the context of the discussion (not necessarily my own objective opinion). if Russia is defined as having the "tradition and history" in football then Qatar is not far behind. there are 2 main reasons why people are so critical of Qatar... one is understandable (population and wealth, because people have trouble computing the true skill of a country when they look at normal performance/rankings which are misleading)... the other is simply prejudice, subconscious or not. sure, people complain about Russia, Brazil, United States, and South Africa hosting the world cup, but not nearly to the degree that they complain about Qatar.

Those years do matter, more than anything else in your data.  1980 is when Qatar had played "enough" to be ranked in your system, based on your own threshold of international matches.  So this is essentially your own measure of the beginning of international participation historically.  Therefore 1980 is the most relevant figure for Qatar's "tradition and history" out of all the data you posted.  It shows that, before 1980, Qatar had not been sufficiently engaged in international competition to even show up in the rankings. 

i'm referring to when football was actually started playing (not internationally). this is why i mentioned Japan playing football since the 1800s (domestically). this is a part of history and tradition. my years don't matter nearly as much, that is the point i'm making. my years serve as a practical purpose to figure out when a country should start being ranked internationally with any degree of accuracy.

How are you going to refute them by using a ranking which shows that Qatar is actually less deserving than (say) Jordan and Bahrain?

it doesn't matter to me if Jordan or Bahrain were chosen over Qatar in terms of football. but there are other reasons that Qatar is chosen over them (financial ability and security).

If this is generally accepted, then why bother with all the data?  Just say that because Qatar is in the Middle East, it is qualified to host.  Or at least, not much less qualified than Jordan or Bahrain.  

because the topic is tradition and history in the sport, that is really the only reason.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,503 Site Admin

#5 [url]

Jun 13 17 9:23 PM

Qatar has no tradition or history in the sport - they have never qualified for the World Cup, and their highest placing in the Asian Cup has been 5th. "History" - practically every country in the world has history and tradition in football.  Qatar is nothing special in this regard.

Qatar's honours to date in senior national team football are the Gulf Cup (3 times, twice as host) and the West Asian Championship (1), when most of the participants used sub-standard or youth squads.

This thread is nonsense.

Last Edited By: TheRoonBa Jun 13 17 9:26 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Jun 13 17 11:28 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
Qatar has no tradition or history in the sport - they have never qualified for the World Cup, and their highest placing in the Asian Cup has been 5th. "History" - practically every country in the world has history and tradition in football.  Qatar is nothing special in this regard.

Qatar's honours to date in senior national team football are the Gulf Cup (3 times, twice as host) and the West Asian Championship (1), when most of the participants used sub-standard or youth squads.

This thread is nonsense.

i think you missed the entire point of this thread. when wealth and population amount are considered Qatar's performance is something special because it is above average. in order to achieve this a nation does need history and tradition in the sport, there is no way around this other than some genetic miracle (which is not the case here). the results you mention are completely bias toward large/rich countries. South Africa, United States, South Korea, and Japan all rank below Qatar in All Time rankings for wealth and population adjusted Elo Ratings.

shiny trophies and medals are nice, but in reality they are not a true measurement of skill for obvious reasons. wealth and population adjusted ratings is currently the best method of mathematically judging a country's skill.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 13 17 11:31 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Jun 14 17 9:23 AM

But Qatar have been strongly helped by foreign reinforces over the last decade, as almost half of their squad is composed of players born abroad, mainly in South America, but also in Africa and in some Middle East countries. So, once again, demographic and economic parameters have been a bit "polluted" by foreign factors, as happened in Equatorial Guinea, the Philippines and so on. Perhaps, if Qatar had not enjoyed massive foreign reinforces, their national team's results would have been much worse over the last decade.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,503 Site Admin

#8 [url]

Jun 14 17 9:42 AM

And wealth has helped them greatly - huge wealth has more than compensated for a small population. I think Qatar's (and other Gulf countries') success without the wealth would not have been possible (therefore, I challenge your claim that the "true skill" level of Qatar is high). I think the reason you see Qatar (and, for example not Lebanon or Yemen) in the final round of World Cup qualifiers is down to wealth, and not to inherent skill level.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jun 14 17 10:23 AM

Luca wrote:
But Qatar have been strongly helped by foreign reinforces over the last decade, as almost half of their squad is composed of players born abroad, mainly in South America, but also in Africa and in some Middle East countries. So, once again, demographic and economic parameters have been a bit "polluted" by foreign factors, as happened in Equatorial Guinea, the Philippines and so on. Perhaps, if Qatar had not enjoyed massive foreign reinforces, their national team's results would have been much worse over the last decade.

perhaps, Qatar is known for such activities. but keep in mind they are ranked above average, so even without this influence they still would have a competent team.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jun 14 17 10:26 AM

TheRoonBa wrote:
And wealth has helped them greatly - huge wealth has more than compensated for a small population. I think Qatar's (and other Gulf countries') success without the wealth would not have been possible (therefore, I challenge your claim that the "true skill" level of Qatar is high). I think the reason you see Qatar (and, for example not Lebanon or Yemen) in the final round of World Cup qualifiers is down to wealth, and not to inherent skill level.

i would say you are incorrect on this first matter. keep in mind my rankings take this into account... you can see Jordan, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Turkey ranked above or near Qatar in the all time rankings with less wealth... simply because i account for this.

your second argument is perfectly reasonable, and that's what i've been saying all along... which is why i created these rankings, to show more accurate estimates. however, countries like Iran are more successful due more to greater population rather than wealth. so again, both have to be considered.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 14 17 10:29 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Jun 15 17 12:56 AM

This whole thread is founded on your own bespoke choice of the meaning of a subjective term: "tradition and history", and your attempt to link it to your own pseudo-objective data.  You still haven't actually defined in any tangible way what you think "tradition and history" means, other than to claim that it is a necessity for an above average ranking.  If you consider this claim to be axiomatic, then the whole argument is a tautology anyway, and you haven't actually shown anything that wasn't immediately inherent in the definition.

Obviously other people don't have the same meaning of the term "tradition and history" as you.  The people you directed your video at, for example, whoever they are.  And given that your motivation for all this was ostensibly to counter those people's arguments, the very least you need to do is put your own argument into the same terms as the people you are arguing against, in order to be remotely relevant.  See the questions in my first post.

Besides, you still haven't addressed the chronological inconsistency of the comparison.  See my first post.


> tradition and history is needed in a sport to rank so high...

The fact that Qatar is ranked "so high" (i.e. a bit above average) shows precisely the opposite.

The most worthwhile objective fact in this whole thread is that Qatar didn't even begin participating in international football until the early 1970s, and therefore by any remotely sensible definition, has far less tradition and history of international football engagement than all other hosting countries.  Results, population, and wealth are not factors in that.  Just history.
 
Therefore, if you continue to insist that "tradition and history is needed in a sport to rank so high", it can only mean that your rankings are deficient. 

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Jun 15 17 1:07 AM

To summarize, these are the key points I dispute (among others):

> if a country is able to rank above average ... they certainly have validated themselves as having "tradition and history" in the sport.
> tradition and history is needed in a sport to rank so high

I don't see why results (let alone ranking, population/wealth adjusted or otherwise) has anything to do with it at all.

For me, Luxembourg has far more tradition and history of football than Qatar.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Jun 15 17 2:34 AM


I don't see why results (let alone ranking, population/wealth adjusted or otherwise) has anything to do with it at all.

i don't see how you don't understand that tradition and history are required to be an average or overachieving country in a sport. this is just common sense. a country that has never played a sport with any complexity before is going to be relatively terrible at it. do you think any country could come along in the history of any complex sport that has even minimal competition and do this? they are going to need at least several decades in a best case scenario 9 times out of 10.

For me, Luxembourg has far more tradition and history of football than Qatar.

sure, tradition and history does not guarantee success. i never said it did. i would certainly agree that Luxembourg has more tradition and history in football than Qatar. however, i still state that tradition and history, i'm just going to start saying tradition, is needed for any type of success 9 times out of 10. football has existed in Qatar since the 1940s... if they had just learned the sport yesterday they wouldn't have ever achieved any of the rankings i or anyone else has mentioned.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jun 15 17 2:38 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Jun 15 17 1:51 PM

nfm24 wrote:
Define tradition and history.

tradition in this context i would assume is referring to maintaining a culture of football. history is simply the length of time playing football.

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Jun 15 17 6:03 PM

> tradition in this context i would assume is referring to maintaining a culture of football. history is simply the length of time playing football.

Why assume?  I was asking you for your own definition.

History we have already dealt with above.  Qatar has been playing (both domestically or abroad) for a considerably shorter period than all other hosts.  So this aspect does nothing to help justify Qatar as a valid host.

Why not do away with the words "tradition and history" here altogether, and just say (as in your edited first post) that "Qatar is ranked higher (All Time) than several other countries that have hosted,"  and leave it at that.   Because this is about all you seem to be saying here.  Your argument boils down to this lame observation which, true as it may be, does not imply tradition, and does not justify Qatar as a host.


> a country that has never played a sport with any complexity before is going to be relatively terrible at it.   do you think any country could come along in the history of any complex sport that has even minimal competition and do this?

There are many examples of countries which have been relatively strong (or at least, not terrible) since they first began playing in regular international competition.   Some of these are: North and South Korea, Algeria, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mauritius, Morocco, Sudan, Zambia, Iran, ROC, Bermuda, Costa Rica, Dutch Antilles, Suriname.    I haven't included comparable Middle Eastern countries which have done better than Qatar (e.g. Jordan and Bahrain) because we've already discussed these here.


Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Jun 16 17 2:49 PM


Why not do away with the words "tradition and history" here altogether, and just say (as in your edited first post) that "Qatar is ranked higher (All Time) than several other countries that have hosted,"  and leave it at that.   Because this is about all you seem to be saying here.  Your argument boils down to this lame observation which, true as it may be, does not imply tradition, and does not justify Qatar as a host.

yes, i already retracted that argument and said that i'm only talking about tradition. and for stated reasons i still stand by the argument that a healthy all time ranking does imply tradition. i think we both made our points clear on that topic.

There are many examples of countries which have been relatively strong (or at least, not terrible) since they first began playing in regular international competition.   Some of these are: North and South Korea, Algeria, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mauritius, Morocco, Sudan, Zambia, Iran, ROC, Bermuda, Costa Rica, Dutch Antilles, Suriname.    I haven't included comparable Middle Eastern countries which have done better than Qatar (e.g. Jordan and Bahrain) because we've already discussed these here.

yes? and all these countries have a tradition in football history, as most countries do. any of these countries would be just as worthy (if not more so) of hosting the world cup as Japan, United States, or South Africa. South Korea already has. but it comes down to being able to hold the infrastructure for such a tournament which most of these countries can't do.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Jun 18 17 1:46 AM

> and for stated reasons i still stand by the argument that a healthy all time ranking does imply tradition

What reasons?  You haven't given any.  You've just stated it as an axiom, or "just common sense".  What is your definition of "tradition"?


>  any of these countries would be just as worthy (if not more so) of hosting the world cup as Japan, United States, or South Africa.

I see, so you're essentially still saying that *any* team ranked higher than Japan #135 and the USA #153 would be a worthy host.  And in addition, some lower ranked teams (e.g. Mauritius, Luxembourg, ROC) also have enough "tradition" to be worthy hosts too.  

Perhaps you could give some examples of countries which would *not* be as worthy (according to you), and their ranking positions.  


By the way, why haven't you addressed the chronological inconsistencies I mentioned in my first post?

Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Jun 18 17 7:10 PM

I'd like to know where the dates on your rankings came from. How did Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay started playing seriously in 1922, if both CONMEBOL and Copa América are from 1916? Copa Lipton is from 1905, and Uruguay's results on 1920s speak for themselves.

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Jun 18 17 11:53 PM

It is a great pleasure to defend Abe. Before 1922 there were no data available for wealth and population to adjust the ratings... I guess

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help