Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 First of all - this is not a Zal bashing thread and secondly it is not a post defeat at Tannadice thread. When Zal came first and was played in midfield I was not as unimpressed as many others, I thought he showed some potential, had a good physique and tried to play football and thought maybe there was a defensive midfield player in there. As time moved on I was probably wrong in that , then he was moved back to central defense where for me initially he was an absolute disaster and again as time moved on I was probably wrong again as he developed into a reasonable central, defender albeit with his regular "bombscare" moments. When he came back in after been missing early season he certainly steadied the ship and put in a string of very solid performances which for me have tailed off (along with othres) to the point is looking more like the vulnerable version of his early days than the lynchpin of early season. All in all a reasonable SPL central defender , certainly worth his place but for me far from outstanding and this is where I start to struggle. There is a real body of opinion on JKB that seems to rate him as something really special and many people seem convinced that he is off at the end of the season to bigger and better things - cannot get my head round that at all. He has an awful long way to go before he can start playing at a higher level than he is right now in my opinion, he is still erratic and prone to serious laspses of concentration and even seems to be lacking in motivation at times. Positional sense is suspect and tends to run the ball out of defence up blind alleys too often for me. As mentioned , the guy is raesonable but still far too many areas he needs to improve in before we will see queues forming at the end of the season to take him away - in fact if they do and they are offering decent money we should seriously think about grabbing it . I know this won't be a popular read to many on here but for me right now - he is more myth than legend ! but having said that I accept there is a possibility that could change in the future but right now it is definitely myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's having his best season for us. But this is probably the highest level he'll get to in his football career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's the best we'll get without being too good for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 First of all - this is not a Zal bashing thread and secondly it is not a post defeat at Tannadice thread. When Zal came first and was played in midfield I was not as unimpressed as many others, I thought he showed some potential, had a good physique and tried to play football and thought maybe there was a defensive midfield player in there. As time moved on I was probably wrong in that , then he was moved back to central defense where for me initially he was an absolute disaster and again as time moved on I was probably wrong again as he developed into a reasonable central, defender albeit with his regular "bombscare" moments. When he came back in after been missing early season he certainly steadied the ship and put in a string of very solid performances which for me have tailed off (along with othres) to the point is looking more like the vulnerable version of his early days than the lynchpin of early season. All in all a reasonable SPL central defender , certainly worth his place but for me far from outstanding and this is where I start to struggle. There is a real body of opinion on JKB that seems to rate him as something really special and many people seem convinced that he is off at the end of the season to bigger and better things - cannot get my head round that at all. He has an awful long way to go before he can start playing at a higher level than he is right now in my opinion, he is still erratic and prone to serious laspses of concentration and even seems to be lacking in motivation at times. Positional sense is suspect and tends to run the ball out of defence up blind alleys too often for me. As mentioned , the guy is raesonable but still far too many areas he needs to improve in before we will see queues forming at the end of the season to take him away - in fact if they do and they are offering decent money we should seriously think about grabbing it . I know this won't be a popular read to many on here but for me right now - he is more myth than legend ! but having said that I accept there is a possibility that could change in the future but right now it is definitely myth. There is no myth or legend about it! Sometimes he is outstanding defensively and his passing, as seen last night in the 1st half, can be excellent! Sometimes he makes silly mistakes defensively (less these days then he used to) and falls back on hoofing it, as he did in the 2nd half last night, like everyone else.. Both "conditions" can to some extent depend on those around him! For example, if players are moving up front it's easier to make the pass and he does pass a good ball! I'm convinced as he matures, he will make fewer mistakes. Elvis developed in exactly the same way and, I think Zaliukas has the greater potential because he can pass a ball, never one of Elvis's strongpoints! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 So he is the new Robbie Neilson then!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Lacks concentration to play at a higher level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 do you wish he was better so that we could offload him for a million? zal is a very good centre half who has worked out the majority of the flaws in his game. usually performs well, always gives his all, is a good if not great leader and ****s with the media. given the position we're in, zal is pretty much ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's the best we'll get without being too good for us. Understand your point but I think there are steadier central defenders around who would be available within our budget that would actually improve where we are at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjh1874 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 TBH Like it or not Webster makes him look Sunday league. Didn't think Zal played at all last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 it's not a myth, it's a simple range of opinion as to his merits and flaws. just like any other player. the reason he's usually such a hot topic is because of his beginnings at hearts, and that includes his previous club and his nationality. he joined the club amid the crazy days of the relatively early part of the romanov involvement and was part of the kaunas influx. he had a shaky start which was made all the more contentious because of other things that went on at the time. stuff that really makes you wince now. if he had been another nationality and/or had come to the club from outwith the kaunas loan system then he probably wouldn't have been such a discussed player. and he would probably have been more widely popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 do you wish he was better so that we could offload him for a million? zal is a very good centre half who has worked out the majority of the flaws in his game. usually performs well, always gives his all, is a good if not great leader and ****s with the media. given the position we're in, zal is pretty much ideal. Not looking at what he might be, am looking at what he is right now, if he was worth 2 million then we would offload him anyway I would think and it would be good business. Don't accept the great leader bit at all, haven't really seen a lot of evidence of that and in fact I think it is asking a lot of him at his stage of development to lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 it's not a myth, it's a simple range of opinion as to his merits and flaws. just like any other player. the reason he's usually such a hot topic is because of his beginnings at hearts, and that includes his previous club and his nationality. he joined the club amid the crazy days of the relatively early part of the romanov involvement and was part of the kaunas influx. he had a shaky start which was made all the more contentious because of other things that went on at the time. stuff that really makes you wince now. if he had been another nationality and/or had come to the club from outwith the kaunas loan system then he probably wouldn't have been such a discussed player. and he would probably have been more widely popular. Tend to agree with most of what you say but I really do think that there is a body of opinion within the support that seem to think he is way beyond where I think he is at the moment - that is the myth for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Not looking at what he might be, am looking at what he is right now, if he was worth 2 million then we would offload him anyway I would think and it would be good business. Don't accept the great leader bit at all, haven't really seen a lot of evidence of that and in fact I think it is asking a lot of him at his stage of development to lead. i didnt say he was a great leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's the best we'll get without being too good for us. You are obviously forgetting we've signed Andy Webster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambonian Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Zaliukas is a reasonable defender, plays well when the team are attacking but struggles badly when others attack. Hearts have had some pretty solid, reliable defenders in the past, probably the strongest part of our teams back in the day when we had limited midfielders. He's nowhere near the likes of Levein, Weir, Pressley, Webster, McPherson, McLaren, even Sandy Jardine or Ritchie but he's a bit better than the likes of Winnie, Van de Ven, Bouzid, Kucharski and without doubt... Gordan Petric! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 i didnt say he was a great leader. Your quote was "a good if not great leader" - does seem to mention the possibility, can you not make up your mind ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 TBH Like it or not Webster makes him look Sunday league. Didn't think Zal played at all last night. Correct Stevie, to be brutally honest he was feckin honking last night and cost us the first goal. I know I was at the same match as you as I remember talking to you at H/T () and it doesn't fit in with comments above, regards his passing in the first half, i.e. the term excellent being used. He was chronic throughout. And as you say watching him next to Webster was like watching a master craftsman and a brand new apprentice. In terms of what has been said in the OP, I do suspect he will leave in the Summer, but I don't expect him to go on to better things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Rom?n Riquelme Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's a good stopper. Brave and strong. His distribution is abysmal though and he has terrible lapses in concentration. Got to take the rough with the smooth I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Correct Stevie, to be brutally honest he was feckin honking last night and cost us the first goal. I know I was at the same match as you as I remember talking to you at H/T () and it doesn't fit in with comments above, regards his passing in the first half, i.e. the term excellent being used. He was chronic throughout. And as you say watching him next to Webster was like watching a master craftsman and a brand new apprentice. In terms of what has been said in the OP, I do suspect he will leave in the Summer, but I don't expect him to go on to better things. Suppose the question has to be asked - would Zander Diamond be worse or better in that particular position as a partner for Webster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Suppose the question has to be asked - would Zander Diamond be worse or better in that particular position as a partner for Webster? Worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 Suppose the question has to be asked - would Zander Diamond be worse or better in that particular position as a partner for Webster? Like many others I am not exactly a Diamond fan but for all that he is still young and has been the main man in that Aberdeen defence for a while - he has never had a guiding influence to nurse him through games and develop him - maybe just maybe with Webster by his side there might be a better player than we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cousinsofnoone Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's a basketball player who stumbled into the wrong dressingroom in Kaunas. Turns his back on a physical challenge; his mind wanders; he loses his bearings (and the ball as with the first goal last night). Not a reliable top-three SPL entre back. Accept that the team stabilised when he came back at Pittodrie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Your quote was "a good if not great leader" - does seem to mention the possibility, can you not make up your mind ? What? Are we speaking different languages? I said he's 'a good if not great leader'. That's not mentioning the possibility. That's saying he's good but (and this is the important bit) not great. There's no indecision. It is utterly unequivocal and if you didnt understand it then i don't know what to say as its very basic english. Just one more time though. He's good. Not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Rom?n Riquelme Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Like many others I am not exactly a Diamond fan but for all that he is still young and has been the main man in that Aberdeen defence for a while - he has never had a guiding influence to nurse him through games and develop him - maybe just maybe with Webster by his side there might be a better player than we think. He's not that young. 26. Zaliukas is 27... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Accept that the team stabilised when he came back at Pittodrie. Stabilised. I hope Hearts "stabilise" more often - we will win the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Wiseau Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You are obviously forgetting we've signed Andy Webster. You see, DH, I was just waiting on someone falling into my trap, but I didn't think you'd be the one to do it. I haven't forgotten anything. Webster at his best is too good for Hearts (not in a moral sense, the treacherous rat ), and he is only at the club because of injury and attitude issues at his former club. If he has the season he's capable of next year, we'll struggle to keep hold of him, regardless of his age. Zaliukas, we can keep as long as we want because no-one bigger will come in to test us. He's playing at his peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Suppose the question has to be asked - would Zander Diamond be worse or better in that particular position as a partner for Webster? It's all down to opinion Deevers, and mine would probably be that it isn't really a position I think we need to worry about overly. I would like to see us try with Darren Barr or Ryan McGowan at centre back alongside Webster. It is also a position that Eggert Jonsson seems to play very successfully for Iceland, and possibly a position that might suit Jonsson most. His major problem often seems to be his distribution, no problems with him winning the ball, therefore if you can get him into a position where he can do what he does well and then simply let the midfield area deal with the distribution side (not the present midfielders mind you ) we, like Iceland, might get the best out of him. The above all assumes Zaliukas does leave in the Summer of course, if he doesn't I'd still think he will hold down that position, but he must concentrate more. I was speaking to someone at work this morning who was saying he (Zaliukas) got absolutely slaughtered by the Hearts World commentary team during last night's game. Zaliukas is like any other player, when he and the team are playing well he looks good, but some players look terrible when the team isn't playing well (I'd bracket the likes of Mrowiec and Templeton in with that comment, both of them looked superb when we were on our winning streak, last night they both looked like they were playing the game for the 1st time (Ryan Stevenson played the game like a 64 year old, overweight, chronically unfit, half dead snooker player). Last night was the poorest I've seen Zaliukas for a while, but even when he is playing well you are always waiting on one moment of unnecessary craziness. In terms of players coming in a recognised right full back will help, someone in the middle of the park who can both pass and create would be a huge bonus and rather than getting a clone of Kyle I'd prefer to see us get another player similar to Stephen Elliott, who Elliott can play alongside when Kyle isn't available. We need to have more than one formation/style of play, if for no other means than keeping the opposition guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I reckon the Zal will be off in the summer and Hearts will pocket a bit of money for him - the Championship being the likely place for him. I also think that JJ knows full well that Zal has "frailties" in his game and that's why other possibilities are being looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 If his mind didnt wander and he didn't make a couple of errors then he would be in the same bracket as: David Weir Paul ritchie Andy Webster Christophe Berra Steven Pressley Unfortunately he would then end up at Everton, Man City, Rangers, Wigan, Wolves or Celtic. When Kyle ruined Daimond's 'life' and Zal strolled through the game at Pittodrie/Tynecastle, not one Hearts fan would of swapped the two. Chat like that is sick. Don't want that creep near maroon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 What? Are we speaking different languages? I said he's 'a good if not great leader'. That's not mentioning the possibility. That's saying he's good but (and this is the important bit) not great. There's no indecision. It is utterly unequivocal and if you didnt understand it then i don't know what to say as its very basic english. Just one more time though. He's good. Not great. OK - since you wish to discuss the finer points of the English language could you consider the following. I hear what you are saying but there is ambiguity in your statement and we are simply reading it differently. You said " He was a good if not great leader" and I read that he could be described as a good leader and the "if" signifying that he was possibly a great leader. You obviously meant it that he was a good leader but not a great leader. Try saying your quote a few times with different weighting on the words and you will see what I mean . How's that for straying of topic ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckauskas Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 TBH Like it or not Webster makes him look Sunday league. Didn't think Zal played at all last night. Silly comparison. Zal was poor last night, but is having an otherwise great season for Hearts. He's a basketball player who stumbled into the wrong dressingroom in Kaunas. Turns his back on a physical challenge; his mind wanders; he loses his bearings (and the ball as with the first goal last night). Not a reliable top-three SPL entre back. Accept that the team stabilised when he came back at Pittodrie. Utter nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Zaliukas just isn't good enough IMO. Had a really good run of form earlier in the season but has tailed off badly and is back to the error strewn player that has been here the previous five years. To suggest he would be great if he cut out the errors is a bit of a stretch. I remember Alex Miller saying something like Gareth Evans would be worth ?2 Million if he was a bit better at football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 OK - since you wish to discuss the finer points of the English language could you consider the following. I hear what you are saying but there is ambiguity in your statement and we are simply reading it differently. You said " He was a good if not great leader" and I read that he could be described as a good leader and the "if" signifying that he was possibly a great leader. You obviously meant it that he was a good leader but not a great leader. Try saying your quote a few times with different weighting on the words and you will see what I mean . How's that for straying of topic ? If i wanted to give that impression i would have written, "a good, if not great, leader." Parenthesis rocks. Still, like you say, we've strayed into a pretty unfruitful avenue of pedantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Zaliukas just isn't good enough IMO. Had a really good run of form earlier in the season but has tailed off badly and is back to the error strewn player that has been here the previous five years. To suggest he would be great if he cut out the errors is a bit of a stretch. I remember Alex Miller saying something like Gareth Evans would be worth ?2 Million if he was a bit better at football. I don't remember any transfer speculation about him either in all his time registered to Kaunas or to Hearts. Still, sometimes there are some surprising transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I don't remember any transfer speculation about him either in all his time registered to Kaunas or to Hearts. Still, sometimes there are some surprising transfers. It was rumoured that a "Moscow club" wanted him just before he wanted a new deal. I would never suggest that his agent wanted to talk up his client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clerry Jambo Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 If his mind didnt wander and he didn't make a couple of errors then he would be in the same bracket as: David Weir Paul ritchie Andy Webster Christophe Berra Steven Pressley Unfortunately he would then end up at Everton, Man City, Rangers, Wigan, Wolves or Celtic. When Kyle ruined Daimond's 'life' and Zal strolled through the game at Pittodrie/Tynecastle, not one Hearts fan would of swapped the two. Chat like that is sick. Don't want that creep near maroon. Scott you must be avin a giraffe!! I may just maybe give you Ritchie but he is in a different county to the other players you mention. The guy is a liability, continues to make basic errors and yet to alot on here he is the dugs baws..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 If his mind didnt wander and he didn't make a couple of errors then he would be in the same bracket as: David Weir Paul ritchie Andy Webster Christophe Berra Steven Pressley And if my Auntie had baws..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 If i wanted to give that impression i would have written, "a good, if not great, leader." Parenthesis rocks. Still, like you say, we've strayed into a pretty unfruitful avenue of pedantry. Despite an A Grade Higher English circ 1967 gleaned from the venerable educational establishment that is Musselburgh Grammar School I do have to bow to you on this occasion - I am not used to internet chat with such grammatical correctness. I am glad to see that despite by obvious limitations in such matters, dimmed as they are by time, that you did understand my point of view. Please note the structure of my last sentence which shows that even at my age the propensity for learning still burns brightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teuchterjambo Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 Scott you must be avin a giraffe!! I may just maybe give you Ritchie but he is in a different county to the other players you mention. The guy is a liability, continues to make basic errors and yet to alot on here he is the dugs baws..... Possibly a better description of the point I was making in my OP - thank you DH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioactive Mince Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 He's the best we'll get without being too good for us. This is correct, I reckon. He is HMFC typified. He sometimes looks gash; sometimes looks class. Overall, though, he is above the average SPL standard. If he's not on too much money, I hope he sticks around for a long time at Tynecastle. I can put up with his arrogance and occasional indiscipline. That's entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Can someone please remind me how many games/minutes our defence (sans Webster) went without leaking a single goal in Nov/Dec 2010. I take it they did that despite having Zaliukas in the team. I was about to say you couldn't make it up but, quite clearly, you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Zal when on form is as good as anybody in the league, he is a defender who tries to play football so is more likely to err than the traditional scottish hoof merchant, He seems popular with the players so must have some leadership skills. I would worry about next season if he was replaced by Plug. . The problem in our team at this time is the midfield not the defence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboruss Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Understand your point but I think there are steadier central defenders around who would be available within our budget that would actually improve where we are at the moment. such as.......................? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioactive Mince Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 such as.......................? ...and what actually is our budget? Nobody really knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboruss Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Suppose the question has to be asked - would Zander Diamond be worse or better in that particular position as a partner for Webster? much MUCH worse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Can someone please remind me how many games/minutes our defence (sans Webster) went without leaking a single goal in Nov/Dec 2010. I take it they did that despite having Zaliukas in the team. I was about to say you couldn't make it up but, quite clearly, you can. Agreed! The clue is in the title of the thread!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboruss Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Despite an A Grade Higher English circ 1967 gleaned from the venerable educational establishment that is Musselburgh Grammar School I do have to bow to you on this occasion - I am not used to internet chat with such grammatical correctness. I am glad to see that despite by obvious limitations in such matters, dimmed as they are by time, that you did understand my point of view. Please note the structure of my last sentence which shows that even at my age the propensity for learning still burns brightly. A grade Higher English graduates should know their ofs from their offfs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madnessjambo Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Whilst Zal has his faults and is rightly criticised in some quarters do you not think that having a makeshift defence all season has contributed to it. We do not have a recognised right back and the left back position has had its problems, couple that with Bouzid's bombscare qualities and its left to Zal to step up to the plate, which for me he has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Correct Stevie, to be brutally honest he was feckin honking last night and cost us the first goal. I take it you're just ignoring the fact that he probably should have been off by the time they scored due to the bad injury he had taken early in the half but stayed on as he knew we would have been short handed if he'd gone off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 OK - since you wish to discuss the finer points of the English language could you consider the following. I hear what you are saying but there is ambiguity in your statement and we are simply reading it differently. You said " He was a good if not great leader" and I read that he could be described as a good leader and the "if" signifying that he was possibly a great leader. You obviously meant it that he was a good leader but not a great leader. Try saying your quote a few times with different weighting on the words and you will see what I mean . How's that for straying of topic ? Maybe a comma in one of the appropriate places would help to differentiate. A good, if not great leader. A good if not great,leader. Maybe not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.