Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, 17 stone giant said:

What I think and want is an irrelevance. Imagine it's 2017 and you're 'Supreme Commander' of English cricket. Sanjay Patel has just presented to you his idea for The Hundred, and you've decided it's rubbish and not something you want to do.

What, if anything, are you going to do instead? Just assume that cost wise you can do whatever structure or events that you want. The only problems to be fixed are the ones that you think need fixing. If you want to conclude that there are none and that everything should continue unchanged, that's fine.

I’ve bowled you first ball if you can’t even give me a budget and a list of problems to fix as you perceive them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


44 minutes ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

I’ve bowled you first ball if you can’t even give me a budget and a list of problems to fix as you perceive them.

 

I can happily give you a list of things I want, but I was giving you the freedom to come up with ideas yourself, based on what YOU thought needed to be done.

You've not come up with anything at all, so I don't know if that maybe means you don't think anything needed to be changed.

Regarding my list, as I've said previously, I want an event that takes place over a short space of time (let's say 1 month). I want it in the school summer holidays, I want only 8 to 10 teams, because I want the very best talent possible in those teams, and I only want a small number of fixtures because I can't devote endless hours to watching it. So, I want my team to play no more than, say, 10 matches in the regular competition (more for knockout state). That's a maximum of five home and five away. One men's and one women's game per day is what I want. I don't want two games played at the same time, because then I can't watch. I want double headers with womens and mens matches. I want the same team names and kits for both the mens and womens teams. Basically, I want all of the things that The Hundred gave me. So, what are you offering me in its place? You can afford to do whatever you come up with. Or, if you prefer, you can have whatever the budget was for The hundred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I can happily give you a list of things I want, but I was giving you the freedom to come up with ideas yourself, based on what YOU thought needed to be done.

You've not come up with anything at all, so I don't know if that maybe means you don't think anything needed to be changed.

Regarding my list, as I've said previously, I want an event that takes place over a short space of time (let's say 1 month). I want it in the school summer holidays, I want only 8 to 10 teams, because I want the very best talent possible in those teams, and I only want a small number of fixtures because I can't devote endless hours to watching it. So, I want my team to play no more than, say, 10 matches in the regular competition (more for knockout state). That's a maximum of five home and five away. One men's and one women's game per day is what I want. I don't want two games played at the same time, because then I can't watch. I want double headers with womens and mens matches. I want the same team names and kits for both the mens and womens teams. Basically, I want all of the things that The Hundred gave me. So, what are you offering me in its place? You can afford to do whatever you come up with. Or, if you prefer, you can have whatever the budget was for The hundred. 

You’ve been a big cheerleader before, during and after the advent of The Hundred.

But you do seem unable to tell me when asked a couple of times now what problems you’re looking to fix or think this tournament was designed to fix.

I’m not sure whether that’s because you either don’t know or whether it’s because you do know and for some reason are being a little evasive.

What you listed above reads as nothing more than the tournament format, we’re not really getting to the heart of what issues within the game you believe are fixed, needed fixing or even want me to fix?  I’m sure you can see my quandary.

I would hope that you can understand what vague debate would be created otherwise especially if you start saying, erm, do anything with, erm, unlimited funds.  A really pointless exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

as I've said previously, I want an event that takes place over a short space of time (let's say 1 month). I want it in the school summer holidays, I want only 8 to 10 teams, because I want the very best talent possible in those teams, and I only want a small number of fixtures because I can't devote endless hours to watching it. So, I want my team to play no more than, say, 10 matches in the regular competition (more for knockout state). That's a maximum of five home and five away. One men's and one women's game per day is what I want. I don't want two games played at the same time, because then I can't watch. I want double headers with womens and mens matches. I want the same team names and kits for both the mens and womens teams. Basically, I want all of the things that The Hundred gave me. So, what are you offering me in its place? You can afford to do whatever you come up with. Or, if you prefer, you can have whatever the budget was for The hundred. 

Now imagine you get all that but there is no team in Hampshire. The decision has been made that the northeast is a target area so the eighth team in the tournament will now play in Durham with Newcastle as a marketing hub.

Your nearest team is, in fact, playing exclusively out of the Oval.

Still going to enjoy this competition?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Futtocks said:

They needed a product that wasn't already an exclusive Sky property, so they could do a deal involving FTA. Whether it really had to be a new version of the game, instead of a franchised T20 tournament, I don't know, but it muddies the waters. The latter option would have been at least as marketable, in my opinion.

The BBC even bought the rights when it was originally sold as a domestic T20 competition.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

I'm giving you a blank sheet of paper. You get to decide if anything needed doing, or whether you would just have continued with everything as it was.

Firstly, I'd be honest about the state of the Blast (and, by extension) the benefits of the Hundred. I've just checked the bottom side from the 2019 Blast's squad (Glamorgan) and note that they had far fewer top players than anyone else but could still call up two active non England internationals and a host of players who have played in franchise cricket (and, indeed, The Hundred). Meanwhile, in the highly elite, only for the best, none stronger, The Hundred, Birmingham Phoenix opened the batting in the final with a lad with less than a year's experience at all levels and a journeyman South African with no international record.

So, what were/are the problems the game faces?

The summer season has been all over the place for a while now. The T20 Blast, despite large attendances, is often invisible before finals day. The One Day Cup is unloved and unlovely. And the Championship is often sort of just there.

Despite all that, the numbers who follow all three tournaments are often high and the standard of play and players involved never short of internationals and, even with call ups, England fringe players (at worst). For example, a few years back I went to Hove to watch a very drizzly One Day Cup match and ended up seeing Ross Taylor put on a masterful 50, Eoin Morgan almost find his groove, and Chris Jordan take 5-28.

Anyway, my solutions, such as they are, for the men's game, would be these. Some are already on the way.

(1) Invite Scotland and Ireland to create two additional teams based on their national sides but not formal representatives so overseas players allowed. Add those two sides to the 18.

(2) Improve the facilities at grounds in Newcastle (Jesmond), Oxford and Cambridge with a view to playing first class and representative matches there. Do the same for a ground in the proper south west.

(3) Centralise marketing for the One Day Cup, T20 and Championship. Fixed prices and venue expectations for each.

(4) RLODC to be four groups of five playing eight matches to quarter finals, semi finals and final at Lord's. Run through May-June.

(5) Championship to be similar. 4x5. Home & away versus own group (8 games) and then six random from teams versus other groups. Head to title divisions the same as this season (which I like a lot). Matches to feature at least one weekend day and a minimum of one game to be played during term time on an outground with tickets given away to local schools as part of an engagement week. (Linked to All Stars and Dynamos). Run regularly through the summer.

(6) T20 Blast. Two groups of 10. 18 games. Quarter finals and finals day. Mainly in July and August. Minimum of two home games to be at outgrounds - these to be subsidised by the ECB and part of a structured engagement programme.

(7) All non TV games to be livestreamed to a standard equivalent to that provided by Surrey. Subscription service with enhanced content introduced and managed centrally for individual streams; free service providing 'red zone' type coverage on YouTube (etc). Central social media accounts for rapid dissemination of 'moments'.

(8) FTA coverage of minimum 10 domestic matches per year and select internationals.

(9) Continue to build on All Stars and Dynamos. Work in partnership with ACE programme and build similar in cities across the country.

(10) Realise that cricket is actually really popular and is able to generate sponsorships from both blue chip and mass appeal brands almost by accident. Spend The Hundred's next three years of marketing budget on maximising that.

(11) As a reward for (1), play at least one international fixture v Scotland and Ireland each year.

(12) Linked to all of the above. Proper targeted engagement with both elite and community players - working with clubs and schools where necessary - to ensure no potential player is turned away because there aren't enough volunteers or development officers.

KPIs for all of that. Job done. 

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/08/2021 at 06:47, gingerjon said:

Regards this match though - apparently this is the 26th time that the openers of the side batting second have gone past the all out total of the side batting first. In 24 of those previous 25 times, that led to a win for that team, usually by an inninings.

Be interesting to see how India, in particular, play this from now on.

 

22 hours ago, JonM said:

2014 England v India. 1st test drawn at Trent Bridge, 2nd test at Lords won by India after dreadful England captaincy on the fifth day. 3rd test a big win for England and England go on to win the series 3-1

2021 England v India. 1st test drawn at Trent Bridge, 2nd test at Lords won by India after dreadful England captaincy on the fifth day.  Maybe...?

England have to guard against complacency, It's not inconcievable that India could get into a position of leaving England a target of 150. There are a lot of batsmen in that side playing for their place.

The correct parallel for this series is 2005, with England reeling after a Lords defeat. Ricky "Punter" Ponting put England into bat and England scored 400 in a day and momentum shifted in the series.

Another 2005 parallel is Ishant Sharma with Jason Gillespie both fine seam bowlers in visble decline. I am sure India will pick Ravi Ashwin for the Oval (where he has already plaed this year.. thanks Surrey..😡) and at Old Trafford in the Final Test which also spins.

England's probable win papers overe the cracks within the side and in the English game for now..

Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

It's not inconcievable that India could get into a position of leaving England a target of 150.

They'd have to score 500, assuming they bowl the remaining England wickets for five runs.

So it sort of is inconceivable.

But it would be impressive. If only for the volume that Michael Vaughan's screeching would reach.

 

Edited by gingerjon

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

The BBC even bought the rights when it was originally sold as a domestic T20 competition.

That is indeed correct - From the ECB website

https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/425049

It also should be noted that the Counties windfall from the ECB Is actually predecated not on the 💯 but  on the value of International Cricket to the broadcasters.

BTW - The ECB has also committed to making a payment to Counties in respect of revenue lost as a result of Blast matches this year being restricted to members only i.e. If Surrey had an average blast attendance of 17,000 and only 7,000 members attended this year. Then the ECB partially makes up the revenue lost.

That would strech anyone's reserves let alone a Governing Body making a loss on a start up comopetition.

 

 

Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Firstly, I'd be honest about the state of the Blast (and, by extension) the benefits of the Hundred. I've just checked the bottom side from the 2019 Blast's squad (Glamorgan) and note that they had far fewer top players than anyone else but could still call up two active non England internationals and a host of players who have played in franchise cricket (and, indeed, The Hundred). Meanwhile, in the highly elite, only for the best, none stronger, The Hundred, Birmingham Phoenix opened the batting in the final with a lad with less than a year's experience at all levels and a journeyman South African with no international record.

I do think the quality in the Blast is a bit lacking to be honest. Lancashire started the season looking like they were lacking power with the bat, and quality bowling at the death, with those roles taken by Maxwell and Faulkner in recent seasons. That was then amplified by the call ups to Parkinson, Mahmood and Livingstone. Yet, they still managed to get to a quarter final. It might be that the North group is weaker than the South group, and the two should be mixed.

I think there is benefit to a franchise competition, something to help bridge the gap between county and international level, but the scheduling was a mess this year. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but 18 counties each playing 3 formats leads to dilution of quality from what I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I do think the quality in the Blast is a bit lacking to be honest. Lancashire started the season looking like they were lacking power with the bat, and quality bowling at the death, with those roles taken by Maxwell and Faulkner in recent seasons. That was then amplified by the call ups to Parkinson, Mahmood and Livingstone. Yet, they still managed to get to a quarter final. It might be that the North group is weaker than the South group, and the two should be mixed.

I think there is benefit to a franchise competition, something to help bridge the gap between county and international level, but the scheduling was a mess this year. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but 18 counties each playing 3 formats leads to dilution of quality from what I can see.

The biggest issue has always been, and remains, call ups to the various England squads. In normal summers that includes A teams and U19s as well as the first team. I'm not sure you'll ever get around that. The Hundred suffered too - and because of the thin squads I think the impact was more pronounced there.

I'm more interested in expansion that some pursuit of quality. As long as games are competitive and professional standard I'm pretty confident that most people will enjoy them most of the time.

The South group being 3-0 up in the quarter finals does make it look like it's the stronger group this year.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a Lancashire member and did attend and enjoyed the Blast this year from what I saw of it (I was unable to attend every game).

From what I have read elsewhere there is becoming some slight boredom with the format as stands a north and a south group.  Personally I find it easy to follow and think continuity in sport helps build tradition which then generates prestige.

But I do like the sound of a change that would preserve local derbies yet allow for some flexibility in the other fixtures so that I can watch the other counties and their stars.  I think gingerjon has outlined this already and if I understood correctly seems like it borrows from a conferences/asymmetric non conference fixtures tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The biggest issue has always been, and remains, call ups to the various England squads. In normal summers that includes A teams and U19s as well as the first team. I'm not sure you'll ever get around that. The Hundred suffered too - and because of the thin squads I think the impact was more pronounced there.

I'm more interested in expansion that some pursuit of quality. As long as games are competitive and professional standard I'm pretty confident that most people will enjoy them most of the time.

The South group being 3-0 up in the quarter finals does make it look like it's the stronger group this year.

I think Parkinson getting Covid, and Jennings / Wood being injured finished any chance of Lancs making it 2-1. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gerrumonside ref said:

I’m a Lancashire member and did attend and enjoyed the Blast this year from what I saw of it (I was unable to attend every game).

From what I have read elsewhere there is becoming some slight boredom with the format as stands a north and a south group.  Personally I find it easy to follow and think continuity in sport helps build tradition which then generates prestige.

But I do like the sound of a change that would preserve local derbies yet allow for some flexibility in the other fixtures so that I can watch the other counties and their stars.  I think gingerjon has outlined this already and if I understood correctly seems like it borrows from a conferences/asymmetric non conference fixtures tradition.

I’d have kept it as is - the Blast that is - but I’d certainly be open to mixing conferences as happened with the One Day Cup this year.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India 34 for 1 at lunch.

"We are easily breakable, by illness or falling, or a million other ways of leaving this earthly life. We are just so much mashed potato."  Don Estelle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Anyway, my solutions, such as they are, for the men's game, would be these.

Yesterday I did a brief calculation and worked out that Hampshire's season would last about 170 days from the first to the last match.

Can I please therefore have The Hundred for 30 days in August, and you can do the things you want in the other 140 days?

I don't want to lose The Hundred because I thought it was amazing. I probably had the best month of cricket I've ever had. I've never followed a domestic cricket competition with such interest and commitment. It had a real feel of a major tournament, akin to a World Cup.

I will definitely watch some of your T20 Blast, but it's too many teams and matches (I think it works out at 180 matches, whereas it's only 32 for The Hundred) for me to engage with it in the same way that I can The Hundred. But that's fine, let's have both. People out there can then watch whatever they want. There's surely enough time for a bit of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

You’ve been a big cheerleader before, during and after the advent of The Hundred.

Yes, I liked many things about it from when I first heard them. I liked the idea of a draft. I found that interesting to watch. I liked the fact it was a month of top level cricket, with a small number of teams and games. It made me want to engage with it, as I felt I could devote the time needed to do so. That's not always the case with every event. Having experienced it, I absolutely loved it, and really hope they will do it again next year. If they don't, I'll decide what I'm going to do instead. It won't make or break me in terms of happiness. If it's there, I'll watch. If it's not, I'll either watch some other cricket, or more probably just do something else. I'm never short of things to do.

13 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

But you do seem unable to tell me when asked a couple of times now what problems you’re looking to fix or think this tournament was designed to fix.

There are various reasons why the ECB felt they needed something like the Hundred. Those reasons are freely available for you to look up. From my perspective, it's not so much about a list of problems that needed fixing. I see it more from the wider perspective of every sport always trying to find ways to boost their popularity and growth. The Hundred isn't something that is attempting to fix one single issue. It's about adding a new and different event for people to have a look at. It's different to what we've had before.

The same thing was true of T20. I've been watching cricket since the 1989 Ashes. Throughout the 1990's, never once did I think to myself, what cricket needs is a 20 over competition. But someone came up with the idea in 2003 or thereabouts, and I got to hear about it. I thought to myself, that might be something I'll enjoy. It sounds like a nice evening of cricket, so I went along. And I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I've considered myself a T20 fan ever since. What problem were they trying to fix when they introduced T20? Was it a specific "problem" or set of problems, or was it more a case of them thinking they had something that might get more people interested in cricket, and might get existing cricket fans watching even more.

Because it's not always about this obsession with new people who have never before had any interest or involvement in cricket. It's about existing fans too. I had never paid to watch Hampshire play between 1989 and 2002, yet I paid £15 three or four times to watch them play T20 in 2004. I wasn't a new fan. I wasn't a convert to cricket. I was just someone who liked cricket, but had never really gone to any matches. T20 caused me to start spending money on cricket, rather than just watching on TV. That's the way I look at The Hundred. Sure, it might attract new people, and that's great. But it will also (and did) cause someone like me to take more of an interest again in cricket.

I tell you what the problem is. There are too many arrogant people, who think they are entitled to tell everyone else what they should be watching, and that they are the ones who should get to decide what is proper cricket and what should be the pinnacle. It's ridiculous. People will like what they like, not what you or anyone else decides they should be watching.

The Hundred clearly appealed to many people, myself and my friends and family, included. Despite all the reasons why some of you say it's no good - the team names, the team's are made up entities that no one will relate to, it's this, it's that, blah blah blah - the fact is that loads of people paid to watch. They loved it, and I bet they'll go again next year. I know I will, if it hasn't been scrapped.

Why not accept and embrace the fact that plenty of people have enjoyed it? Why does it need to die, just because it's not exactly what you want or what you think should happen. It's 30 days out of the season. There's plenty of time to do other things.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

There's surely enough time for a bit of everything.

There clearly isn't though, is there? Hence why, even at its most basic, players were lost to international duty on days when counties had games. Even The Hundred lost star players because the season couldn't accommodate a full Test series against India any other way this year.

And there also clearly isn't because the One Day Cup, the format England are World Champions in, had to run 'under' The Hundred this year or else it couldn't be slotted in.

So it seems to be significantly more complex than "it's just 30 days out of the season".

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Futtocks said:

India 34 for 1 at lunch.

Anyone who had a nice snooze in the afternoon session made the correct decision

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

There clearly isn't though, is there?

Yes, there is. I said that there is enough time for a "bit" of everything. By that, I mean that we don't need to do away with any form of cricket - four day, one day, T20, or The Hundred.

We just need to play an appropriate amount of each, in order to fit the time available.

It's for the cricket administrators to determine the schedule, so that they are offering a range of events and types.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 17 stone giant said:

Yes, I liked many things about it from when I first heard them. I liked the idea of a draft. I found that interesting to watch. I liked the fact it was a month of top level cricket, with a small number of teams and games. It made me want to engage with it, as I felt I could devote the time needed to do so. That's not always the case with every event. Having experienced it, I absolutely loved it, and really hope they will do it again next year. If they don't, I'll decide what I'm going to do instead. It won't make or break me in terms of happiness. If it's there, I'll watch. If it's not, I'll either watch some other cricket, or more probably just do something else. I'm never short of things to do.

There are various reasons why the ECB felt they needed something like the Hundred. Those reasons are freely available for you to look up. From my perspective, it's not so much about a list of problems that needed fixing. I see it more from the wider perspective of every sport always trying to find ways to boost their popularity and growth. The Hundred isn't something that is attempting to fix one single issue. It's about adding a new and different event for people to have a look at. It's different to what we've had before.

The same thing was true of T20. I've been watching cricket since the 1989 Ashes. Throughout the 1990's, never once did I think to myself, what cricket needs is a 20 over competition. But someone came up with the idea in 2003 or thereabouts, and I got to hear about it. I thought to myself, that might be something I'll enjoy. It sounds like a nice evening of cricket, so I went along. And I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I've considered myself a T20 fan ever since. What problem were they trying to fix when they introduced T20? Was it a specific "problem" or set of problems, or was it more a case of them thinking they had something that might get more people interested in cricket, and might get existing cricket fans watching even more.

Because it's not always about this obsession with new people who have never before had any interest or involvement in cricket. It's about existing fans too. I had never paid to watch Hampshire play between 1989 and 2002, yet I paid £15 three or four times to watch them play T20 in 2004. I wasn't a new fan. I wasn't a convert to cricket. I was just someone who liked cricket, but had never really gone to any matches. T20 caused me to start spending money on cricket, rather than just watching on TV. That's the way I look at The Hundred. Sure, it might attract new people, and that's great. But it will also (and did) cause someone like me to take more of an interest again in cricket.

I tell you what the problem is. There are too many arrogant people, who think they are entitled to tell everyone else what they should be watching, and that they are the ones who should get to decide what is proper cricket and what should be the pinnacle. It's ridiculous. People will like what they like, not what you or anyone else decides they should be watching.

The Hundred clearly appealed to many people, myself and my friends and family, included. Despite all the reasons why some of you say it's no good - the team names, the team's are made up entities that no one will relate to, it's this, it's that, blah blah blah - the fact is that loads of people paid to watch. They loved it, and I bet they'll go again next year. I know I will, if it hasn't been scrapped.

Why not accept and embrace the fact that plenty of people have enjoyed it? Why does it need to die, just because it's not exactly what you want or what you think should happen. It's 30 days out of the season. There's plenty of time to do other things.

 

It’s a pity you chose to get so wound up by part of my comments on the Hundred and then quoted it out of the context within which it was written.  You might feel less upset if you reread it and then you might reconsider who you are labelling arrogant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Yes, there is. I said that there is enough time for a "bit" of everything. By that, I mean that we don't need to do away with any form of cricket - four day, one day, T20, or The Hundred.

We just need to play an appropriate amount of each, in order to fit the time available.

It's for the cricket administrators to determine the schedule, so that they are offering a range of events and types.

 

 

Enough time for everything on the surface … but the schedule is the key . It’s just not coherent or joined up . We’ve added another layer that basically has no context at all , to the detriment of other formats which do . First class cricket has just been pushed further down the queue 

Edited by DavidM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just back from Canterbury Kent Spitfires v Birmingham Bears (Warwickshire) cracking match:)

Speaking to quite a few people at the match, its apparent that there is total hostility in county cricket towards The Hundred/ECB and many are really annoyed that the Royal London 1 day cup has been totally devalued (Only one match on SKY this season)

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...