Forward thinking
9 Jun 2010
Keo, in SA Rugby magazine, writes that Peter de Villiers should be appointed to a second successive term as Bok coach – and gives the blueprint that would make this appointment logical.
South African rugby’s future has never looked so secure. Careful management of and greater patience with players is non-negotiable to turn the prospect of long-term international dominance into the tangibles that come with Test wins and tournament successes.
This country is blessed with more natural talent than any other, New Zealand included, and the depth is spread across every position. There’s not a position in which South Africa suffers, but there’s a perception that we suffer in too many positions because the patience needed in developing players and allowing them to mature isn’t always applied.
Players too often have left this country disillusioned at the inconsistent provincial, regional and national selection policy, and this is the one curse of having so much talent. If there’s no immediate blossoming, coaches and selectors have turned to the next talent.
In countries not as fortunate to have South Africa’s playing base, coaches are judged on their ability to develop players as much as their team’s results.
Quade Cooper, the outstanding Reds flyhalf, is just one example of how a country with limited rugby union resources had to stick with what they had identified. Cooper played Super Rugby as a 19-year-old and played like a kid just out of school. His game lacked natural authority, there was no maturity and one act of brilliance was counter-balanced with three acts of schoolboy jitters.
The Australians didn’t panic because they couldn’t afford to. They kept on playing him and three years later he’s the sensation of the tournament, and he’s only 22 years old.
In the early- to mid-noughties our coaches were inspired by the way Australian Stephen Larkham played flyhalf, so they tried to find South Africa’s Stephen Larkham. There were many players of similar skill but lacking in experience. They weren’t given the time to develop and because they didn’t play like the veteran Stephen Larkham they were dismissed as pretenders. It was wrong and that kind of thinking will always be wrong.
Identification is critical to any strategy and in the next 10 years the greatest opponent South African rugby will face is itself. New Zealand will always be competitive and, in the right cycle, seemingly unbeatable. But the Kiwis have suffered like never before because of the overseas player exodus. It has not necessarily weakened the national team, but it has shredded the fabric of the country’s Super Rugby superiority.
It used to be a Super Rugby experience to win in New Zealand. Now with some teams it is considered a failure not to win at least half of their matches there. The quality of players leaving New Zealand is also of finer pedigree than the South African ones who have sought northern hemisphere salaries and the comfort of less intense domestic leagues.
South Africa’s game can maintain those seeking a European experience. New Zealand’s can’t, and that’s the biggest advantage South African rugby currently has over New Zealand. The lesser advantage is that our schools rugby structure is the best in the world and the production line of talent is endless.
Having the best recipe still doesn’t guarantee the best meal, and that’s why the dismantling of coaching and administrative egos has to be as ongoing as transformation. It can’t be an event; it has to be part of everyone’s contribution to a calmer, better and more honest South African game.
Springbok coach Pieter de Villiers, under pressure from politicians to include more black faces in the national squad, succumbed to the pressure and picked players not good enough to play in the midweek Bok squad last November.
The selections were blatant window-dressing and particularly sad because South African rugby has progressed in substance when it comes to a national game that includes anyone good enough to play it or have the passion to contribute to its health.
The selections and shocking subsequent results indicated that South African rugby lacked depth. The truth is more pleasing because between the Bulls, Stormers and Sharks, South Africa has three of the most powerful provinces in world rugby, and all three teams are well represented by the next generation, who have succeeded at junior level and are excelling in Super Rugby.
Add the handful of genuine national contenders playing in Europe and South Africa should be able to select two national run-on XVs of near equal strength. Previously, only New Zealand could do that and if they continue to exclude their offshore players they will never be in a position to do so again.
South African rugby has been spoilt by the player investment made in 2004 by then Springbok coach Jake White and his selectors. The Bok coach trusted youth and allowed this youth to grow up on the international field and not in domestic rugby. These players went on to win the World Cup and because of their youth many are still around to defend the title. Those new to the environment have walked into a culture of winning and excellence. It’s easier to prosper when you live in a house built with cement and not dressed up with colourful wallpaper.
The talent, though, is what makes South Africa the envy of everyone. No other country has as much international depth among wings, scrumhalves, loose forwards, locks and hookers.
Every country, bar Italy and Argentina, suffers for quality tightheads, but while they have these front-row Frankensteins, they have little else to trouble the more established teams.
South Africa’s talent has to be celebrated, and where there’s a feeling of anxiety, the perceived second-rate talent has to be coached and the decision to invest in a player who’s not the complete case study has to be supported with a desire to get the maximum out of his talent.
Bulls and Bok flyhalf Morné Steyn, playing a secondary role to Derick Hougaard at the Bulls, was never considered the all-round international package. He got a chance last year, kicked the most incredible pressure penalty in the series-winning Test against the British & Irish Lions and forced the selectors to play him. In a new environment, with different demands and philosophies he had not been exposed to, his game strengthened and he finished the season as one of the top three international flyhalves and definitely the most consistent wearing a No 10 jersey.
An early call has to be made on who’s good enough to play Test rugby, not just with an emphasis in 2011 but also 2015.
It’s possible to prepare for both World Cups in the next six months and doing so would also address the issue of player burnout and of getting the right players to be at their peak at the 2011 World Cup.
It won’t be a crime to lose a Test in the next six months if the planning is obvious and the identification is as definite. If De Villiers plays what is a team for the future in certain Tests, it has to include the type of players who have forced their way into Super Rugby at a young age or have the skills to replace a Test incumbent who won’t be around in England in 2015.
This season allows for selection identification with a difference; two squads for two World Cups and this also gives De Villiers an advantage should he want to continue post 2011. Having worked with the next tier of Test player for two years has to be a magnet to continued employment.
And I don’t think De Villiers should be judged simply on winning the World Cup. It’s too much of a lottery. His greater judgement should be from the players he picks, the quality of the rugby played, the improvement of the individual and results that bring more champagne than flat beer.
There’s enough in the current playing pool to alternate Test sides, but this can only be sold to the rugby public if there’s conviction that when Victor Matfield, John Smit and Bryan Habana, for example, don’t play, the three who replace them will be there in 2015.
Playing rugby in South Africa and coaching South Africa has never been as exciting. The demands and expectation will never allow for mediocrity and failure at the expense of building, but in this country we don’t need to build or transform and expect to fail.
White proved it when he selected nine black players in his match 22 that beat a full-strength Wallabies side 33-20 at Ellis Park in 2005. The Bok line-up, laughed off as a political gesture to former president Nelson Mandela, led 33-8 and with a bit more experience could have put 50 past the Wallabies.
The failure of that victory was how few of those nine black players made it to the World Cup two years later. De Villiers has a test case he can refer to and learn from.
Black players in this country win South Africa more Tests than they have ever lost and when the right young white and black players have been identified, played and trusted, they have not failed.
There’s so much to be bullish about this international season, but it’s what can be assembled as a national squad for 2015 that is even more powerful than the very good squad De Villiers will take to defend the title in New Zealand in 2011. No other country can say that.
– This article first appeared in the June issue of SA Rugby magazine
267 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
9 Jun 2010, 17:21 pm
If it weren’t for all those injuries last year, this would be PDV’s first choice team:
1. Beast
2. Bismarck
3. John Smit
4. Bakkies Botha
5. Victor Matfield
6. Schalk Burger
7. Juan Smith
8. Pierre Spies
9. Fourie du Preez
10. Ruan Pienaar
11. Bryan Habana
12. Jean de Villiers
13. Adi Jacobs
14. JP Pietersen
15. Conrad Janjties
Think back to last year. If there was not one injury, that would have been the team for the whole year. Remember, Brussow originally wasn’t even in the squad! Let’s see here, Tendai “useless” Mtawarira, Bismarck “penalty!” du Plessis and John Smit at tight head. Then no Brussow, then Ruan Pienaar at fly half. Adi Jacobs over Jaques Fourie. JP Pietersen over van den Heever, Francois Hougaard, Aplon or Mapoe. And Conrad Jantjies over Francois Steyn. He’s more like a very lucky coach rather then a good one
9 Jun 2010, 17:27 pm
@rugbywriter(rugbywriter)-201:
He wanted to see players, to see how they perform on a test level. Thinking that you can keep the same 15 for 4 years is stupid… You need to have a group of 35 40 players in mind. And also be lucky enough to keep your masterpieces out of injury on D Day!
9 Jun 2010, 17:38 pm
@David(David)-195: The draw certainly did not favour us. We had the second toughest pool of all considering our opposition (after France, Argentina and Ireland).
Apart from playing England, we had tough physical encounters against Tonga and Western Samoa (who we always seem to draw at WC’s
I agree that our performance against Tonga was especially disappointing, but they really brought all their physical presence to the party and is a bruising team to play against and more often than not try to hurt you on purpose.
To those who say we were lucky with the play-offs, just remember – you can only write the exam paper that is in front of you. France beat the All Blacks, England beat the Wallabies. France lost to the Argies. Twice.
And I don’t want to hear that the All Blacks would have beaten us if we played them and that they were cheated out with a forward pass. The former statement is a purely normative one and the second fact (yes, it was forward) cannot be held forward (excuse the pun) as the reason for their defeat.
In fact, the All Blacks were beaten fair and square. After the quarter-final in Cardiff, Paddy O’Brien (a Kiwi) analysed the match and, I quote from the timesonline: ‘produced statistics that showed how good Barnes had been. Of more than 600 decisions he had had to make, he got only five wrong – an error rate of less than 1 per cent. The forward pass was one of those, but that was not the reason New Zealand lost the game; that was more to do with their inability to handle the pressure.’
Would I could go back to the SA-Aus semi-final of 1999 and look for mistakes made by the officials and hold it forward for our defeat if I managed to ascertain bad decisions? No, but it would be a convenient excuse for some.
9 Jun 2010, 17:41 pm
@rugbywriter: #201 how many of last weekend’s selections were injury forced? And even after the injuries you’re crowing about he could’ve seleceted palooka to replace them…
9 Jun 2010, 17:47 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy)-199:
I’ll have to answer you a bit later as I’m in the middle of making supper.
9 Jun 2010, 17:48 pm
@David(David)-205: Hey David, hope someone will be fetching you a beer for dessert
9 Jun 2010, 17:53 pm
Both JW and PdV are both good coaches.
JW did an amazing job for SA rugby and anyone that cant see that is dumb as well as blind.
Most of you go on about world cup draws, etc, etc – fact of the matter is there have been few bok teams favoured so highly to win a world cup. We beat who was put in front of us, and the team the way it was, free from injury which JW had struggled with in 2007, was a fkg great team.
JW was just too conservative, but he knew how rugby games were won and how teams were crafted started from the basics, sounds set pieces, structures, defence and winning – thereafter comes the champagne stuff.
But the Boks needed some fresh impetus and PdV is the man for the job.
Just so happens he has a way with words too.
9 Jun 2010, 17:54 pm
@Mike H(Mike H)-150: Many people blame the drop in form of the Springboks in 2008 to Matfield’s captaincy. However, there are many other reasons for that. Firstly, there was a reluctance from many of the players to adapt to the ELVs. Secondly, there were conflicting opinions with regards to playing styles. Thirdly, there were several players injured or not available (Bakkies Botha and John Smit as hooker).
Matfield has proven the last couple of years and especially this year that he is an astute captain. He was lambasted for not taking kickable penalties by all and sundry but he used home-ground advantage and favorable refereeing circumstances with regards to the rolling maul to go for tries. After 5 round the Bulls had 25 points on the log and the other teams were playing catch-up.
Matfield will make a superb Springbok captain right now with a settled team and clear objectives.
9 Jun 2010, 17:55 pm
Is it only me that finds the opening paragraph of this article confusing?
Honestly, where is Keo’s blueprint?
9 Jun 2010, 18:02 pm
I still haven’t read my SA Rugby mags for the past 2 months…
9 Jun 2010, 18:06 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-210:
personally the quality of content has dropped but it is at least still good enough for the long drop.
Keep it in your toilet, at least its much better reading than the You or People magazines…
9 Jun 2010, 18:08 pm
Still on the race issue?
Perhaps one of the sports journalists here at keo.co.za should run an article on how many coloureds(“non-ethic blacks” so-called by the ANC) and WP players have been elevated/kept/persisted with/brought back to Springbok/Emerging Springbok status/group/squad now that Jake White is no longer “restricting” Peter Jooste and seeing as Pieter de Villiers is also a WP-fanatic.
Selections ought not to be made with the heart (especially by a small group of “non-representative” men);
Earl Rose
Morgan Newman
Bolla Conradie
Conrad Jantjies
Adi Jacobs
Ricky Januarie
Juan de Jongh (bless his soul-maybe the only youngster on merit)
Davon Ruabenheimer
Ashley Johnson
Hilton Lobberts
Gio Aplon
Heini Adams
Burton Francis
Zane Kirchner
Since 2008 when Pieter de Villiers took over from Jake White. Why? Can anyone explain the merit/numbers-logic? Is it because Jooste and De Villiers have free rein?
I won’t include Gurthro Steenkamp and Habana, since they were always in contention and up to standard in mosts view.
So why weren’t enough black players brought through and favourited by them and supported and pushed through to SA A’s and Emerging Springboks in this time period???
Is it because Peter Jooste and Pieter de Villiers are coloureds and giving preference to their “ethinicity”.
I think this is very unfair and is another example where “black” players have been done in/over-looked because of a bigotted few that aren’t representatively selecting in anyway. Of course the teams should be selected on merit to gain respect/money/status/chances at further development etc. , and currently we don’t even have “non-white” players in every position at Super14 level- let alone trying to force them into the national team on demographics.
9 Jun 2010, 18:09 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-212:
There are more. Can anyone expand the list I’ve given?
9 Jun 2010, 18:09 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-211: I haven’t read a You or a People since 6th grade
perhaps, but it does provide some rugby info
9 Jun 2010, 18:10 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-212:
Bear in mind, this is within the last 2 years…
9 Jun 2010, 18:13 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-214:
Women like you are few and far between…
Please marry into rugby one day!!!
9 Jun 2010, 18:16 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-216: I’m hardly a woman, I’m a little girl
ha ha well I don’t really plan on getting married at all
9 Jun 2010, 18:18 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-217:
Well at least I got the *** right I usually suck at this, and if you do not plan on getting married then even that is all good (I am not a fan of the institution either) just promise you will associate yourself with it in future!!!
9 Jun 2010, 18:19 pm
*** = s e x
9 Jun 2010, 18:20 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-217:
Gonna become a nun?
9 Jun 2010, 18:20 pm
And ‘it’ being rugby of course that you need to associate yourself with…
9 Jun 2010, 18:20 pm
The one thing I have noticed with black and white players development is that black players(especially forwards) at high school level are quite big and strong compared to white guys (obviously there are exceptions), they seem to reach their physical maturity earlier than white guys do.
The black dudes seem to stagnate after leaving school from a physical perspective, where the white dude appears to reach his physical prowress at a later stage………ie they continue get bigger and stronger after school/university and seem to physically mature at about 23/24, Nic Koster is a good example, he is still in the process of maturing and a ideal position for his physical attributes has yet to be confirmed, although I am happy to see they have decided on no.8 for him.
The black counterpart at school level who is bigger and stronger does not appear to genetically get as big and strong after school/university (again there is obviously exceptions) as the white dudes, I think this is a major contributing factor as to why so many promising black players get lost in the system after under 21 level.
I am not sure if there is any scientific proof to back this up but to me it is pretty obvious.
9 Jun 2010, 18:21 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-218: lol why do you know a guy called Sarah?
With rugby? Ja for sure. Either with sports journalism, law or at grassroots level.
9 Jun 2010, 18:22 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-220: why on earth would I do that? You do get independent women who don’t feel the need to get married
9 Jun 2010, 18:24 pm
@justrugby(justrugby)-222:
“The one thing I have noticed with black and white players development is that black players(especially forwards) at high school level are quite big and strong compared to white guys (obviously there are exceptions), they seem to reach their physical maturity earlier than white guys do.”
I would disagree with you. Go play out back on the platteland and come back and tell me the same.
Obviously you haven’t been around much.
And yes there is nio “scientific” evidence, becuase this is aBullshit line of reasoning.
9 Jun 2010, 18:24 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-224:
Just pulling your leg.
9 Jun 2010, 18:26 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-223:
I have traveled to some weird places in my time…
9 Jun 2010, 18:27 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-227: roflmao shame poor him then
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-226:
9 Jun 2010, 18:28 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-225:
Go look at any of the school clashes they show on TV, plenty of big and strong and talented black players in most of the sides, what happens to them afterwards then ?? you appear to have the answers !!!
9 Jun 2010, 18:30 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-225:
As far as scientific evidence goes my conversations with Tac will suggest I strongly agree with you.
My opinion is that emerging (or in context black talent) is simply not managed effectively.
Social orientation and coaching being, and having always been a big criticism of me.
Luckily, the new generation of players are dismissing this obstacle with flying colours.
9 Jun 2010, 18:31 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-228:
All I can say is be careful when you visit the East…
9 Jun 2010, 18:32 pm
@justrugby(justrugby)-229:
Simple answer?
Management.
Best case study.
Solly T.
9 Jun 2010, 18:34 pm
@justrugby(justrugby)-229:
I don’t have to go look at school matches on TV when I actually physically go to them. SouthERN african blacks are small compared to “Dutchies”.
Do you know who statistically speaking the “tallest” nation on earth is…?
You guessed it, theDutch.
Blacks and whites are the same in their growth and don’t get some magical growth-spurt after school. Go look at the SA u/19 these boys are school-level. And by the way won’t mean anything in the way of representing a study group. You insinuations areBullshit.
9 Jun 2010, 18:35 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-231: ja dude… the amount of proposals you get is ridiculous and the stalkers you get are even worse
9 Jun 2010, 18:36 pm
& with the race card being played I am out… cheers peeps
9 Jun 2010, 18:36 pm
@justrugby(justrugby)-229:
Also…just by the way “JUSTrugby”, how do you know youth blacks are “stronger” as you put it? Just by watching matches on TV?
9 Jun 2010, 18:37 pm
@SpringbokSarah(SpringbokSarah)-235:
Nobody played the race card if you followed carefully.
9 Jun 2010, 18:40 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-230:
My question is why WP’s and why so many coloureds all of a sudden? Is it because of the reasons I mention (or speculate) in the post?
All of a sudden those in the list, and their are some I forget, within 2 years?! Why?
Is it because coloured play more rugby, so that there is a greater pool to select from?
I thought that this is exactly the reasoning that they go against in making these “non-white” selections in the first place.
9 Jun 2010, 18:46 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-230:
You can take a player from any “ethnicity” on Earth and raise him in a rugby-culture, so that he can be taught the ball-skills and tecniques of good rugby, and raise that kid to be a top international player…THAT IS IF he has the physical “talent” (in other words genes). But genes aren’t limited to the “races” here in question. Even if you only find 10% big forwards in “race” A and 30% in “race” B.
Doesn’t matter at all.
9 Jun 2010, 18:53 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-239:
I believe genes plays a huge role !!
9 Jun 2010, 18:56 pm
What this about jeans?
I’m lucky, i have many jean pants
White ones, black ones, brown ones, all colours
Call it my rainbow collection
9 Jun 2010, 18:56 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-238:
Dude I had to go re-read your post and in all honesty it still did not make sense to me.
You are arguing a numbers game, and numbers are only important for statisticians and politicians, not rugby people.
Rugby, like any sport is a culture.
The love for the game is not supported out of statistics or benchmarks, but as an affiliation you have with the sport as either a player, supporter or coach.
This is largely why in my view we got the whole ‘transformation’ policies in rugby wrong, because we base our perceptions and facts from numbers and either argue for it, or against it.
Like with most things in life a natural selection will take place, and yes in the case of South Africa social circumstances does play a massive role in that because natural selection was previously affected by policies like Apartheid and is now affected by policies like affirmative action.
Both policies try to cosmetically change situations, and when you get into that game you will fail.
I think the lesson rugby lovers and supporters need to learn is that the cosmetics applied in rugby comes from those not involved in the sport in a playing or coaching capacity, meaning that it is wrong to judge players and coaches and label them as quota’s or BEE’s.
They are there by choice of associations – a love or affinity for the sport.
Do not get caught up in political games and numbers when looking at rugby, because you will not get the answers.
Rather pray that one day our game will be run, and assessed by people who actually has a love and affinity for the game of rugby union.
9 Jun 2010, 18:59 pm
@heita(heita)-241:
9 Jun 2010, 19:00 pm
@justrugby(justrugby)-240:
You didn’t quite understand. There are only a handful of players required in a training group setup. Any “race” can therefore provide the numbers. Regardless of genes in reference to the last part of my post 239.
Anyway, having a look at the longon shots of the U/19 national lineup, would you seriously say that the biggest are “non-whites”. And even then the point is; of course, these 4 or 5 players were chosen and THEY themselves are big, and the their selection was partly because they themselves are big.
But does it tell you anything about the rest of black players? Does it tell you anything about them IN RELEATION to the white players? No it doesn’t.
Genes play a role in everyday life…but no role in your argument.
9 Jun 2010, 19:05 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-239:
Association with anything in life, is a choice – when it becomes a rule or law, you will fail.
In rugby, the association and affinity to the game from personal experience is luckily still a choice people make – whether they be white, black or purple – the all love the game, and that is all that is needed.
Once we accept that, discussions like these will become insignificant.
Thing is my man, we are deliberately forced (or brainwashed) to choose and allegiance, we are kept apart through and made to choose sides through physical differences or cultures.
In the end, rugby is used as a tool to divide, whereas if we actually use the power of the game itself, and let go of cosmetic or grain-fed differences which has nothing to do with the actual game, the game, and the people who love it will look beyond colour and culture.
I use the example of the current soccer world cup in our country – I have no affinity or love for the sport, hence the moment of this event, is insignificant to me – now or what it holds for the future of this country.
My affinity is not with what surrounds the game (in the case of the SWC what it means to our country) but with the game itself, and that means nothing to me, which in turn leaves me not ‘feeling it’ as the add campaigns go.
Rugby similarly, to rugby lovers as I am, should only be about the game, not the cosmetic bullshit that comes with it.
9 Jun 2010, 19:07 pm
Anycase I am out of here for a bit, wasn’t planning on getting that heavy tonight!!!
Later.
9 Jun 2010, 19:08 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-242:
-Firstly, do you mean in regards to my post no.212?
It is a stand-alone point that I made and not part of any argument with “JUSTrugby”.
-Secondly, with all due respect (humbly), I think that you misunderstand the concept of “natural selection”.
Anyway, I agree with your post 242. I don’t believe in “races”, there is only one race- the Human Race.
But my post 212 is there to insinuate that because the selectors are coloureds and WP men, we now see an “overflow” of coloured and WP players against the philosophies that they profess to stand for and select by.
9 Jun 2010, 19:17 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-247:
No I understood your post perfectly (I believe) as I think I have a decent understanding of natural selection as explained in your belief or perception in what is currently happening with PDV and Jooste ‘looking after their own’ so to speak.
I just do not agree with it.
9 Jun 2010, 19:18 pm
@Agile T*t-Tyrant(Anairetes agilis)-247:
Not an argument rather an interesting debate !!
But Pissant is right maybe to heavy a debate for tonight……going to watch Eng vs Ireland Junior rugby ………the English, NZ and French seem a lot bigger than our Saffa’s at this level……..again I believe the Dutchies mature fully and continue growing after school level !!! That’s why the Boks size wise stand back for no nation !!
9 Jun 2010, 19:24 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-248:
@justrugby(justrugby)-249:
Maybe it’s the green of their jerseys that make them seemingly blend into the baackground pitch that make them seem small to you.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.