Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 15

Recommended Posts

@westie2

To complete the point I should also add that the OP also implies - via the analysis of the Brighton game and taking it as the apex of what Alan Irvine set out to do (as he himself stated) - that plenty of the players may well [have] be[en] good enough under better direction.

What might have been indeed.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve enjoyed reading your post Parma plus the other thoughtful responses. What might have been indeed. I was curious when Irvine arrived and more so when in some charge. The Brighton match reminded me of the potential strength this team could have had with better tactics and overall strategy. We closed down from the front more than I''ve seen this season (defending high up the pitch) as well as our usual pressing from the defence ....yet we we had a better shape. It''s amazing how now 3 players have publicly spoken about how they love working under ''Al''. This is in stark contrast with comments about Neil. I hope he stays.

Naismith is one who has talked well of Irvine and the last 4 games, we have seen potential captain material. I agree in this respect with an earlier post.

On Parma''s last point, if we can integrate all aspects of the club with a ''golden thread'', it augurs well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Top class as always parma. As you and several others have long espoused the tactical common sense of deep sitting midfielders finding the discipline to stay sat deep and the full backs committing just one at a time is a genius move by Irvine indeed.

What Irvine hasnt and is unlikely to do is remove the sheer volume of individual errors (apathy, poor positioning, failure to track runners) that the squad have in them - which is why they do still need changing.

A more robust coach together with a refreshed squad (perhaps with better attitude at expense of ability) built around a solid existing core and a clear vision means we have much to look forward to next season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those individual errors ZLF were often blamed by Alex Neil for many of the poor results and he seemed to be hiding behind them. But while they are indeed a cause for change (Bennett conceding the penalty vs Fulham just after the break when they had gone down to 10 men for instance) I do feel that Neil''s approach exacerbated this. My impression is of a strict, harsh and possibly intimidatory style which in my view can inhibit players and make them run scared, afraid of committing the very mistakes which they will then commit. Fear seemed most visibly obvious in the likes of Redmond and les Murphys who too often seemed to go into their shells when there was space to run into, often turning back and looking for an easy pass back to defence. That fear of the dressing room boll***ing may well have been a big factor in those late capitulations when panic just set in.

This all seems a world away from his early days when many were praising his man management by bringing Bassong in from the cold.

Neil''s faults were many including the stubbornness, the constant tinkering and a ludicrous transfer policy which focussed hugely on midfielders. I just hope that Webber''s tender years do not hide an emotional naivety and result in the same hubris which ultimately consumed Alex Neil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock the Boat wrote:

On another point, of moving on players. I think in recent weeks Naismith seems to have stepped up to the plate, taking on a more proactive role on the pitch. Instead of moving him on, I think there is captain material there. His potential is at last shining through.

And one other point. While Wes has been our best player over the past almost one decade and has maigic in his boots, I think he now blocks the pathway for Pritchard and Maddison. Pritchard is proving he is now ready to take over Wes''s role and Maddison looks ready to be an impact sub. It''s a tough call but putting sentimentality aside, this is the right time to let Wes go.

........................................................................................................................

What do you mean Naismith''s "potential is at last shining through" ? Yes I agree we need to get into the opposition''s faces and harass them. But can we accommodate a player with such limited footballing ability for his leadership qualities only ? If he''s one of our key players for next season then we are looking very much like a lower tier Championship team. I''ve appreciated his contribution but the front 4 all need to be special players.

Your point on letting Hoolahan go is ludicrous. Yes Pritchard is coming along nicely, Maddison has potential but scoring a "sitter" on his debut doesn''t make him a world beater. It only takes one bad tackle to put Pritchard out for the season, if Maddison doesn''t front up, Naismith is good only for yakking. Wouldn''t it be a good idea to have Hoolahan still at the club ready when required ? he''s signed a contract - let''s hold him to it ! We did exactly that 4 seasons ago & he helped get us back up the season next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Y] Parma
Re. “mass cull", I got the impression that you didn''t really take Webber''s comments too literally since resources-wise his hands are far from free when it comes to moving players on (which he of course must know very well). Also, I''m still unclear as to exactly what his "only 12 to 15 to stay" really implied since he qualified it with "of those in the programme from tonight”. Does that really equate to “ the squad”? 
Re. “plenty of players may well [have] be{en] good enough under better direction”, I’m afraid I remain sceptical. Whenever we have been inclined to say, Professor Higgins-like “My God, they’ve got it”, it has turned out they haven’t after all, and my own view is that the fault can’t be entirely attributed to the manager (whether Neil, Adams, or Hughton). On Friday against Brighton we saw defensive discipline and good shape achieved at — to us — a familiar cost in attacking terms. We won the game but not IMO because we had solved the conundrum in terms of balance. You can’t be consistently good enough season after season if the fundamentals are not more or less second nature. I don’t think that they are in the case of too many of our nearly men, irrespective of who coaches them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree that the defensive side of a team can''t just be turned around in a few weeks.  I think it takes consistent coaching and drilling of the players, week in and week out, so they know what they are meant to do, and equally important, what their team-mates will be doing, to make a solid defence.  That has obviously been lacking under AN so at the time he left, the defence were uncertain of themselves and their team mates and goes a long way to explaining our defensive nerves and fragility. 

 

So I am encouraged to read the OP''s report on the game but think it''s early days yet.

 

However, I do think our squad as we started this season was plenty good enough to be competitive for a place in the top 2-3 of the Championship, having seen them against quite a few sides.  Our back 4 are poor by Prem standards but IMO plenty good enough to be a good defence in the Championship.  Russell Martin is a perfect example of a player who could play CB reasonably well IMO in the Championship but is poor by Prem standards.  similarly, most Championship teams would give a good deal to be able to have two strikers like Jerome and Oliveira.  It''s just shocking that teams like Reading, Wednesday, Leeds are comfortably above us in the table.

 

Also I''d be interested in what people think of how the OP''s analysis applies to the Fulham game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good OP

out of curiosity is anyone swayed into thinking that Irvine could be the Head Coach for us?

Personally, I''d look elsewhere, although AI should be commended for his work since AN left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@westie

I think ICF highlighted the point neatly. Perfection is not on offer and wasn''t required. For all our legion of tactical and strategic errors we didn''t finish far behind teams of limited pedigree themselves. Marginal gains would have been enough to have seen the players be good enough for the level they was required this season.

@tumbleweed

Excellent point and very much in line with the response I would have written to @ZLF. I was genuinely surprised, disappointed and concerned when Alex Neil started to focus on - and openly discuss in the media - ''mistakes''.

This was in direct contrast to his (successful) approach when he first arrived, which was to advise, coach and instruct players to completely forget about mistakes. Simply follow the methodology and coaching plan and mistakes would either be amortised or accepted. This frees players mentally and adds value to the cause, it is also the only true option, as it is an area that cannot be resolved via identification, straining or shaming. New mental pathways have to be created over time.

Once he took refuge in identifying individual errors he overtly contradicted the ethos that he himself introduced to the players and they had welcomed.

As we have discussed in multiple previous Masterclasses, players revert to base tendencies under pressure, stress and tiredness. You either work with players neurologically to groove new neural pathways and automatic norms or you accept these weaknesses exist and adjust your tactics, roles and game management to amortise them. In effect you set the team up whereby you factor in, expect and allow for the typical mistakes you expect to see (until you can buy or train better).

Resorting to labelling, naming and shaming - particularly when mistakes per se cannot be eliminated - also showed weakness amongst the growling and bluster. It also screamed of a passing of the responsibility buck and - as a consequence - created ''them and me'' division.

The writing was actually scribbled on the walls a long time ago.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Parma,

Thanks for your last post, in which you stated; "players revert to base tendencies under pressure, stress and tiredness."

I agree, however to override these base tendencies at any time requires conscious thinking, which as I''m sure you know is slower than subconscious thinking and takes far more effort and concentration, which is why it collapses when under pressure, etc.

Creating new neural pathways is the way forward, because these then become the subconscious thinking.

Unfortunately our previous manager did not embrace (or rate) psychological training, probably because he simply didn''t understand it.

To get the best from any performance it needs to be played in the zone, or at ''unconscious competence'' level, rather than conscious competence level (the yips, dartitus, etc.).

I believe under AN many, if not all, of our players were playing at the conscious competence level and exhibited the football equivalent of the yips, besides being sh1t scared of making a mistake because of the way they were then treated, consequently they didn''t really want the ball and, imo, it showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]"My question is, will the SD, either generally or specifically with us Stuart Webber, get involved not just with the footballing philosophy but tactics and even match to match tactics? So that, for example, if we had had an SD then they would have told Hughton to be more attacking under some circumstances, and Neil to be less so? "

A good question Purple. As with all good questions, the answer is already present in the question itself.

As with all good systems there must be a deliberately imperfect marginal grey area of flex-and-tolerance.

Being too right can be wrong.

I admire German engineering, but my E-Class Mercedes has an air-conditioning system that is inferior to my Father''s big Old Volvo Estate. In summer when I have set it a degree too low, it blasts out hot air to get to the new temperature as quickly and efficiently as possible. I don''t want hot air in summer. The old Volvo sort bumbles its way imperceptibly to a new temperature without appreciable change. Much better, yet technically worse.

So it is with lines of communication and pan-football club philosophy.

The Sporting Director must ensure a direction-of-travel in football operations from youth to first team, via recruitment, playing methodology and - inevitably .- the way tactics are employed on the first team field.

It would after all be imposdible to effectively recruit players for the long term good of the club without knowing how and where they were going to slot into the side or club. The Sporting Director role can thus appear all-powerful.

And yet it isn''t.

The Head Coach picks the team, sets the match-to-match tactics, does the Sky interviews, gets his name sung in the stands and is the focal point for the players.

If there appear to be many areas of potential conflict, it is because there are.

One of the dangers inherent to the new European-style structure is that the club - and in our case (now) that means predominantly the Sporting Director* - hires people in its own image. In this way change can in time be no change. This is great if you''ve got it right from the foundations up and from the outset.

Puts the influence and importance of the (first) Norwich City Sporting Director into sharp focus doesn''t it?

Parma

* For this reason the European model includes Technical Director, Director of Football, an often influential President, plus Directors with football links (vid Bayern).[/quote]Thanks for the reply, Parma. As you say, the reality is likely to be more complicated than the kind of simplistic scenario I was outlining. But even so, in terms of hierarchy this is a potentially significant change. For the first time the Norwich City manager/head coach will be getting footballing input/advice/orders/etc from someone above him in the organisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma: 
"@westie 

I think ICF highlighted the point neatly. Perfection is not on offer and wasn''t required. For all our legion of tactical and strategic errors we didn''t finish far behind teams of limited pedigree themselves. Marginal gains would have been enough to have seen the players be good enough for the level they was required this season."
I happily accept that we could and should have done better this season with the squad we have. But to what end? To be shown for a third time that our "one of the best squads in the Championship" remains irremediably flawed when it comes to facing the challenge of the higher level? As I see it, we are on a sounder upward path now than we would have been if we were celebrating promotion along with Newcastle and Brighton. Of course, had we learned the lesson and made the structural changes two years ago, all might indeed have been different. I''m Leibnizian about this season in other words: "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westie,

I feel the purity of your point - and I don''t doubt but that the owners will be thrilled with your far-sighted, holistic vision - though the less-charitable will counter that £120million of Get-rich-quick cash covers a multitude of sins.

Your contention that such an outcome would constitute a Pyrrhic victory in that it wouldn''t have catalysed the necessary structural change we now see is noted.

Without wishing to awaken the hoary kraken of ownership model however, I would find it hard to argue a case that staying down - with all its inherent risks, financial constraints and structural compromises - is somehow a superior outcome via improved operational methodology regardless of other factors.

Murdoch has purged the purist from me I''m afraid. Reluctantly, As an empiricist, promotion poundnotes are preferable over fine process in the realpolitik of modern football.

The right move at the wrong time. Even the right process may now be too late under the weight of our straitened circumstances.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds like you''re quoting Voltaire there Parma (Candide) regarding the best of all possible worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a very interesting question of whether it is in fact better for us now to have stayed down rather than got promoted. I recall Lambert being asked when we went straight up after promotion from Lge 1 whether it was too quick. He said something like "Well, we have the choice of having access to £90m. Or not having it. Would you like to ask the question again?"

So yes we would have accessed the richest league in the world. But I think it would have been a short stay again. We know from recent experience how hard it is to stay up and other clubs are moving on in approach and infrastructure. We almost needed to fail once it became clear that AN had too many faults to give any confidence that we would do any better this time around. So, rarely, I do agree that maybe this time the failure is sort of cathartic, a lancing of the boil and a catalyst for change both in structure and playing personnel. Having lost Redmond, Brady and Olsson we can''t lose too many more key players though so the new guy must be pretty judicious in the changes made, the exception being the defence where pretty much everyone is up for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if you get promoted to the Prem, a lot of that extra money just goes straight through into increased player wages.  You have to pay your current players more despite them being no better than they were the season before.  Alan Sugar called it prune juice I think.

 

Having said that, yes, a lot of that extra money does go straight through - but not all of it.  Webber has mentioned the infrastructure at the club being good and in some areas, more than is needed, which is a very interesting comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma''s right when saying whether we like it or not, getting promoted would have been far more beneficial to the club than not. Football is completely money-oriented and that''s our best way of getting it, with the current ownership model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]Parma''s right when saying whether we like it or not, getting promoted would have been far more beneficial to the club than not. Football is completely money-oriented and that''s our best way of getting it, with the current ownership model.[/quote]Money is only as beneficial as the use you make of it. Have we benefited

from our three seasons in the EPL? Of course we have, first and

foremost by ridding the club of £20M of external debt, secondly by

significantly improving the overall strength of the squad, thirdly by halting

and reversing the degradation of the club''s football infrastructure,

fourthly by easing the financial burden represented by our Category 1

academy. Nevertheless, those three years of EPL riches have not secured

our survival in the top tier, have not enabled us to construct a squad

of anything approaching Premiership quality, or established us in

football people''s minds as genuinely upwardly progressive. Yes, it

"could have been so different", in one of ricardo''s parallel universes

where the "mistakes" that have brought us to where we are didn''t happen.

But in this world those mistakes were made and there''s no reason to

think it would have been any different if we were gifted another

season''s worth of PL riches. Sunderland have been in the EPL for the

last ten years, Swansea for the last six years; we will almost certainly

be playing both in the Championship next season, along with

Middlesborough. There is no automatic translation of £Ms into lasting

success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Next season is a real make or break one for me. This season we were able to cash in on Brady, Redmond and Olsson, but other than the Murphys, Klose and possibly Pritchard, we don''t have many ''jewels'' to sell for what those players went for.

What we will be able to do is dramatically reduce the wage bill when Bassong, Turner, Whitaker, Lafferty and Mulumbu leave - £100k per week minimum for 5 players who are nowhere near the squad (excluding Whitaker while we have no left back!). Add Ruddy and Naismith to that and the savings really start to add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d like the next promotion, whenever that might be, to be "sustainable". I really thought after Wembley 2015 that we would do that, and to have learnt from past mistakes. Instead ever more were made, all well documented now, and I still believe that that relegation was avoidable. Had we crept into the playoffs this time and somehow repeated the Wembley triumph under AN (and lets face it only a few results away would have been needed) I would have had very little confidence in us just being back to square one a season later after another poor survival attempt. We''ve had some of the best squads we have ever had in the last few seasons and it has made little difference without the right management team and structure in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12/07/2014, 10:51 AM

Parma Ham''s gone mouldy

Joined on 13/11/2003

Posts 1,126

Why we shouldn''t keep our best players

The sale of Snodgrass for £7m was an excellent piece of business and represented the fruits of a successful strategy. Relegation is an ever-present risk for clubs from 10th - 25th in the pyramid, an area Norwich are destined to inhabit. The greatest danger - and one very real to Norwich following their meteoric rise - is that foundations are not laid and mercenary players are parachuted in as the club endeavours to bridge the gap from wide-eyed, nothing-to-lose first year survival to (reasonably) established members of football''s top table. The inherent danger here is that vast expense can be lavished on performers that either have premier pedigree or potential weapons. Such players command high fees that are often never realised again, and/or high wages that become a crippling albatross around championship necks. Recent football history is littered with examples of such well-remunerated players who were never again saleable assets near their purchase price.

Much gnashing of teeth has taken place over the need for us to retain our top names in order to have the best chance of an immediate return. I am thoroughly unconvinced that this is true.

In the first instance it should be noted that actually having saleable assets upon relegation is no automatic outcome. The players have by definition failed to define themselves as premier. That we have players we have recently purchased, such as Fer and Hooper, who would both likely command profitable returns is a commendation of our purchase strategy. There is absolutely no need to keep such players for the more prosaic environment of the championship if factors such as desire to leave, high sales price, desire to reduce wages, more suitable championship options exist.

We have been relegated, so rather than clinging to flawed investment theory over the value of our biggest names, let us freshen for freshening''s sake. What we need now is players that are practically (on grass) better than the championship, not players that have the game for the lower reaches of the premier league. They are not the same thing. Success in the Championship in more prosaic, repeated performers such as Martin, Howson, Johnson, Turner, ruddy if he stays and - to be fair - Snodgrass if he had, the adding to this group with the purchase of the best goalscorers in the championship, regardless whether they have a sophisticated enough game for the premier.

The jarringly obvious dissonance to this theory is the upsetting story of the wolf. We bet the farm on him, more strategically than monetarily in context, and he is a reminder of what can happen if you buy players for the top table that don''t have a higher resale value and which leave you unable to sell your bigger name players. This is far worse than getting £7m for Hooper or Fer, but it is the real world alternative.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disappointingly, we managed relegation better the time before, when we cashed in on players like Snodgrass & Fer immediately.  This time we kept players like Klose and Brady rather than getting their maximum value immediately after relegation.

 

I guess the tricky part is deciding who you should keep to add quality to the team in the Championship compared to who you are better off selling, it''s not a simple decision.  But it was obviously the right thing to do to sell Fer, who struggles to be committed in the Prem so it''s hard to see him being a solid Championship player, and as Brady had come back with a raised profile from playing for Ireland, it would have clearly been better to cash in on him immediately and probably Olsson too, who clearly would prefer to play in the Prem, and use the proceeds to get in a good quality left back as a permanent signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parma, re your point in your last post about getting in players that are suited to the Championship-according to the experts on 5 Live on Monday, this was exactly what Newcastle did-while making a net profit on players bought and sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The greatest danger - and one very real to Norwich following their

meteoric rise - is that foundations are not laid and mercenary players

are parachuted in as the club endeavours to bridge the gap from

wide-eyed, nothing-to-lose first year survival to (reasonably)

established members of football''s top table"  (Parma''s 2014 post, re-posted above). Isn''t that the nub of it? The near universal belief, from board to Barclay, that it was essential to stay in the EPL, or if relegated, get back immediately, has meant years of reactive firefighting rather than more measured building of solid foundations. Understandable as far as the first two seasons in the EPL were concerned, with the club still saddled with debt; but poor judgement thereafter, decked out in the false colours of "ambition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="westcoastcanary"]"The greatest danger - and one very real to Norwich following their

meteoric rise - is that foundations are not laid and mercenary players

are parachuted in as the club endeavours to bridge the gap from

wide-eyed, nothing-to-lose first year survival to (reasonably)

established members of football''s top table"  (Parma''s 2014 post, re-posted above). Isn''t that the nub of it? The near universal belief, from board to Barclay, that it was essential to stay in the EPL, or if relegated, get back immediately, has meant years of reactive firefighting rather than more measured building of solid foundations. Understandable as far as the first two seasons in the EPL were concerned, with the club still saddled with debt; but poor judgement thereafter, decked out in the false colours of "ambition". [/quote]
I am dubious about this argument. I might buy it if it was explained more precisely, but not while it falls back on a phrase such as a "more measured building of solid foundations".So - to put it crudely - getting after getting to the Premier League, and then staying up, which meant we were debt-free by the middle of 2013, rather than 2022 or 2016,  we should not have tried to stay up?  How exactly? By trading down in terms of managerial ability for an untried someone who might (note the "might") be good in the Championship? By selling our best players for youngsters who might (again "might") train on? Or might, like this "promising" manager, find themselves overwhelmed by what is by common consent one of the toughest - if not the toughest - second tiers in world football?And if these foundations are partly physical, such as improving Colney/the youth scheme, the money for that is hardly likely to be more readily available in the Championship (or even League One) than in the Premier League.I assume the aim of these more solid foundations is to help stop us being what we are now, which is a yo-yo club between the top two divisions. Sadly, for Norwich City, the clubs in recent years that have (or so far look to have) managed that all have much richer owners to facilitate creating more stable foundations while minimising the risk of such a strategy. In other words, the best of both worlds.And (and I will happily be corrected...) I cannot think offhand of one of those that didn''t try to get straight back the Premier League after relegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it''s more about how we tried to stay up/get back up, rather than the fact that we did try. 

 

The obvious question for me is that you should recruit (and keep) players who you hope will help you stay up/get back up, but when in the Prem, you should also have one eye on how they''d contribute in the Championship.  After relegation, you should cast a very critical eye over your more established/expensive/saleable players, especially ones who might not be so keen on the more robust style of play in the Championship, and decide which you might be better off selling, to allow you to reinvest in cheaper, perhaps more motivated, replacements.

 

For example, Brady was a quality player, but his contribution was always intermittent.  It would have made sense to sell him last summer - when his value, from playing for Ireland, would have been maximised.  Ditto Ollsson was a good fullback but would clearly have preferred to be playing in the Prem, and I''d rather we had let him go then to get in someone young and athletic with a real hunger for promotion.  And it sounds like we worked hard to persuade Klose to stay, when actually we should have sold him and got in someone who was a top end Championship CB.

 

Similarly, you look at the sale of Johnson, and you look back at the goals he scored last time we were in the Championship, and his general contribution (and our lack of on-the-field leaders this season), and I wonder whether selling him for £6m was as good a deal as it is often said to be.

 

We can also take examples from recruitment in the last season under Hughton, although after that relegation we probably did a better job of selling some of the players (eg Fer) who wouldn''t have been much help in the Championship.

 

I don''t know Newcastle''s squad that well, but it does seem they sold off some of their more "luxury" players while keeping some of their better players who were probably more suited to the Championship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ICF, I think arguing specific players may blur the overall strategic point. Not least in this case because you can argue most of those the other way. Could we have found a fullback as good as Olsson? And I never got the impression he wasn''t trying while he was with us this season. As for Klose, it seems he wasn''t suited to the Championship, but if so that only became apparent once he played in it!You can also argue that the ambition we showed to try to get straight back up, in only selling Redmond and keeping the likes of Brady, Olsson, Klose, was a factor in persuading Pritchard to join us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point you can argue them both ways but I always feel the "strategic" idea is a bit meaningless in isolation.  Maybe it''s just me, but I''d rather talk about specifics for what we should have done differently, rather than generalities when I''m not really sure what they actually mean.

 

I think the basic point is that last summer we tried to keep them all and ended up (for example) persuading Klose to stay, when maybe we''d have been better to sell him and spend the money on someone who didn''t need persuasion to join.

 

The other issue for me is whether Klose would have been more effective this season under a manager with a sensible approach to defensive tactics, and I''m pretty sure the answer is yes, which I agree undermines the argument on him and Olsson, although not Brady who should probably have been sold last summer regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...