Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

Xg stats

Recommended Posts

Am I the only one that thinks xg stats are annoying, if not a complete waste of time? The variables they use to calculate them are so arbitrary and simplistic that they don't really - imo - show anything relevant or useful. Dissecting football into percentages and numbers is just getting ever more ridiculous. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have roots in the moneyball type setup and the betting industry tends to go with any stats which can help them take in more profits.

The 24/7 sports media are more than happy to have extra stats to fill content so it gets propagated. 

They can give you info which it's difficult to pick up in real time watching the game, but i can't help thinking that some of the stats are a waste of time. 

 

Put the ball in the net!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Am I the only one that thinks xg stats are annoying, if not a complete waste of time? The variables they use to calculate them are so arbitrary and simplistic that they don't really - imo - show anything relevant or useful. Dissecting football into percentages and numbers is just getting ever more ridiculous. 

Tell that to Daniel Farke, who seems to think stats are the be all and end all, apart from bringing you points!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Am I the only one that thinks xg stats are annoying, if not a complete waste of time? The variables they use to calculate them are so arbitrary and simplistic that they don't really - imo - show anything relevant or useful. Dissecting football into percentages and numbers is just getting ever more ridiculous. 

Like all stats it hugely depends on how you use them.

XG gets misused loads with lots of people claiming it shows who 'deserved' to win a game, which is just ****.

Where it is helpful is in giving a clearer picture of match than just pure shot numbers and for analysing individual and team performances to show strengths and weaknesses. It also can work as a bit of a predictive indicator of which teams may drop off after strong starts or improve after poor ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Like all stats it hugely depends on how you use them.

XG gets misused loads with lots of people claiming it shows who 'deserved' to win a game, which is just ****.

Where it is helpful is in giving a clearer picture of match than just pure shot numbers and for analysing individual and team performances to show strengths and weaknesses. It also can work as a bit of a predictive indicator of which teams may drop off after strong starts or improve after poor ones.

This is spot on. 
 

If expected goals didn’t have some value, it wouldn’t exist. It wasn’t a statistic created for TV or newspapers but was developed by the betting industry (both bookmakers and professional gambling) to make themselves money.

If it didn’t work to help them get and edge and improve their profits then it would had died out before anyone outside those industries had even heard of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "xg" tag, gives it an aura that it is of something of importance - like they use an "X" in car model names to denote something a bit higher up the model range.   If they just used the intials for "expected goals", it would be "eg".   Just mumbo jumbo created to fool people into think it is something of more value than it really is.

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I think the "xg" tag, gives it an aura that it is of something of importance - like they use an "X" in car model names to denote something a bit higher up the model range.   If they just used the intials for "expected goals", it would be "eg".   Just mumbo jumbo created to fool people into think it is something of more value than it really is.

But as Bethnal says it isn't 'mumbo jumbo.' If it was it wouldn't be used by football clubs. You'll also be horrified to know that XP or 'expected passes' is also a stat now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xG & xGa is one indicator as to the effectiveness of a team  to create chances and defend well - those with the right ratio will over time get the right results their performances deserve.   It is not designed to provide any justification on a game by game basis nor will it will not guarantee a result and that is, of course,  what ultimately matters.  As with all stats it can not stand alone.

The correlation with good xG numbers and final league table position is consistently strong because it is fact based rather  than mumbo jumbo. One common shortfall is that a team taking an early lead sit back and the losing team pushes forward,  surpressing the win sides xG and increasing the losing ones.  

The mumbo jumbo comes from the usual issues of stats being used in an inappropriately selective manner by the author - shoot the messenger not the news. 

 

  

Edited by ZLF
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity does anyone know what our xG/xGa stats were after our relatively strong start? (Man City, Newcastle).

Were the stats predicting then our soon to be poor form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Darth Vadis said:

Out of curiosity does anyone know what our xG/xGa stats were after our relatively strong start? (Man City, Newcastle).

Were the stats predicting then our soon to be poor form?

Not sure.

The best example I've seen of XG predicting longer term form was in Farke's first season. Ipswich started well, were near the to of the Championship but the XG stats suggested they were taking an unusually high number of chances and this wasn't likely to continue. Lo and behold they fell away and finished midtable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, king canary said:

But as Bethnal says it isn't 'mumbo jumbo.'

 

2 minutes ago, ZLF said:

The mumbo jumbo comes from the usual issues of stats being used in an inappropriately selective manner by the author - shoot the messenger not the news.  

 

So it's a bit like VAR. Has a small bit of logic about it but is about as useful as an inflatable dartboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

 

 

So it's a bit like VAR. Has a small bit of logic about it but is about as useful as an inflatable dartboard.

No.

Seriously, it is OK to just accept you don't really understand it and move on.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with King Canary here, but I also understand why lake distric canary would feel like he does about the statistics. They can be frustrating. They suffer from inflation; They're widely used, but rarely understood. Signal vs. noise. You'll not get any help from them unless you also understand the context. The thumb rules, nuts and bolts, the recent happenstances and philosophy of the team.

The fact is that they are nothing but facts. How useful they are depend on what you're trying to use them for and in what context. Are you looking for objectivity or validation? 

I'm not an expert, but I've realised in these past few months I've tried to reconcile the seeming disparity between Norwich City's performance and the "expected" side of stats; the xGs, the xGAs etc, that it is exercise in futility to predict the outcome of any particular match with these numbers. It is almost as difficult to point to any single factor that you have to change in order to achieve better result.

Take Teemu Pukki and Emi Buendia for example. What would we make of the fact that Emi has assisted 4 of Teemu's 9 open play goals? Is it because he creates a lot for Teemu, or does Teemu move in such a way that he allows Emi to find him? Are they two great players playing together, or are they great, because they play together? Certainly the one time Teemu was out (against ManU), the game was an exercise in futility and frustration for Emi. And when Emi was cooling off, Teemu was feeding off scraps.

The problem with looking at only the game and relying on your judgment is that you get the narrative front and center: You lose -> wasted chances, costly mistakes. You won -> you took your chances, inconsequential mistakes. The reality is that it may very well have been toss of a dice that did or didn't go your way. The implication being there isn't necessarily anything fundamentally *wrong* with the team. The data would help you balance your narrative. You grab a torch and pitchfork and go after the miserly manager? Or you shrug it off with your mates at the pub with the help of a couple beers?

The problem with stats on the other hand is that you get "objectivity" without context. For example, how is it possible a team that lags its opposition's xGs, generally out-scores them throughout the season? The context might explain that they have an elite striker who consistently outperforms his expected goals. And how does a team that underperform its xGs severely, nonetheless is solid mid-table points-wise? Perhaps they have a cracking defence that outperforms its xGAs. Or perhaps they have an elite GK who that season can't seem to get out of the ball's way even if he tried to. You go bet large sum of money expecting a convergence to the long term data average? Or do you bet on the team continuing its seemingly freakish streak?

Edited by Upo
typo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

No.

Seriously, it is OK to just accept you don't really understand it and move on.

The stats are relatively useful, it's just the general stupidity of the average media pundit and production team preventing them being qualified in an appropriate fashion.

Edited by Ian
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Upo said:

The problem with stats on the other hand is that you get "objectivity" without context. For example, how is it possible a team that lags its opposition's xGs, generally out-scores them throughout the season? The context might explain that they have an elite striker who consistently outperforms his expected goals. And how does a team that underperform its xGs severely, nonetheless is solid mid-table points-wise? Perhaps they have a cracking defence that outperforms its xGAs. Or perhaps they have an elite GK who that season can't seem to get out of the ball's way even if he tried to. You go bet large sum of money expecting a convergence to the long term data average? Or do you bet on the team continuing its seemingly freakish streak?

Perfectly put. Stats without context are absolutely useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

 

 

So it's a bit like VAR. Has a small bit of logic about it but is about as useful as an inflatable dartboard.

Daniel Farke uses endless stats ( as do most modern day managers ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking at all these posts it looks as if my view is a fair one. Xgs, unless you understand the context and all the variables, are a bit of a waste of time and the majority of people that quote them and those that hear them being quoted have little or no understanding of them, making them fairly pointless to the majority of people.   I suppose what is slightly quaint, is that people quote them as if they do understand them when they plainly don't - and others nod sagely as if they also understand them, leading to a sort of communal delusion that they think they know something of value, but really don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

So looking at all these posts it looks as if my view is a fair one. Xgs, unless you understand the context and all the variables, are a bit of a waste of time and the majority of people that quote them and those that hear them being quoted have little or no understanding of them, making them fairly pointless to the majority of people.   I suppose what is slightly quaint, is that people quote them as if they do understand them when they plainly don't - and others nod sagely as if they also understand them, leading to a sort of communal delusion that they think they know something of value, but really don't.

 

Wow.

The self-delusion is strong here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

The self-delusion is strong here.

But I basically just agreed with you - quote "Stats without context are absolutely useless" - which is what I just said.

Are you deluded too?? 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. When the concept first emerged I thought it was quite revealing in terms of player performance.

I remember they evaluated all Premier League strikers at the time using this stat. Harry Kane was in a different category when it came to chance conversion. He was scoring goals he wouldnt really be expected to put away, yet Rooney by comparison was missing many 'easier' chances.

I think there's a lot in it. Compare perhaps the Xg of a player like Matt Le Tissier, with a Gary Lineker. Lineker probably reliably putting away expected goals, but probably little else, but Matt Le Tissier scoring goals from nowhere. Very illustrative of how transformative a player can be for a club. Can a player score against the run of play, is he only effective when its served on a plate, is he not even effective at doing that?

Id be interested to know what RvW's Xg was at Sporting Lisbon. Id imagine he only really put away the chances you'd expect him to. For a struggling team, you might be more interested in a player with more of a record scoring against the run of play or putting away more difficult chances.

 

Without being harsh Id be interested to know how Sam Byram rates this season. While not charged with scoring goals, he's had a number of chances which if converted may have made a difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

But I basically just agreed with you - quote "Stats without context are absolutely useless" - which is what I just said.

Are you deluded too?? 😀

No you didn't.

You said your view- that these are 'mumbo jumbo' or 'a complete waste of time'- was a fair one. It isn't.

If you, like others including myself have done, bothered to actually educate yourself about how these stats work, rather than dismissing them then you'll have all the context you need.

Your issue is you're blaming the stats as being pointless or misleading, when the problem you have is with the people misusing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, king canary said:

No you didn't.

You said your view- that these are 'mumbo jumbo' or 'a complete waste of time'- was a fair one. It isn't.

If you, like others including myself have done, bothered to actually educate yourself about how these stats work, rather than dismissing them then you'll have all the context you need.

Your issue is you're blaming the stats as being pointless or misleading, when the problem you have is with the people misusing them.

Fair play to you for pressing on with this one 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, king canary said:

No you didn't.

You said your view- that these are 'mumbo jumbo' or 'a complete waste of time'- was a fair one. It isn't.

If you, like others including myself have done, bothered to actually educate yourself about how these stats work, rather than dismissing them then you'll have all the context you need.

Your issue is you're blaming the stats as being pointless or misleading, when the problem you have is with the people misusing them.

What people have done, particulary Upo, is try and explain the issues with xgs.

But to me it is mumbo jumbo - because I don't think on their own they make any sense and don't particularly want to delve into it too far.

To others it might be "oh yeh, xgs are cool" - when they don't understand them and don't particularly want to delve in to it too far.

Not a lot of difference there really.

Then there are the few - the very few imo - who do understanmd them and all the contexts around them to make real sense of them.

So - imo - to the majority xgs are a waste of time.  I rest my case.

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think xG stats are an advance on the traditional stats we have - which are virtually a complete waste of time, e.g. possession % tells you which side had the ball for more of the game (duh) but nothing about how well the two sides were playing, and has no link to the outcome of a game at all.

 

Football is unusual because teams don't score very often.  If you compare with other team sports which revolve around producing a score, such as rugby or American football, in the other games it's normal to see the sides scoring 5+ times in a game between them (sometimes many more) and 0-0 is unheard of.  Whereas football , even between a stronger and weaker team, often comes down to a handful of chances which realistically could go either way.

 

IMO the reality is for many, if not most, football games in the top divisions, the result could easily have gone the other way down to how a tiny number of chances were taken (or not).  It's pretty common that the losing team has a clear chance to score before going behind, which if taken could have changed the course of the game (we've only got to remember the passage of play in the Playoff final when we hit the bar, followed just after by Boro hitting the bar - if their shot had been a few cm lower, they'd have scored first and it would have been a totally different game from then on).

 

Hence the attraction of xG stats, because they try to be an objective measure of how often, on average, you'd expect the striker to score a given chance.  For a manager, it's tremendously important to know how often your team is creating those chances because (if the measure is accurate) in the long run you'd expect a higher xG level to translate into more actual goals and you have to accept that players will have mixed success in actually taking chances on any given day, whereas as long as your team are creating sufficient good chances, the goals will come - and as a manager you can influence that, you can't affect whether or not a striker takes a particular chance.

 

I've always had 3 concerns about them though :

1. How much real life data do the stats really encompass to assess the chances of scoring in any given situation ?  I'm not convinced they're that good at modelling the full picture as yet (although I expect that to improve).

2. Better strikers should surely do better than xG suggests, i.e. xG should measure the quality of the chance so a better striker should convert more often than the average.  When this has been discussed, it seems like the difference is pretty marginal which makes me doubt how well xG is defined as yet.

3. "In the long run" is a crucial caveat, because I think the long run is probably longer than a football season !!  Compare a baseball season which is something like 160 games - there's one point in "Moneyball" when the team aren't doing well and Billy Bean says they "haven't had enough games to be statistically significant" - this is something like 40 games into the season.  And of course the team did come good there over the course of the season.  In the Prem, they'd have already been relegated !!

 

Last season there was a poster who used to come on here regularly and report (up until around Christmas when he disappeared which was a shame) that we were out-performing our xG stats for scoring but also conceding more than our xG against (whereas Leeds at that point were top and were much closer to their xG stats for/against).  His conclusion was always that "sooner or later" he thought Pukki would stop overperforming (whereas he never expected our goals conceded to improve because that was down to "bad defending" which I always found a bit ironic).  He disappeared from the forum so I'm not sure how our xG stats panned out for the rest of last season.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I also should point out that the manager/coach can clearly influence how well your players do in taking chances, as well as creating them, by practice/coaching etc.  Last season I thought we were particularly clinical whereas this season I think we've been poor at converting chances.  Partly IMO this is due to not having Vrancic on the pitch who was outstanding in the quality of his finishing.

 

But my point above is that the manager can't directly influence how a striker does with a given chance in a particular game, and I'm sure we can all relate to how a manager feels when a striker misses an open goal etc.  Whereas he can influence creating chances via instructions on how to play, half-time, and substitutions etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

I think xG stats are an advance on the traditional stats we have - which are virtually a complete waste of time, e.g. possession % tells you which side had the ball for more of the game (duh) but nothing about how well the two sides were playing, and has no link to the outcome of a game at all.

 

Football is unusual because teams don't score very often.  If you compare with other team sports which revolve around producing a score, such as rugby or American football, in the other games it's normal to see the sides scoring 5+ times in a game between them (sometimes many more) and 0-0 is unheard of.  Whereas football , even between a stronger and weaker team, often comes down to a handful of chances which realistically could go either way.

 

IMO the reality is for many, if not most, football games in the top divisions, the result could easily have gone the other way down to how a tiny number of chances were taken (or not).  It's pretty common that the losing team has a clear chance to score before going behind, which if taken could have changed the course of the game (we've only got to remember the passage of play in the Playoff final when we hit the bar, followed just after by Boro hitting the bar - if their shot had been a few cm lower, they'd have scored first and it would have been a totally different game from then on).

 

Hence the attraction of xG stats, because they try to be an objective measure of how often, on average, you'd expect the striker to score a given chance.  For a manager, it's tremendously important to know how often your team is creating those chances because (if the measure is accurate) in the long run you'd expect a higher xG level to translate into more actual goals and you have to accept that players will have mixed success in actually taking chances on any given day, whereas as long as your team are creating sufficient good chances, the goals will come - and as a manager you can influence that, you can't affect whether or not a striker takes a particular chance.

 

I've always had 3 concerns about them though :

1. How much real life data do the stats really encompass to assess the chances of scoring in any given situation ?  I'm not convinced they're that good at modelling the full picture as yet (although I expect that to improve).

2. Better strikers should surely do better than xG suggests, i.e. xG should measure the quality of the chance so a better striker should convert more often than the average.  When this has been discussed, it seems like the difference is pretty marginal which makes me doubt how well xG is defined as yet.

3. "In the long run" is a crucial caveat, because I think the long run is probably longer than a football season !!  Compare a baseball season which is something like 160 games - there's one point in "Moneyball" when the team aren't doing well and Billy Bean says they "haven't had enough games to be statistically significant" - this is something like 40 games into the season.  And of course the team did come good there over the course of the season.  In the Prem, they'd have already been relegated !!

 

Last season there was a poster who used to come on here regularly and report (up until around Christmas when he disappeared which was a shame) that we were out-performing our xG stats for scoring but also conceding more than our xG against (whereas Leeds at that point were top and were much closer to their xG stats for/against).  His conclusion was always that "sooner or later" he thought Pukki would stop overperforming (whereas he never expected our goals conceded to improve because that was down to "bad defending" which I always found a bit ironic).  He disappeared from the forum so I'm not sure how our xG stats panned out for the rest of last season.

 

 

You beat me to it ICF. The poster in question was Westcoast Canary. We had a very long thread about it - even in February he was still maintaining till he was blue in the face that we were outperforming our XG for goals scored and that we would probably drop away and finish 4th. It was impossible to get through to him that Teemu Pukki in particular was a better than average Championship striker. (Remember the XG stats are based on what an average   striker at that level would be expected to convert. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

I suppose what is slightly quaint, is that people quote them as if they do understand them when they plainly don't - and others nod sagely as if they also understand them, leading to a sort of communal delusion that they think they know something of value, but really don't.

I don't want to sound cynical, but you're pretty much describing Twitter and the whole pundit economy... 🤔

However, it's not all superficial and fake. That's where I disagree. There really are analysts, journalists, players, coaches, professional gamblers etc who attain a persistent edge over their competition. They're not posers. They're the real deal. They also are probably on big money payroll or working for themselves and the crowd is left with the infotainment aspect; The goal is to entertain and to make the viewers feel smart and good about themselves. I'm unsure whether that is a bad thing.

I'd like to think that there is an educational aspect to this. Ideally it helps the crowd appreciate players who'd otherwise be overlooked. Now a pundit can put a number on an aspect of a player's performance, self importantly declare him to be the secret glue that holds their midfield together, making audience nod in concurrence and they in turn brag to their friends how awesome that player is really.

And perhaps truly that player in the spotlight gets the recognition that escaped wider attention before (but of course hardcore fans already knew all about him and are annoyed when he's "discovered" ). Is that bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

You beat me to it ICF. The poster in question was Westcoast Canary. We had a very long thread about it - even in February he was still maintaining till he was blue in the face that we were outperforming our XG for goals scored and that we would probably drop away and finish 4th. It was impossible to get through to him that Teemu Pukki in particular was a better than average Championship striker. (Remember the XG stats are based on what an average   striker at that level would be expected to convert. 

I kind of miss Westcoast. He could never admit he was wrong about anything but he was pretty smart most of the time.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

...

Football is unusual because teams don't score very often.  If you compare with other team sports which revolve around producing a score, such as rugby or American football, in the other games it's normal to see the sides scoring 5+ times in a game between them (sometimes many more) and 0-0 is unheard of.  Whereas football , even between a stronger and weaker team, often comes down to a handful of chances which realistically could go either way.

...

Hence the attraction of xG stats, because they try to be an objective measure of how often, on average, you'd expect the striker to score a given chance.  For a manager, it's tremendously important to know how often your team is creating those chances because (if the measure is accurate) in the long run you'd expect a higher xG level to translate into more actual goals and you have to accept that players will have mixed success in actually taking chances on any given day, whereas as long as your team are creating sufficient good chances, the goals will come - and as a manager you can influence that, you can't affect whether or not a striker takes a particular chance.

I've always had 3 concerns about them though :

1. How much real life data do the stats really encompass to assess the chances of scoring in any given situation ?  I'm not convinced they're that good at modelling the full picture as yet (although I expect that to improve).

2. Better strikers should surely do better than xG suggests, i.e. xG should measure the quality of the chance so a better striker should convert more often than the average.  When this has been discussed, it seems like the difference is pretty marginal which makes me doubt how well xG is defined as yet.

3. "In the long run" is a crucial caveat, because I think the long run is probably longer than a football season !!  Compare a baseball season which is something like 160 games - there's one point in "Moneyball" when the team aren't doing well and Billy Bean says they "haven't had enough games to be statistically significant" - this is something like 40 games into the season.  And of course the team did come good there over the course of the season.  In the Prem, they'd have already been relegated !!

...

So much good stuff here from Character Forming. I highlighted major points I wanted to comment on in aggregate, not necessarily specifically.

Being a good striker isn't mainly about being better at taking advantage of any given situation. Being a good striker is about creating those situations that can be taken advantage of. A great striker should not only outperform his xGs, but he should create the kind of xGs for himself that pretty much anybody could score from.

XGs are "flawed" in that they don't hold any more information than what is put in, and it always is up to discussion what is relevant to put in. The quality of the chance.. Yes, 1000 players may have scored 30% from that position, but what if there were 3 defenders and a goalkeeper in between...You probably should count that as relevant! But what if two defenders were flat on their **** and GK blood pouring from a cut above his eye? Maybe relevant...if you can put those to numbers? Well, what if the striker was left by his girlfriend the day before and couldn't sleep whole night? We know that's relevant, but let's see anyone put a number on it...

If you keep putting information in the stat, you're going to get a whole lot of noise in addition to the signal. I heard Messi pukes before games. So it's normal for him. If Van Dijk puked before game, you'd worry he has food poisoning. Out of 1000 games, Van Dijk has food poisoning maybe once or twice. Messi pukes 100 times. You need 1000 years to get a sample size big enough. But anyone with brain will realize Liverpool is going to struggle a bit with a puking Van Dijk and if Messi pukes, he'll probably do a hattrick.

Over time all things equal, random fluctuations balance. But long term might mean - like you said - longer than a single football season. And by that time you'd have a new coach and the abnormal stats persist and now you're thinking whether those stats were real all along, or whether the new guy has improved the team to match the abnormal stats, or whether the new guy is also just "lucky."

It comforts me to know that what an absolute fertile mess they're trying to put the figures on. There is space for the magic. The speculation. The frustrations and joy, that all make football the beautiful game. There is no "solving" it. You will only find more interesting mysteries.

  • Like 1

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...