Jump to content

Villarreal's 4-2-2-2 | Manuel Pellegrini's Philosophy


Recommended Posts

It's just gone September and we are sitting in 3rd position in the league, but more importantly we just beat Real Madrid 4-0. After rewatching the game, I decided to take a few screen shot of how my player position themselves within the system. This shows that without possession, the team is lining up in a verycompact 4-4-2

spacer.png

This screen shot is taken during a more attacking phase of the game.

spacer.png

The defensive block is in dark green, the attacking midfielders drifting in and out central areas are blue, the fullbacks cyan and the two forward in dark red.

Edited by Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thread, great setup to replicate.

The first thing I would suggest is that I think you want both strikers with Moves Into Channels, taking advantage of the wingers coming inside, as both Nihat and Rossi did for Villarreal under Pellegrini. Because of that, I would suggest changing your Poacher to an Advanced Forward, or possibly a Complete Forward on Attack if you have the right player. The CF on Support could also work well as a Deep Lying Forward.

As you have pointed out, although they played with a Brazilian-style box midfield in possession, without the ball they fell back into a fairly solid two banks of four - Regroup is probably a sensible idea to create this effect.

The main thing I am a little surprised at is that you have used Inside Forwards in the AMRL strata - I would have said that these players were textbook Wide Playmakers in the MRL positions, as they really tracked back quite well. If you find that this means the wide players are too close to the central midfielders, I would suggest dropping the BWM to Defend duty (which comes with Hold Position so that he doesn't get as far forward) and/or dropping the CMs to the DM strata - I think the central midfielders were closer to being DMs than the wingers were to being AMRLs in this tactic. Either way, the positioning looks good in your screenshots - I am guessing that was helped by the Much Lower LOE.

I worry that the Much Lower LOE would invite too much pressure and easy balls over the top, though. By dropping the wingers back, you wouldn't need to have a Much Lower LOE  - I don't think that works with Prevent Short GK Distribution (would probably remove that instruction altogether, as Pellegrini teams adopted more of a relaxed South American approach to pressing). I would go for Higher DL and Standard LOE, or Standard DL and Lower LOE against stronger opposition.

Another benefit of using Wide Playmakers is that they will see more of the ball than Inside Forwards - your DLP might be too much of a focus of the team's play with the current setup. They are also more difficult for the opposition to mark when they drift inside from a deeper position into the space between the opposition midfield and defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/01/2021 at 00:30, Mike_Cardinal said:

Nice thread, great setup to replicate.

The first thing I would suggest is that I think you want both strikers with Moves Into Channels, taking advantage of the wingers coming inside, as both Nihat and Rossi did for Villarreal under Pellegrini. Because of that, I would suggest changing your Poacher to an Advanced Forward, or possibly a Complete Forward on Attack if you have the right player. The CF on Support could also work well as a Deep Lying Forward.

As you have pointed out, although they played with a Brazilian-style box midfield in possession, without the ball they fell back into a fairly solid two banks of four - Regroup is probably a sensible idea to create this effect.

The main thing I am a little surprised at is that you have used Inside Forwards in the AMRL strata - I would have said that these players were textbook Wide Playmakers in the MRL positions, as they really tracked back quite well. If you find that this means the wide players are too close to the central midfielders, I would suggest dropping the BWM to Defend duty (which comes with Hold Position so that he doesn't get as far forward) and/or dropping the CMs to the DM strata - I think the central midfielders were closer to being DMs than the wingers were to being AMRLs in this tactic. Either way, the positioning looks good in your screenshots - I am guessing that was helped by the Much Lower LOE.

I worry that the Much Lower LOE would invite too much pressure and easy balls over the top, though. By dropping the wingers back, you wouldn't need to have a Much Lower LOE  - I don't think that works with Prevent Short GK Distribution (would probably remove that instruction altogether, as Pellegrini teams adopted more of a relaxed South American approach to pressing). I would go for Higher DL and Standard LOE, or Standard DL and Lower LOE against stronger opposition.

Another benefit of using Wide Playmakers is that they will see more of the ball than Inside Forwards - your DLP might be too much of a focus of the team's play with the current setup. They are also more difficult for the opposition to mark when they drift inside from a deeper position into the space between the opposition midfield and defence.

At first I thought about just lining up on the tactics board as just a 4-4-2, probably would really matter much but there is one very good reason you pointed out "I wouldn't need to have my LOE so god damn low. Right now I have no choice but set the LOE very low, this way it makes my attacking midfielders drop in and make it flat 4 man midfield, if I drop the attacking wide midfielders into lining up as "wide play makers" and set the LOE at standard... it would mean those attacking midfielders are still exploited the half spaces but can press from their default position as WP stationed in a 4-4-2 that turns into a 4-2-2-2 - and it makes sense that the WP will see more of the ball, so it's worth trying But it might just be a case of there is always two ways to skin a cat" tho, that said if setting them does nothing other than "get my best attacking players to see more of the ball" -- that might be worth switching things up. But as they stand atm, the attacking wide play makers are more advanced - but like I said it's worth trying.

Same goes for my forwards. 

Instead of one forward set a Poacher, set the same forward as playing the "Advanced forward" role but you need to have that forward makes out wide, we he has the ball... very important - seeing as tho Robert Pires and Santi Carzola often drifted into central areas and found themselves making late runs into the box - the forwards would wide and link up with the attacking fullbacks or Marcos Senna or another defensive midfielder... making sure as many players as possible exploit the space in between the channels is deffo a good, if not great thing to do... an Advanced forward (attack duty) acts very similar to a Poacher but can do more than just run onto through balls, the other might either Complete forward on (support duty) or just have a Deep lying forward (support duty)? 

Lastly if I'm going to have both my wingbacks be very attacking - I might try setting my BWM on (defend duty) rather than (support)

 

EDIT...

I've kept my wide attacking, playmaking midfielders more advanced, but as AP's or advanced players not inside forward. See rather than withdraw them and set them to operate as wide players, in the left midfield and right midfield areas of the pitch - nah I just taking full advantage of their horizontal movement rather their vertical movement.

I read somewhere that he was influenced by the South American 4-2-4 but had his attacking midfielders, TRACKING BACK rather than make vertical runs from right midfield - you might get a more of a solid, defensive Simeone type system, rather than a South American, samba style influenced system that is a cross between a European 4-4-2 and a South American style 4-2-2-2.. by the media in Spain, Villarreal was reported as being;

Quote

"Villarreal, a delight of a team that builds passing triangles, that links up wonderfully and moves like angles"

 

Edited by Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading your thoughts as I am playing somewhat a similar type of game but at a much lower level. Perhaps try Inverted Wingers in the ML/MR strata? Also with a DLP/BWM, I worry it might lack dynamism, although I do realise your fullbacks are expected to bomb forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great write-up on a great team.

Since I've been experimenting with Simeone replications for years, I think I can offer a few thoughts. Simeone is very different stylistically than Pellegrini, but he too employs a shape which is a compact 442 without the ball, but more of a 4222 in possession, with wide players tucking in ahead of the holding midfielders, while witdh is provided by the full-backs. It is unfortunately very hard to replicate in the game. I've found that wide players never quite come inside and play like AMC's during the attacking transition like they often do in real life. One thing I've been trying out is have them play in the middle (like a box midfield) but ask them man-mark the opposite full-back, in order to achieve the two banks of four when defending. Alas, it hasn't been proven very effective, probably because of the deficiencies of man-marking in the game. 

Your shape on that second image looks quite nice, but I would think it is made rather late in the attacking phase. Those wide players are supposed to be more like playmaker-types and not inside forwards and they gotta come inside very early. Have you succeeded with that yet?

The closest I've got is with using a flat 442 with wide midfielders on attack (still defensively responsible) who are told to sit narrow, and playing opposite-footed players in those positions. Overlaps are optional and situational. The results of this can be quite nice: because of playing on the opposite flank, they cut inside naturally, cross less even without being told so and act like quasi-playmakers.

Will post some screenshots if time allows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Riziger said:

I've been reading your thoughts as I am playing somewhat a similar type of game but at a much lower level. Perhaps try Inverted Wingers in the ML/MR strata? Also with a DLP/BWM, I worry it might lack dynamism, although I do realise your fullbacks are expected to bomb forward.

I thought the same but it's actually having the 2 players in the half spaces that gives this system dynamism.

 

Edited by Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great read, loving the compact 442 shape you're getting off the ball :thup: Curious as to what the in possession TI's might look like?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

404213923_Screenshot(171).thumb.png.163878285b4c344248434818ceffe739.png

I played a full season with a 4222 low LOE tactic

Expected 15th, we finished 4th (mainly because of the results in the first half of the season).

If you are interested in some of those games, I can show some analytics.

229535778_Screenshot(176).thumb.png.901f89aa24a41b74979a429eebc2d948.png1656032544_Screenshot(177).thumb.png.94be7e3062717625c2e933c3fa1821a6.png

Especially in the first campaign the teams we faced had trouble to score against us and had to take more shots outside the box.

I've missed the point to adapt the tactics to successfully stay first place in the second half.

Some Stats

606288028_Screenshot(172).thumb.png.21302eb74fbc8b2d2e500bccf476ec2d.png

A little proud of the fact we got 4th despite having worst possession stats.

441845344_Screenshot(173).thumb.png.15c1c6b0028a880b87ad7283819006f6.png

Scoring 50 goals with only 34 expected is quite remarkable (thx Simon, Jamal and Mergim)

173966769_Screenshot(174).thumb.png.6ba802a3845bff508dbb9bef4867d023.png

Only conceding 38 despite xGa of 44 (could've been better but who cares now)

 

Tactics

I've read through some posts of @Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  and mixed them up together.

The toughest decision was whether to use Regroup or not, because:

- weaker teams tend to have fast striker → without regroup you concede counter

- weaker teams tend to have weak technical attributes → without regroup you can intercept passes after losing possession

- stronger teams will hold the ball after they get it → regroup to mark/zone passing options

I have to work on this decision for the next season even further, I'm open for some advices here.

 

The most effective instructions for my front 4: MARKING

Both Strikers always have to mark the opponents Central Midfielder, in a 433 both cm, in a 523 both cm, in a 4231 both cm, in a 4213 both dm ... you get it.

The team defends in an extreme compact formation.

But the two IFs both have to man mark the opposition's Full Backs/Wing Backs, this prevents quick overlaps on the wings, making it harder to find spaces for crosses.

Keep in mind, that man marking in a compact formation is very exhausting. Bakery Jatta and Khaled Narey are very good options to perform defensively.

This leads to the downside of my tactics, as a promoted we are simply not the best to play tikitaka-esque in possession like Pellegrini's Villarreal and Malaga. But I think that, in the future seasons, we can develop the compact defense we have, in a possesion based defensive team.

280986510_Screenshot(175).thumb.png.21ba9d07c975301ba8fec31b9c1ab976.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/01/2021 at 20:28, Enzo_Francescoli said:

Great write-up on a great team.

Since I've been experimenting with Simeone replications for years, I think I can offer a few thoughts. Simeone is very different stylistically than Pellegrini, but he too employs a shape which is a compact 442 without the ball, but more of a 4222 in possession, with wide players tucking in ahead of the holding midfielders, while witdh is provided by the full-backs. It is unfortunately very hard to replicate in the game. I've found that wide players never quite come inside and play like AMC's during the attacking transition like they often do in real life. One thing I've been trying out is have them play in the middle (like a box midfield) but ask them man-mark the opposite full-back, in order to achieve the two banks of four when defending. Alas, it hasn't been proven very effective, probably because of the deficiencies of man-marking in the game. 

Your shape on that second image looks quite nice, but I would think it is made rather late in the attacking phase.

Those wide players are supposed to be more like playmaker-types and not inside forwards and they gotta come inside very early. Have you succeeded with that yet?

The closest I've got is with using a flat 442 with wide midfielders on attack (still defensively responsible) who are told to sit narrow, and playing opposite-footed players in those positions. Overlaps are optional and situational. The results of this can be quite nice: because of playing on the opposite flank, they cut inside naturally, cross less even without being told so and act like quasi-playmakers.

Will post some screenshots if time allows.

Yes those attacking screens shots are late in the attacking phase, so the players drifted into those positions. In real life the transition from 4-4-2 to a 4-2-2-2 happens quickly and clearly, thus far my players form a box in midfield late in the attacking and spend most of the time - 90% of the time, transforming from a 4-4-2 into a 4-2-2-2.

But with both attacking midfielders in the traditional box midfield man marking the opposition's wide attackers (or even wing-backs if they are playing with a high line and are very attacking) are man marked.

See because 33% of the time my attacking mids are man marking the opposition's wing-backsc(an the rest of the time the opposition's wide midfielders) .. I have my "line of engagement" set quite low - we end up with a very compressed 4-2-4 shape. 

My players play within the half spaces and not just drift into and out of the half spaces (towards the back end of the attacking phase).

Like you said the attacking, playmaker types early in the attacking phase, they have gotta take up central positions within the half-spaces.

I might try to increase the defensive line "higher" and reduce the line of engagement and widen the defensive width - so the space in the centre is very compressed and even tho it's a 4-2-4 there are no gaps in the formation. 

You said you tried this out on a previous version of FM, which one? I ask cos it seems to be working just fine for me but I'm using FM 2021 - strange? I mean you can see that as soon as the opposition cross the line off engagement, your attacking playmakers are triggered to press the oppositions wide players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kaz_1983 said:

Yes those attacking screens shots are late in the attacking phase, so the players drifted into those positions. In real life the transition from 4-4-2 to a 4-2-2-2 happens quickly and clearly, thus far my players form a box in midfield late in the attacking and spend most of the time - 90% of the time, transforming from a 4-4-2 into a 4-2-2-2.

But with both attacking midfielders in the traditional box midfield man marking the opposition's wide attackers (or even wing-backs if they are playing with a high line and are very attacking) are man marked.

See because 33% of the time my attacking mids are man marking the opposition's wing-backsc(an the rest of the time the opposition's wide midfielders) .. I have my "line of engagement" set quite low - we end up with a very compressed 4-2-4 shape. 

My players play within the half spaces and not just drift into and out of the half spaces (towards the back end of the attacking phase).

Like you said the attacking, playmaker types early in the attacking phase, they have gotta take up central positions within the half-spaces.

I might try to increase the defensive line "higher" and reduce the line of engagement and widen the defensive width - so the space in the centre is very compressed and even tho it's a 4-2-4 there are no gaps in the formation. 

You said you tried this out on a previous version of FM, which one? I ask cos it seems to be working just fine for me but I'm using FM 2021 - strange? I mean you can see that as soon as the opposition cross the line off engagement, your attacking playmakers are triggered to press the oppositions wide players.

With the 4-2-2-2 (two CM's and two AM's) and having the AM's man-mark the opposing full-backs, I mostly get the attacking shape I want. Quick transitions can be a problem though if they track back way to our own byline for example. But the real issue for me is the defensive shape. The reason I love 442 and the reason many of the top managers defend in a 442 (not necessarily in this order of importance) is the two solid banks of four, which is extra hard to penetrate. Now, the problem is, in the game the two full-backs are very rarely in line with each other in possession. Ball-side full-backs overlap, the other one stays a little more deep. That's fine. But if you man-mark both of them, very rarely do you get your two banks of four and that will more often than not disrupt your defence.

FM20 was a disaster, and I very rarely play FM21 as well, because in my honest opinion SI once again failed to create a balanced match engine. I did load up my test save though, just to take two screenshots to illustrate my point.

 

image.png.5df51e8c199a7a9d38a695adc279e739.png

 

We are Atletico in yellow. Lemar man-marks Roberto who is their right full-back. On the the top of the screen you can see our other AM man-marking their left full-back. My two banks of four are nowhere to be found and their No. 5. in the middle has acres of space to either collect the ball or attack the box, beacuse my two CM's are busy with their jobs and my supposed right midfielder (this time an AM to get the attacking shape) is not in the position to help out.

 

image.png.f4fd53e214e715dbfb94a1291e18b648.png

 

Same issue and I won't even repeat myself as to why No. 5. (Busquets I think who is a pretty dangerous passer) has all the space in the world. Close down Busquets? Then it's party time for de Jong. Man-mark both of them? Then Messi or Coutinho will execute us. To cut a long story short, We're simply lacking in numbers beacuse I had sacrificed two of my players to take care of the opposing full-backs. I'm not saying it can't be a viable strategy when all the opponent's threat is on the wings, but, like I've shown, using it all the time not only disrupts our intented 442 shape, but it can also lead to a defensive disaster.

Edited by Enzo_Francescoli
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 19/01/2021 at 06:25, heutheo said:

404213923_Screenshot(171).thumb.png.163878285b4c344248434818ceffe739.png

I played a full season with a 4222 low LOE tactic

Expected 15th, we finished 4th (mainly because of the results in the first half of the season).

If you are interested in some of those games, I can show some analytics.

229535778_Screenshot(176).thumb.png.901f89aa24a41b74979a429eebc2d948.png1656032544_Screenshot(177).thumb.png.94be7e3062717625c2e933c3fa1821a6.png

Especially in the first campaign the teams we faced had trouble to score against us and had to take more shots outside the box.

I've missed the point to adapt the tactics to successfully stay first place in the second half.

Some Stats

606288028_Screenshot(172).thumb.png.21302eb74fbc8b2d2e500bccf476ec2d.png

A little proud of the fact we got 4th despite having worst possession stats.

441845344_Screenshot(173).thumb.png.15c1c6b0028a880b87ad7283819006f6.png

Scoring 50 goals with only 34 expected is quite remarkable (thx Simon, Jamal and Mergim)

173966769_Screenshot(174).thumb.png.6ba802a3845bff508dbb9bef4867d023.png

Only conceding 38 despite xGa of 44 (could've been better but who cares now)

 

Tactics

I've read through some posts of @Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  and mixed them up together.

The toughest decision was whether to use Regroup or not, because:

- weaker teams tend to have fast striker → without regroup you concede counter

- weaker teams tend to have weak technical attributes → without regroup you can intercept passes after losing possession

- stronger teams will hold the ball after they get it → regroup to mark/zone passing options

I have to work on this decision for the next season even further, I'm open for some advices here.

 

The most effective instructions for my front 4: MARKING

Both Strikers always have to mark the opponents Central Midfielder, in a 433 both cm, in a 523 both cm, in a 4231 both cm, in a 4213 both dm ... you get it.

The team defends in an extreme compact formation.

But the two IFs both have to man mark the opposition's Full Backs/Wing Backs, this prevents quick overlaps on the wings, making it harder to find spaces for crosses.

Keep in mind, that man marking in a compact formation is very exhausting. Bakery Jatta and Khaled Narey are very good options to perform defensively.

This leads to the downside of my tactics, as a promoted we are simply not the best to play tikitaka-esque in possession like Pellegrini's Villarreal and Malaga. But I think that, in the future seasons, we can develop the compact defense we have, in a possesion based defensive team.

280986510_Screenshot(175).thumb.png.21ba9d07c975301ba8fec31b9c1ab976.png

Nice write up, cheers for testing the system and giving me something to think about.  That said, I wonder where you set LOE (line of engagement)? If I remember correctly there are 4 options, "maximum", "standard", "lower" and "much lower" - correct? Obviously if you want to compact the 4-2-2-2 as much as possible a LOE that is set to "much lower" would be the best option. I'm guessing but yeah, did you set the LOE at just "lower" or "much lower? Also did you play with a high line or just a standard low block? I'm curious.

I understand that your LOE (line of engagement) and DL (defensive line), would be set differently depending on your opponent but what would your LOE and DL be in these 3 scenarios; 

1. Playing at home against a Champions League team?

2. Playing away against a Champions League team?

3. Playing away against a middle or lower league table team?

I'm thinking you probably used a LOE set at "much lower" and a DL set at "higher" - is that correct?

134730616_151785453111941_7992823954920369253_n.jpg.0a45a29b3574e9c30e5170b852cf2aa0.jpg

 

That was the "LOE" and "DL" of my system but whether, not sure what you used but the important question is whether or not I use "re-group" or "counter-press"? I agree that is the big question. From watching some older Villareal games you can see the forward pressing the defensive midfielders from behind, with one of the creative attacking midfielders pressing him front, and from a different angle the wing-back, or inside forward pressing him- the ball carrier or in this case the defensive midfielder, he is trouble, big trouble  unless he can pass his way out. This is why I'm not surprised that you found the marking aspects of the system is one the most important, like you said...

The most effective instructions for my front 4: MARKING

Both Strikers always have to mark the opponents Central Midfielder, in a 433 both cm, in a 523 both cm, in a 4231 both cm, in a 4213 both dm ... you get it.

The team defends in an extreme compact formation.

But the two IFs both have to man mark the opposition's Full Backs/Wing Backs, this prevents quick overlaps on the wings, making it harder to find spaces for crosses.

Here is a screen shot of a Villareal game:

143382044_781903039107332_76350434830251603_n.thumb.jpg.2b81d196e38f58ec622e7c56243efab4.jpg

 

You can see both forward looking to press the midfielder who is on the ball.

You can clearly see the inside forward (on the bottom, left of the pitch) man-marking the fullback.

 

 

Edited by Pellegrini's Espresso Bar  
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pellegrini's Espresso Bar   said:

 

Nice write up, cheers for testing the system and giving me something to think about.  That said, I wonder where you set LOE (line of engagement)? If I remember correctly there are 4 options, "maximum", "standard", "lower" and "much lower" - correct? Obviously if you want to compact the 4-2-2-2 as much as possible a LOE that is set to "much lower" would be the best option. I'm guessing but yeah, did you set the LOE at just "lower" or "much lower? Also did you play with a high line or just a standard low block? I'm curious.

I understand that your LOE (line of engagement) and DL (defensive line), would be set differently depending on your opponent but what would your LOE and DL be in these 3 scenarios; 

1. Playing at home against a Champions League team?

2. Playing away against a Champions League team?

3. Playing away against a middle or lower league table team?

I'm thinking you probably used a LOE set at "much lower" and a DL set at "higher" - is that correct?

134730616_151785453111941_7992823954920369253_n.jpg.0a45a29b3574e9c30e5170b852cf2aa0.jpg

 

That was the "LOE" and "DL" of my system but whether, not sure what you used but the important question is whether or not I use "re-group" or "counter-press"? I agree that is the big question. From watching some older Villareal games you can see the forward pressing the defensive midfielders from behind, with one of the creative attacking midfielders pressing him front, and from a different angle the wing-back, or inside forward pressing him- the ball carrier or in this case the defensive midfielder, he is trouble, big trouble  unless he can pass his way out. This is why I'm not surprised that you found the marking aspects of the system is one the most important, like you said...

The most effective instructions for my front 4: MARKING

Both Strikers always have to mark the opponents Central Midfielder, in a 433 both cm, in a 523 both cm, in a 4231 both cm, in a 4213 both dm ... you get it.

The team defends in an extreme compact formation.

But the two IFs both have to man mark the opposition's Full Backs/Wing Backs, this prevents quick overlaps on the wings, making it harder to find spaces for crosses.

Here is a screen shot of a Villareal game:

143382044_781903039107332_76350434830251603_n.thumb.jpg.2b81d196e38f58ec622e7c56243efab4.jpg

 

You can see both forward looking to press the midfielder who is on the ball.

You can clearly see the inside forward (on the bottom, left of the pitch) man-marking the fullback.

 

 

I always started with higher DL and much lower LOE, but made some changes during matches were the opposition was very defensive, i pushed the LOE higher and removed Regroup to disrupt their build-up play. But once I've scored the first goal I resetted much lower LOE and Regroup. 

I see that the players are man marking opposition Fullbacks but this could result in a not-so-compact midfield in some games where the FBs were too passive and the IFs would push up too far too mark them. Shaping up in a 424 formation. This space could then be easily exploited by better opponents. 

I've thought to change the formation to 4222 with two DMs, MR and ML. But I think this could lead to a very passive offensive play because of the very deep midfielders combined with the two non-playmaking forwards. So it's much more pressure on the MR/ML. So maybe a flat 4 in midfield is what I need to remain defensive stability but also get a possesion based offense and not just long balls.

I also could imagine a 4222 with 2 DMs and 2 Mezzala in front of them. The starting position of the Mezzala could lead to an easier way to build up with 2 DMs and a more flexible chance creation. But you also have the problem with the defensive formation, the Mezzalas have to mark opposition fullbacks to create a wider 4222 in defense.

just asumptions btw I'm no expert at all *smile*

Edited by heutheo
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...