Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
llama3

Pairs & Combinations FM2015 - UPDATED

Recommended Posts

Congratulations. I have 10month old twins so I know how life can take over:)

10 month old TWINS! Ouch! Goodbye sleep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 month old TWINS! Ouch! Goodbye sleep!

Not so bad now but first 12weeks are a blur:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything that you would say really stands out from the guide that might not work so well in FM 16 now? I quite like the look of the template at the back for the 41221 DM but I´m a little concerned with the look of those wingbacks on attack thinking about the power of the crosses this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LLAMA: You can no longer ask a TQ or any central player to run wide with the ball, how would you look at avoiding the DLF/TQ going into the space and giving the B2B space to attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neonshake, I suppose this bit - "Specifically ensure that at least 1 of your deepest wide players (so normally a Full Back, but potentially a Wing Back or Wide Midfielder) are on attack duty"

It might read as if Llama was saying that that's a rule, which I'm not sure he intended it to. People took it as a necessity, I know myself it's something that I used to always do. I've seen a lot more tactics this FM with no deep attack duties if it suits their tactics, eg Cleon's Art of Counter attacking thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LLAMA: You can no longer ask a TQ or any central player to run wide with the ball, how would you look at avoiding the DLF/TQ going into the space and giving the B2B space to attack?

Last time I looked you could...

Neonshake, I suppose this bit - "Specifically ensure that at least 1 of your deepest wide players (so normally a Full Back, but potentially a Wing Back or Wide Midfielder) are on attack duty"

It might read as if Llama was saying that that's a rule, which I'm not sure he intended it to. People took it as a necessity, I know myself it's something that I used to always do. I've seen a lot more tactics this FM with no deep attack duties if it suits their tactics, eg Cleon's Art of Counter attacking thread.

There are plenty of tactical variations that go against the "rules" - but there are alternatives, like using a pair of supporting wing backs etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last time I looked you could...

LLAMA: Here's a screen shot. Only seem available on wide players.

Liverpool_%20%20Overview-5_zpscukwavft.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LLAMA: Here's a screen shot. Only seem available on wide players.

Liverpool_%20%20Overview-5_zpscukwavft.png

Fair enough - regardless, the Trequartista can move into channels, so can still make lateral movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough - regardless, the Trequartista can move into channels, so can still make lateral movements.

Ok- What do you change him to if you play an ADF? Or do you keep him the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok- What do you change him to if you play an ADF? Or do you keep him the same?

Tend to use an AP(S) with an AF(A)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you. You had anytime to play?

Barely any to be honest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings any ideas on how to get this tactic defensively more solid whilst scoring goals too?

GK

WB(s) BPD© CD(d) WB(s)

DLP(d)

RP AP(a)

IF(s) IF(s)

CF(a)

TIs : close down more, stay on feet, whipped crosses, shorter passing, run at defense.

Attacking / Fluid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings any ideas on how to get this tactic defensively more solid whilst scoring goals too?

GK

WB(s) BPD© CD(d) WB(s)

DLP(d)

RP AP(a)

IF(s) IF(s)

CF(a)

TIs : close down more, stay on feet, whipped crosses, shorter passing, run at defense.

Attacking / Fluid

U might have ur CF isolated at times. I suggest that u use CF(s) or DLF(s). With ur current Attacking Metality, these 2 support duty striker roles are still very attacking even without actually having Attack duty. With a support duty, he'll link up better with ur IFs. Besides, ur IFs will hv more vacated space to run into if ur striker uses one of those 2 roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings any ideas on how to get this tactic defensively more solid whilst scoring goals too?

GK

WB(s) BPD© CD(d) WB(s)

DLP(d)

RP AP(a)

IF(s) IF(s)

CF(a)

TIs : close down more, stay on feet, whipped crosses, shorter passing, run at defense.

Attacking / Fluid

U might have ur CF isolated at times. I suggest that u use CF(s) or DLF(s). With ur current Attacking Metality, these 2 support duty striker roles are still very attacking even without actually having Attack duty. With a support duty, he'll link up better with ur IFs. Besides, ur IFs will hv more vacated space to run into if ur striker uses one of those 2 roles.

Agreed with the above advice in general. The CF will be isolated. However I would always have an attacking duty influence on each flank. I would probably go for WB(A) & IF(S) on 1 flank, and WB(S) & IF(A) on the other. Adds some penetration to the side that you will lose when the CF is dropping deeper in a support role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed with the above advice in general. The CF will be isolated. However I would always have an attacking duty influence on each flank. I would probably go for WB(A) & IF(S) on 1 flank, and WB(S) & IF(A) on the other. Adds some penetration to the side that you will lose when the CF is dropping deeper in a support role.

Awesome and thanks. Will try your advice and see how it goes. Striker wasn't scoring a lot hence the attack duty but with your recommendations I think it should balance well. My left back is more attacking so I'll switch to attack n have the IF ahead of him on support. A quick one how about my team instructions? I feel there's something lacking so I added roam from positions to give it some more dimensions and space. My problem mostly is always player instructions. I leave all on default except goalie, full backs and DM. Some advice on those will help. I'm sure I can add some. The player instructions for my WBs are same so they play alike. I think I'll leave it on default n observe. I'll just add cross aim centre. One last one will adding sit narrower PI to my inside forwards be doing too much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had a quick look into this thread - great work Llama.

After following your 4-1-2-3 advice, I went from struggling with a few 1-0s here and there to beating West Ham 4-0 away :cool:

They are bottom of the league but it's early in the season so hopefully this isn't a one off.

I play that formation. Could you point out or point me to what you read that helped? Also facing similar issues and will like to tweak it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you advice instructing inside forwards (1 on support (Firmino) and 1 on attack (Mane) duty with wing backs on opposite duties) to play narrower and roam from position in a 4-2-3-1 tactic with my cm's CM(d) and DLP (s) and my amc AM(s) and an AF(a) with standard CD(d) and SK(d).

Mentality is control and team shape is structured.

My Team instructions are: short passing, work ball into box, play out of defence, close down more, use offside trap and use tighter marking.

I also have no other additional player instructions and I have instructed the inside forwards to swap positions.

I would also appreciate any suggestions on how to improve my system, any flaws/ improvements. 

Thank you in advance.

Edited by faith7777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2016 at 16:29, faith7777 said:

Would you advice instructing inside forwards (1 on support (Firmino) and 1 on attack (Mane) duty with wing backs on opposite duties) to play narrower and roam from position in a 4-2-3-1 tactic with my cm's CM(d) and DLP (s) and my amc AM(s) and an AF(a) with standard CD(d) and SK(d).

Mentality is control and team shape is structured.

My Team instructions are: short passing, work ball into box, play out of defence, close down more, use offside trap and use tighter marking.

I also have no other additional player instructions and I have instructed the inside forwards to swap positions.

I would also appreciate any suggestions on how to improve my system, any flaws/ improvements. 

Thank you in advance.

I'm definitely not a fan of your AMC-STC combination. It seems so static. With that in mind, narrowing your wide men might congest the centre too much, without any of the attacking 4 really controlling play. Who is playing at AMC and STC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the reply, I am playing Coutinho in the AMC role and I recently changed him to AP (s), In the STC I've got Sturridge. For the IF's I've taken off the sit narrower PI but left roam from position.

I now play with the following TI's: shorter passing, work ball into box, play out of defense, close down more, use offside trap and prevent short goalkeeper distribution. The team shape has been changed to fluid.

I've added the close down less PI to the CB's and roam from position to the STC. I've also instructed the keeper to play fewer risky passes, shorter passes, roll it out and distribute to fullbacks. When playing teams with wide men I instruct the IF's the mark the opposing wingers.

I also have a 4-3-3 variation for away games with the same instructions and mentality, with a DLF(s), IF's, AP(a), DLP(s) and DM(d), would this be too static?

Do you think that both systems are balanced? Would you suggest that I make any alterations to any of the systems? I would also like to increase possession and I thought about adding lower tempo/retain possession or would this just be an overkill? I was also wondering whether the default close down more on the DM(d) would cause any problems in disrupting the team shape when defending?

Thank you in advance.

Edited by faith7777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2016 at 22:33, faith7777 said:

Thank you for the reply, I am playing Coutinho in the AMC role and I recently changed him to AP (s), In the STC I've got Sturridge. For the IF's I've taken off the sit narrower PI but left roam from position.

I now play with the following TI's: shorter passing, work ball into box, play out of defense, close down more, use offside trap and prevent short goalkeeper distribution. The team shape has been changed to fluid.

I've added the close down less PI to the CB's and roam from position to the STC. I've also instructed the keeper to play fewer risky passes, shorter passes, roll it out and distribute to fullbacks. When playing teams with wide men I instruct the IF's the mark the opposing wingers.

I also have a 4-3-3 variation for away games with the same instructions and mentality, with a DLF(s), IF's, AP(a), DLP(s) and DM(d), would this be too static?

Do you think that both systems are balanced? Would you suggest that I make any alterations to any of the systems? I would also like to increase possession and I thought about adding lower tempo/retain possession or would this just be an overkill? I was also wondering whether the default close down more on the DM(d) would cause any problems in disrupting the team shape when defending?

Thank you in advance.

Your 4-3-3 doesn't seem to be too static so far. Both seem balanced. Most importantly though - how does it play? Some things look great in theory but terrible when your XI tries to make it work. The DM(D) can disrupt shape, but considering you are closing down proactively it makes sense for the DM(D) to do that too, otherwise it can leave the opponents time and space in front of your defence to play a ball in behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2016 at 15:08, llama3 said:

Your 4-3-3 doesn't seem to be too static so far. Both seem balanced. Most importantly though - how does it play? Some things look great in theory but terrible when your XI tries to make it work. The DM(D) can disrupt shape, but considering you are closing down proactively it makes sense for the DM(D) to do that too, otherwise it can leave the opponents time and space in front of your defence to play a ball in behind.

Initially after testing both systems, I noticed that my attacks were not as effective due to specifically instructing my IF's to mark the opposition wingers, so I have since stopped instructing them to do this and my attacks appear to be more smoother.

I have now changed the STC in the 4-3-3 formation to a CF(s) and I am noticing much better movement, with through balls and even more possession. I also took away the offside trap and close down more as I did not want to disrupt the shape of the defence, so I ended up adding close down much more PI's to the front three and the midfield close down more with tighter marking for both.

For the 4-2-3-1 I noticed that the relationship between the AMC and STC was quite static and I wanted better movement, so I made slight amendments, the STC is now a CF(s) and the AMC is now an AP(a).

Both systems seem to be working well against weaker opposition. However I am having problems away to bigger teams when I use my 4-3-3 system, as my defence seems to have become more leaky. These teams include the like of Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham and Man City who all mainly line up with 4-2-3-1 formations.

I am playing on FM 2015 btw so maybe the issue lies there or there may be something wrong with my system that I am not anticipating. Or possibly it may be due to the fact that I approach these games on a control mentality, however I have read that when playing away against stronger oppositions it is ideal to use a more offensive mentality in order to exploit the spaces they leave behind. Or is it a case of no matter how my system is setup it is inevitable to fail against such oppositions.

Thanks in advance.

Edited by faith7777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, faith7777 said:

Initially after testing both systems, I noticed that my attacks were not as effective due to specifically instructing my IF's to mark the opposition wingers, so I have since stopped instructing them to do this and my attacks appear to be more smoother.

I have now changed the STC in the 4-3-3 formation to a CF(s) and I am noticing much better movement, with through balls and even more possession. I also took away the offside trap and close down more as I did not want to disrupt the shape of the defence, so I ended up adding close down much more PI's to the front three and the midfield close down more with tighter marking for both.

For the 4-2-3-1 I noticed that the relationship between the AMC and STC was quite static and I wanted better movement, so I made slight amendments, the STC is now a CF(s) and the AMC is now an AP(a).

Both systems seem to be working well against weaker opposition. However I am having problems away to bigger teams when I use my 4-3-3 system, as my defence seems to have become more leaky. These teams include the like of Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham and Man City who all mainly line up with 4-2-3-1 formations.

I am playing on FM 2015 btw so maybe the issue lies there or there may be something wrong with my system that I am not anticipating. Or possibly it may be due to the fact that I approach these games on a control mentality, however I have read that when playing away against stronger oppositions it is ideal to use a more offensive mentality in order to exploit the spaces they leave behind. Or is it a case of no matter how my system is setup it is inevitable to fail against such oppositions.

Thanks in advance.

You'd generally find a Counter mentality is better to absorb pressure, keep shape and exploit space behind the opposition. 

I'm a massive fan of the CF(s) and find he often really suits those systems. Glad you've tweaked sensibly to isolate your problems. Big thumbs up as lots find it tricky to do that. Good work pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I'm managing Curzon Ashton in FM16, playing FM for the very first time.

First, I'd like to thank llama3 for the great guide.

Second, I'd like some advice on the tactic I'm using.  If this would be more appropriate in its own thread or elsewhere, please let me know.

I'm in the Conference North playing possibly the weakest playable English team in the game (media prediction 22nd, dead bottom), so I've kind of had to make the most of my resources.  I have been able to find very few players to improve my squad who are willing to join and wage money is tight.  In this tactic, the only positions occupied first-choice by new players are left back and right wing, though I have managed to bring in a few others as backup.

                

                 P(a)   TM(s)

DW(s)   DLP(d)   B2B(s)   W(a)

FB(a)   CD(d)      LD(d)     FB(s)

                    GK(d)

 

Mentality: Counter

Team Shape: Structured

Team Instructions: Higher Tempo, Slightly Deeper Defensive Line, More Direct Passing, Stick to Positions

 

Overall I'm looking for a relatively direct, physical counter-attacking style based on being defensively compact.  I am struggling, though.  Obviously as much as I would like to score more, I would say that generally speaking I'm scoring enough (considering I'm perhaps the worst in the division) but I'm conceding too many.  I'm closer to the average for scoring than for conceding.

I have tried the P as an AF, which worked okay, but I think the change to the P was beneficial.

DW may seem a somewhat unorthodox choice on the left, but this guy, possibly my best player, is actually a natural left back and far better suited to DW than to W or WM.  Plus, defensive stability.

I've also tried the left back as a WB but he's less comfortable in that role.  He seems to overlap enough as a FB.

Central midfield does okay but I'm not sure that a DLP(d) is a solid enough sitter.  Both of these guys could play CM(d) if they had to but are less good at it than their assigned roles.

I've tried the left central defender as a stopper.  He was okay but I think I want him on defense to hold position more with the Counter mentality and deeper line.

I'm using no player instructions and there may PPMs that are counterproductive or advisable ones missing.

I'd hope the thinking behind my team instructions should be pretty self-explanatory.  I used Look for Overlap for awhile but I think the full backs overlap enough anyway, especially the left back, who is probably my most prolific crosser.  In the interest of a tighter defense, might I want Close Down Less?  A Much Deeper Defensive Line?  Stay on Feet?  Be More Disciplined?

Sorry for the length of this post, and thank you in advance for any help.

Edited by Shi Xiansheng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2016 at 20:25, isignedupfornorealreason said:

You've identified conceding as the issue yeah? How are you conceding the goals? Positional errors? Long shots? Sustained pressured?

Yes, I should have figured I'd be asked.  The problem is that I've conceded so many (43 in 18—worst defense in the division) that it is very difficult to pick out an overall pattern.  I've certainly conceded from positional errors, long shots, sustained pressure and more.  (I know that the latter two are at least partially a consequence of a low block but I think it must be possible to figure out how to concede fewer.)  Perhaps I would say that angled crosses through the area, long balls over the top and simple failures to clear balls defenders have gotten to are the leading causes, but I'm not even totally sure of that and I'm not sure how helpful it is if true.

According to the game, I've conceded 36 to placed shots, 6 to headers and 1 penalty.

In terms of assists, I've conceded 2 from corners, 1 from a free kick, 5 from passes, 15 from crosses, 2 from long balls, 2 from mistakes and 9 from through balls.  That would seem to confirm my concerns about crosses.  It would seem to contradict my memory of conceding to long balls, but I'm not sure how exactly the game classifies these (notice they don't add up to 43).

11 goals have been scored from the goal mouth and 24 from the outer-central part of the box, which to me suggests weakness in my central defenders and in my goalkeeper challenging for balls.

19 assists have come from my left wing, 4 from my right, 5 from inside the box, 4 from beyond the box and 4 from far out.  (Does this mean my left back should definitely be a FB and not a WB?  Maybe even drop him down to FB(s)?  He is my main provider of assists, though.)

Not sure what can be made of all this, but any advice would be appreciated.  Also, to be clear, I'm not complaining.  I understand that I have the worst team in the division and conceding a lot is going to happen no matter what I do, but I am tied in 9th for scoring.  So if I can go from conceding very, very many goals to just regular old very many, that could be enough to keep me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 14:54, llama3 said:

Tend to use an AP(S) with an AF(A)

If you push your wide men up to the AM Stra, what do you do with the WP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, daleuk8 said:

If you push your wide men up to the AM Stra, what do you do with the WP?

I would change him into either an IF(S) or AP(S/A) generally. But sometimes I have even experimented with Ramsey as a Raumdeuter. Depends on the individual. I tend to go for 1 more direct wide man, with a WB(S) behind on 1 flank, with a WB(A) on the other flank, with a more technical/creative player coming inside ahead of him to create space to overlap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, llama3 said:

I would change him into either an IF(S) or AP(S/A) generally. But sometimes I have even experimented with Ramsey as a Raumdeuter. Depends on the individual. I tend to go for 1 more direct wide man, with a WB(S) behind on 1 flank, with a WB(A) on the other flank, with a more technical/creative player coming inside ahead of him to create space to overlap. 

I'm finding the flat midfield isn't working to well, so I've pushed them up. So you wouldn't think twice about playing two AP's? As currently I've changed my AP in the middle to an AM support? And I've put the AP out wide but I've only got one WB the other as a FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daleuk8 said:

I'm finding the flat midfield isn't working to well, so I've pushed them up. So you wouldn't think twice about play two AP's? As currently I've changed my AP in the middle to an AM support? And I've put the AP out wide but I've only got one WB the other as a FB.

Again, it depends on the personnel - I would not have an issue playing 2 AP's, but I would try and get them doing something different (1 attack and 1 support), or having an IF(S) and an AP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, llama3 said:

I would change him into either an IF(S) or AP(S/A) generally. But sometimes I have even experimented with Ramsey as a Raumdeuter. Depends on the individual. I tend to go for 1 more direct wide man, with a WB(S) behind on 1 flank, with a WB(A) on the other flank, with a more technical/creative player coming inside ahead of him to create space to overlap. 

Would you change your Winger? With having 2 WB's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @llama3, do you think that the partnership full back (support) with winger (support) is a good one? Considering that on the other flank i have a complete wingback (attack) with an inside forward (attack)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2016 at 12:59, menne said:

Hi @llama3, do you think that the partnership full back (support) with winger (support) is a good one? Considering that on the other flank i have a complete wingback (attack) with an inside forward (attack)...

You know I've been suffering with a similar dilemma myself..

The normal caveat I start with is - it depends - specifically on the players. Generally I like to use Support-Attack on 1 flank on Attack-Support. But it kind of depends on all of your system as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, roggiotis said:

@IIama3

Whats your opinion about a DW(D)- WB(A) in a flat 442 ?

No reason whatsoever why that would not be very effective with the right personnel. A good example of overlapping and covering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@llama3

Hi, what do you think about this setup?

CF(s)

IF(a)                                       W(s)

AP(s)                CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(a)      CD(d)      CD(d)      FB(s)

SK(d)

Do you think that it is unbalaced because i have two attacking players on the left wing and none on the right? I've choose to set the team like this to try to have more space for the CM(a). Because of that, i went with a W(s) on the right... and because of the winger, i choose the FB(s)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Keyzer Soze said:

@llama3

Hi, what do you think about this setup?

CF(s)

IF(a)                                       W(s)

AP(s)                CM(a)

DM(d)

WB(a)      CD(d)      CD(d)      FB(s)

SK(d)

Do you think that it is unbalaced because i have two attacking players on the left wing and none on the right? I've choose to set the team like this to try to have more space for the CM(a). Because of that, i went with a W(s) on the right... and because of the winger, i choose the FB(s)

It looks pretty good actually. How are you playing with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, llama3 said:

It looks pretty good actually. How are you playing with it?

Standard-Flexible

TI's: Play from Defense, D-Line Slightly higher, Closing Down More, Use offside trap, Be More Expressive, Whipped Crosses

How do you think about the TI's?

However i make a couple of changes because i was not liking the way the CF(s) was acting, because at time is seems it was removing space for the forwards runs from the CM(a). So i changed the CF(s) to a DLF(a) and the left IF(a) to a IF(s).

On a side note, i have my CM(a) with the PI to move into channels. The way i see it, this will make my CM to drift wide a little bit more, and take more advantage from the space (width) the W(s) can provide. Is this truth?

 

Edited by Keyzer Soze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have great success playing  counter fluid currently , and the midfield 4 are WM(A)-BWM(S)-BWM(S)-WM(A) , i just wanted his opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2016 at 19:43, roggiotis said:

@IIama3

Is it a bad idea 2 BWM(S) in a flat 442?

 

21 hours ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

Try it and find out? 

 

I'd say you'd be very susceptible to a simple passing move if you have both midfielders as ball winners, especially the supporting ones as they tend to get very high up the pitch.

Interesting really - ordinarily I wouldn't go near the idea. However it just goes to show, the right combination in the right system with the right personnel makes a massive difference. If your team sit deep, but the 2 ball winners quickly intercept and launch a counter attack, then clearly it works!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guide more than anything else taught me how to build my tactic way back in FM15.  Read it again today and it's still the best guide out there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2017 at 02:23, b28937 said:

This guide more than anything else taught me how to build my tactic way back in FM15.  Read it again today and it's still the best guide out there.  

Thanks! That's very kind of you. I personally like THOG's Lines and Diamonds guide. What I feel my guide is good at is building logical and balanced tactical systems. I think THOG's is much better at creating styles than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to thank you @llama3 for the magnificent guides.
I was reading your guides as a lurker 1-2 years ago and they really helped me a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/04/2017 at 22:52, ilkork said:

I would also like to thank you @llama3 for the magnificent guides.
I was reading your guides as a lurker 1-2 years ago and they really helped me a lot.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...