James Schrader's sensational try saver

Jerry Collins Haka the day before crash

Super Rugby Hits of the Season 2015

Alipate Fatafehi huge hit vs USA Eagles

Josh Kronfeld & Highlanders celebrate!

World XV convincingly beat Japan

Inside the Pride, in Africa, Part 3

Pass Around The World with Allianz

RWC 2015 Players to Watch: Finn Russell

Sunday, August 19, 2012

All Blacks take the lead in opening Bledisloe Cup clash vs Wallabies

The All Blacks went one-nil up in the 2012 Bledisloe Cup with a 27-19 win over the Wallabies in Sydney. The game signalled the start of the inaugral Rugby Championship, and put the visitors in a commanding position ahead of the return match.

The Wallabies needed to win in Sydney to have a decent crack at stopping the All Blacks' ten year Bledisloe Cup reign. As it is, they will need to travel to New Zealand's Eden park and win next week.

AB's coach Steve Hansen has said that he will keep the same side where possible to make sure that the combinations get their best chance of gelling.

"We'll pick the best team we think for each game depending how people come through the previous match, but it's unlikely there will be too many changes in the next week I wouldn't think," he said.

"It just gives us an opportunity to get some miles under the belt as combinations and as a team. There might have to be one or two changes due to circumstances, but I shouldn't think there will be many."

The All Blacks scored clincally from setpiece, as Israel Dagg and Cory Jane finished well.

"I just had to back myself, which is something I haven't been doing much," said Dagg of his try.

The Wallabies struck back through Nathan Sharpe, but Dan Carter edged the visitors out of reach, slotting a penalty on fulltime, preventing the hosts from getting a valuable losing bonus point.

Posted by Rugbydump at 7:01 pm | View Comments (34)

Viewing 34 comments

paimoe August 19, 2012 11:20 pm

Dagg had a huge amount of space for his try. Good to watch.

Beale had the single most forgettable game of his life. He knocked it on cold right before Jane's try (which is what lead to the scrum).

Someone elsewhere also mentioned that with the penalties, scrums and lineouts, there was 64 stoppages of play in 80 mins of rugby. Really didn't have any flow.

· Reply · Report

Eggman August 20, 2012 8:25 am

Very disapointing game for an Aussie.. Especially the first half was just terrible by the Wallabies. The All Blacks also played below their usual standard, yet never looked like they were going to lose. Even in the last few minutes when the Wallabies threw everything against them I didnt have the impression that they were actually going to score. Especially the endless knock ons and dropped balls were frustrating to watch.

Kurtley Beale was absolutely terrible. It seemed like both tries were a result of his poor defense and the second one a result of his knock on. He also offered nothing in attack. I wonder if he was injured or what the matter was with him.. I hope he can clean up his act by next week.

The main problem was the forwards dominance of the All Black's though. The Wallabies just couldn't get over the gain line and never got fast ball. Their line speed was phenomonal (not sure if they were always onside though). Pocock was pretty anonymous throughout the game. I do wonder why he doesn't tell the coaches to replace him when he's got a knee injury, now that there's actually a decent replacement for him on the bench.

I'm also confused by some of the selections Deans made. I still don't think that Faingaa should be anywhere near test level. The same goes for Dave Dennis, Timani and Rob Horne. Surely there are better options than them out there somewhere...

· Reply · Report

Leadbitter August 20, 2012 12:47 pm

All very ordinary wasn’t it?
Apart from two top drawer set piece moves which lead to the NZ tries, there was nothing there at all to get excited about.
Looking at the Australian performance one really has to wonder how Wales could not manage at least one test win on the recent tour. I also can’t work out what it means for Irish rugby.
The NZ performance on Saturday totally explains how Ireland came within a point in their second test clash, but how come they were demolished a week later? Given the recent tests between England and South Africa and looking at them in light of this game, I would say that the early money is on South Africa based entirely on having the big runners to counter what is an incredibly good (and quicker) NZ defensive line.

· Reply · Report

Eggman August 20, 2012 1:24 pm

I agree that they both looked ordinary. However New Zealand just seemed to miss the last pass, while Australia looked like a bunch of players that started playing rugby about 3 weeks ago and have never played together before. New Zealand should have fixed their problems by next week, or within 2 weeks at the very latest. I'm not sure about Australia.

I can't see NZ losing a game in this Championship somehow. The only possible threat is away in SA, though I think they'll roll that as well. South Africa didnt offer all that much either (at least not in the last half hour that I saw). I guess SA and Australia will both win their home games against each other and should beat Argentina twice. NZ just seem to be head and shoulders over everyone else right now. The injury woes of Australia (Horwill, O'Connor, McCabe, now also Pocock it seems) and also South Africa (JP and Bismarck the obvious, but I think there are more) only make the gap bigger.

· Reply · Report

Leadbitter August 20, 2012 1:40 pm

You may well be right Eggman. NZ are only going to get better, that's for sure. Should be some good rugby to come.

· Reply · Report

Jon August 21, 2012 1:22 am

It was ordinary for these two teams. They normally have a better standard.

But the difference (and why Wales didn't win against a depleted Wallabies team that wasn't really playing well), was that their standard is actually bit lower.

NZ and Aus, for all their faults on saturday, were playing at a high pace. A higher pace than Wales normally ever plays at. Even though they were dropping ball and making bad decisions, the pace they play at is usually too much for northern teams to handle.

Also, the defense and counter rucking has a slight edge to it in comparison to most northern teams.

· Reply · Report

Leadbitter August 21, 2012 7:41 am

Hi Jon,

With respect, that game was slow by anybody's standards. The last Wales / Australia test was far quicker than this as were the English games against the Bok's. The takeaway image of the game was the ball being at Genia's feet whilst he looked around for options. New Zealand did play a much quicker pick up and go game but neither side had any prolonged period of anything looking like quick ball. I did like the fact that Rolland stopped NZ from falling over the top and coming in off their feet. Interpretation like that would have seen France lift the World cup.
I totally agree with you in regards to the NZ defense and counter rucking. They seem to have taken that aspect of the game up a level which is scary for the rest of us.

· Reply · Report

breakaway August 21, 2012 12:31 pm

It's good that you identify the fact that the ABs counter rucking was so effective. The problem is that Rolland, like yourself, didn't take into account that NZ weren't going over to seal off, the Oz forwards were just buckling in front of them. By the time the Oz side of the ruck collapsed the ball was already cleanly on the AB side and it should have been play-on. You say that "Interpretation like that would have seen France lift the World cup" .. when in fact interpretation like that would've kept any strong rucking side out of the final altogether.

· Reply · Report

Leadbitter August 21, 2012 12:44 pm

I have to respectively disagree. I think Rolland himself was heard on the mic saying that he had no problem with counter rucking but the players had to try to stay on their feet. I think that encourages good practice. I don't see any side at this level `buckling' - you simply cannot deal with players that throw themselves over the top and onto the ground in front of you.
The AB's are an incredible team but NZ teams are also the very best at bending the rules to the point where many would argue that in effect, they deploy controlled cheating. They are masters at blocking and obstructing, play off side as a default mode and constantly in fringe at the breakdown. They do this `better' than any other international team. I think they are worthy holders of the world cup due to the level of rugby that they have maintained over the last 8 years and that semi-final performance against Australia. However, they did not deserve to win that final against France - that game on its own was the best example of professional cheating and poor referring the rugby world has ever seen and France were robbed.

· Reply · Report

Jon August 22, 2012 12:45 am

Leadbitter, it was no great game, so I won't try and defend it.

But overall it's safe to say that one of the main reasons teams like Wales and Ireland have so much trouble beating Aus and NZ is that they don't play at the same tempo or pace. Warburton said as much after the Australia series, and it was echoed by the Welsh coaching staff. The Welsh players weren't used to the speed of the play and struggled to cope with it, though they had begun to adapt by the end of the series.

In regards to sealing off the ball, the kiwis are masters at it. And on Saturday, they seemed to do it more than I've seen in a long time.
I didn't think Rolland did stop it. He penalized them a couple times, but gave a couple their way too, when it was clear that NZ players (mostly Mccaw), were just running forward and diving over the ball, literally just laying on it.

I have no idea how Mccaw gets away with it. He plays the ball on the ground, comes in from the side and flops on the ball, just lies there on top of it.

As you say it's very difficult to clear someone from a ruck if they are lying prostrate on the ground.

Breakaway, the rules are that if Australian players get pushed back off the ball, the kiwi players must still maintain their feet. If they don't it's they who should be penalised, because they've stopped counter rucking and are sealing off the ball. Regardless of whether they are winning the ruck battle, the second you lose your feet, you must roll away, you lose all rights to the ball.

· Reply · Report

breakaway August 22, 2012 7:22 am

I understand what you're saying Jon and I think I have a reasonable grasp of the laws on this. My point is that if the ball has already clearly been won and is a couple of metres behind the point where the ruck collapses, and the collapse had has nothing to do with either winning or sealing off the ball, then I say play-on. Blowing ruck penalties without having any regard for these factors is just being pedantic and leads to a stop-start game. I think we all know that a high percentage of rucks in every game has got a smorgasbord of infringements that the ref can choose from .. good refs know the ones that matter and, IMO, Rolland got it wrong a few times in this game, not just at rucks but scrums as well.

And as for this common opinion that the ABs get away with sealing off more than other sides, I can only disagree completely. I often think the opposite is the case. A while back, after reading a comment about how the ABs got away with murder during the second Irish test I actually watched a replay of about 20 minutes of the game and just about every ruck had green jerseys lying around all over place trying desperately to stop quick ball, which is the impression I had got watching the game in the first place. The problem was that NZ were clearing the ball away so quickly that they couldn't do anything about it. I often wonder if we have all watched the same game when I read some of this stuff, but maybe most of us feel that way. If you're only looking for one team's infringements then you'll only see one team's infringements.

· Reply · Report

breakaway August 22, 2012 12:14 pm

This old chestnut, thanks I've seen it. A perfect example of "let's look at all the places where NZ might have infringed and pretend that they are the only side pushing their luck". For the record the Frenchman who went offside then part way back, then immediately got involved in the play, it makes a difference.
Anyway, I was more interested in the French rugby site (and I'm damned if I can remember it's name but it was linked on several comments sections a couple of days after the final) where a whole bunch of incidents involving both sides was examined by a French panel and they decided that both sides got about the same leniency, and although it was a lax reffing performance neither side was favoured. That's pretty much how I saw the game too. The French played out of their skins and all credit to them, it was reffed leniently like finals are in all codes (Soccer WC anyone!?), both teams took advantage of that and the ABs won but only just. I stand by my earlier comments.
Jeez, some people go on about NZ (or Oz) fans but all I heard during the recent SH tours by 6N sides is wall-to-wall whingeing from up north about refs and favouritism and how unfair it all is, even when the refs were NH. And now nonsense like this video is still being put up as serious analysis! Oh well, there's always the footy, roll on the weekend, whoever wins.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel August 22, 2012 8:46 pm

I am not so sure... I don't want to leap onto the "NZ get away with murder" bandwagon, but as a complete neutral I found that France seemed to get a much more shitty end of the stick than NZ did....

I think in that final the French played hugely well, and I think NZ were blown away by the occasion an unable to break into a decent stride, (i.e. they looked rattled!). That being said, to their credit they played the full 80 minutes and brought home a courageous win. Although as I said, I am neither for France nor against NZ, their were some extremely dubious bits of NZ play, which is perfectly acceptable, (any of you guys who are forwards know that we all cheat, anyone who says they doesn't is a liar)... HOWEVER the fact that they, at least on the face of it, appeared to get away with a lot more said to me, that either the referee was too scared to make a decision which (rightly in the law sense) could have cost NZ the match, or that he was oblivious to it due to the shadowy nature in which NZ play the game.

As for the Autumn internationals, I don't believe I heard any "wall to wall whingeing" from anyone actually!?!?? Trying to conjure up the memories is tough but I thought:
-Ireland played badly in the first test, well in the second test, and in the 3rd test they had no chance whatsoever, I don't recall any whining from them.
-Wales,... I can't recall their opinions, but I was under the impression they were somewhat happy with their performance but saddened by the lack of a "win" next to their name.
-Scotland.. Had nothing to gripe about.
-England... Again, I thought they were quite happy with their performances, but they lacked the win....

So I'd be happy to stand corrected if you can provide credible evidence of either "hemispheres" whingeing about the Autumn tests, but in my memory, I can't recall any....

· Reply · Report

Eggman August 22, 2012 9:02 pm

I do remember a massive amount of whining in some of the English newspapers comments. I remember reading the guardian and another one the name of which i can't recall. At least in the comments there were loads of people whinging about Craig Joubert in particular and generally about the Aussie-Welsh games. There was also some whining about the 2nd NZ-Ire tests.

I also remember the Welsh coaching staff having a bit of a moan about Pocock supposedly getting away with too much. I'm not sure anymore if the articles in the English newspapers were also complaining about the refs, but it's possible.

On rugbydump most people were fairly gracious in defeat and victory though ;)

· Reply · Report

breakaway August 23, 2012 12:30 am

I was mainly referring to fans on rugby sites rather than management or columnists. In fact I think the press covered those tours pretty well in general. But the number of times I read during the Irish and Welsh series "we played better and should've won if the ref hadn't done this or had done that." or "Aust/NZ didn't deserve to win, the ref gave them the game" etc. Then you look at the stats and the winners had more possession, more territory, more turnovers, ran with the ball hundreds of metres more etc etc ... and I'm thinking it looks like the best side did win and would've been unlucky to lose.
I agree with your comment about RD, although I sometimes miss a bit of the whacky element of the old days I don't miss the racist and other stuff that used to slip through. It's a great site.

@Pretzel. I've got to smile a little when you talk about "the shadowy nature of NZ play" .. presumably this is compared to the glowing purity and virtue of the French forward pack, on that day or any other! :)

· Reply · Report

Pretzel August 23, 2012 2:11 pm

@Breakaway. As a forward (second row/back row) I do not try and hide the fact that I can be nasty and "naughty" at the breakdown, or in general. If I can get away with it then I will try it, (bar gouging eyes, or violating other players behinds etc)... and of course there are times you get caught and dealt with appropriately (by player or by referee...)

So let's face it, if I'm 100% truthful, I will admit that I am a cheat. If I slow the ball down at the breakdown then I am, in essence, cheating, (if I do it deliberately that is *halo appears above head!*). So let's not pretend that Richie McCaw is an angel who never "cheats" and that goes for ANY decent player. However what makes it difficult about the whole subject is 2 main reasons:

Firstly, the word "cheat" is hardly an honourable, respectable name to call anyone/any team. So people often get the wind up them and get very defensive when they or the teams they support get "cheating" pointed out.

Secondly, when watching things on tv we are staring at a screen, behind the workings is a man choosing which camera we are actually seeing, now he has choice of perhaps 50 odd camera angles, whereas the referee only see's one. So we see all angles and in reality, we see all the naughtiness of McCaw and his motley crew, whereas the referee does not, and BECAUSE, NZ have the breakdown so well worked, and no HOW to play to the limits of the laws/game, they "get away with it", other teams do not.

So anyway, that being said, I did feel, (as a neutral) that NZ got away with a lot more than France did in that final.

As you pointed out, the French pack are of course known for being the Saints of rugby, however their flaws and indiscretions should not be used in a "well they did this so we did that" sort of argument. But yes, they are "Damn dirty apes" in most games!

As for the comments, I'm with Eggman on them, I didn't notice any RD regulars appearing incensed by the referee, more annoyed by their own team.

· Reply · Report

breakaway August 24, 2012 2:30 am

I have never suggested that another teams' indiscretions should be copied just because they commit them. My general point is that all teams are indiscrete at times (and that's putting it mildly in some cases) but many people can only ever see one side's sins when they're playing certain teams. And it gets so ridiculous sometimes that even a mild-mannered student of the game like me feels like trying to restore some sort of balance.

Eggman said: "On rugbydump most people were fairly gracious in defeat and victory though ;)".
I said: "I agree with your comment about RD". So no problem there. But I do read a lot of other rugby sites and comments sections of newspaper reports. Allowing for a little exaggeration to make my point I stand by my impressions regarding the complaints about the refereeing, especially early in the tours.

As for this weekend.. no matter what the current form of the teams, or the venue, state of the comp. etc there aren't many rivalries that so consistently feel like 50/50 propositions as Bledisloe Cup matches when the teams run out. I pick NZ by a healthy margin but nothing would surprise me.

· Reply · Report

Eggman August 24, 2012 10:52 am

I agree with you about the upcoming game. NZ will probably win it easily. On the other hand, Australia always preform best when there's no expectation that they'll win and when they're under fire from the press. Add to that an improved backline with Faingaa gone (although I'd prefer Beale at Fullback and AAC moving into Centre to also get rid of Horne), I'm expecting a better performance from Australia than last week.

I'm also very interested in how Hooper does in replacing Pocock. I'm sure he'll play out of his skin and might provide a bit of x-factor because he's never played against the all blacks before and is thus a bit of an unknown for them as well. On the other hand, lack of experience could backfire. Good to see though that Moore is playing instead of TPN..

· Reply · Report

Pretzel August 25, 2012 9:41 am

@Breakaway, I do totally understand where you're coming from, it does irritate me when fans on RD (it is the only rugby site I frequent) do the whole "my team were Godly angels who barely broke a blade of grass that game, and your team were a bunch of nasty mean ruffians who cheated us in every way possible"...it drives me insane... No team are angels, every team is nasty, some teams are better at it than others...

And really that's what it comes down to, NZ are better at exploiting the referee's nature than other teams. But as I said, I was a complete neutral watching the match, I had nothing riding on either side, but I did notice NZ got away with more than France did. So in my opinion that is down to two reasons; firstly, as I said, perhaps that is because they are better at doing it than France. Secondly, perhaps the referee's in general are more giving to a home crowd?

Either way....

As for the next few games, I can't see NZ struggling to anyone away, other than perhaps South Africa. I am looking forward to the Argentina home game v NZ, I would like to see if Arg get a good nudge on in front of a home crowd... (I still expect an NZ win)...

· Reply · Report

kadova September 04, 2012 11:13 pm

I think you're talking about Le Rugbynistere and the link to the article is here:
And this shows that Craig Joubert didn't favour the ABs.

The good thing is the former referee Joel Jutge who commented this article is now the World Head of referees :)

· Reply · Report

ruckinmual August 20, 2012 4:51 pm

really do wonder, why Deans does not place AAC on the outside centre, remember when he scored the early try in Hong Kong, Berrick can play inside, and Cooper can play flyhalf. Thus, Genia can relish his full potential. There is some huge amount of talents on the wings spot though, Mitchell and Turner.

· Reply · Report

Eggman August 20, 2012 11:00 pm

I think the reason he didn't play AAC at inside centre is because he doesn't think Mitchell or Turner are fit to play test rugby yet. That said, I agree that he should play Mitchell and place AAC in the centres and get rid of Faingaa or Horne (or ideally both by getting Cooper back).

· Reply · Report

Facepalm August 20, 2012 6:54 pm

It seems to me that Australia's attack revolves around Will Genia. For Genia to get going he needs fast, front foot ball and I just don't think his forwards (bar Pocock) are good enough to consistently get that.

The loss of Cooper certainly did not help. He gets a lot of unjustified abuse but his ability to draw defenders is incredible.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel August 20, 2012 10:32 pm

"The loss of Cooper certainly did not help. He gets a lot of unjustified abuse but his ability to draw defenders is incredible."

Lol, that could be viewed in one of two ways.... Either he is very good at drawing players in, or so many people really do dislike him that they strive for any and every opportunity to smash Cooper!

· Reply · Report

katman August 20, 2012 8:42 pm

Only guy who had a worse game than Beale was that Irish referee. Was it absolutely necessary of him to steal the show like that? Can't remember a single scrum that didn't end up in a penalty. I'm sure there were, but they certainly don't stand out.

· Reply · Report

Eggman August 20, 2012 10:58 pm

I don't think rolland is to blame for the poor game. true, he did blow the whistle a lot, but he blew it because there were just so many infringements and knock ons. Especially the scrums just collapses all the time.. he didnt have that much choice but to either reset the scrum (even more boring) or blow a penaly for either side..

· Reply · Report

Pretzel August 21, 2012 11:57 am

I often find comments like that a little suspicious and odd. Are you saying that referee's should not blow the whistle?

I totally understand the difference between a referee that makes the game flow a little and a referee with eyes like a hawk that blows his whistle every 2 seconds. But the fact still remains that if a referee allows the game to flow, then he is in fact ignoring some infringements... what do the irate fans make of this after a game? "We were robbed" "They had 15 men plus the referee playing against us!" etc etc...

So really if the referee lets a minor knock on at the base of a ruck go, and the next phase is a try, is that correct? He might let an opposition knock on at the base of a ruck go, and their next phase leads to the touchline or something... I know it's making the best of opportunities given to you in that sense, but it is wrong in my eyes to think a referee "steals the show" when he catches people out for infringements....

· Reply · Report

katman August 21, 2012 2:08 pm

Come on, it’s seldom black and white like that. If every ref were to blow every single infringement that ever happened, regardless of how small, then we’d never have a game of rugby.

Every scrum feed would have to be scrutinised. Every line-out throw measured. Every hand that plays the ball with a possible knee on the ground. Every possible case of obstruction during a kick chase.

In every game there are literally dozens such cases that, in the ref’s view, don’t warrant the whistle. Because if he blew them all, no ball would ever leave a ruck. So refs are to make the call on what gets blown up and what is marginal enough to let slide.

And some, like Rolland, are just super pedantic.

· Reply · Report

Pretzel August 21, 2012 8:14 pm

So what is the call then? That is down to how much of a pedant someone wishes to be....

Would say Joubert be far more pedantic than someone like Steve Walsh? Where do we draw the line, if Rolland was not our benchmark for nit picking and damn frustrating refereeing, then who would be are next target? Would we eventually target someone like Steve Walsh (who is pretty slack) until we find someone who lets anything and everything go?

I know what you're saying and I do appreciate the decorum you used in your reply. However I disagree with the sentiment that Rolland was the highlight (or lowlight) of the game...

· Reply · Report

Jon August 21, 2012 1:19 am

Shocker first half from the wallabies.
Beale was terrible. His head wasn't in the game. I don't think playing at the Rebels has helped him develop much.
Too many dropped balls, too slow at the rucks for Australia. In the second half they improved and the ref kept his whistle in his pocket and the game flowed a bit better.

NZ didn't even play that well, but were solid and it was enough to get them the win.
Their defense was very good, which stifled the Aussie attack. Dagg was in great form, as was the center pairing.

Mccaw was cheating like buggery again, but he gets away with it, so you can only shake your head and give him credit for being good at killing the ball without getting penalised for it. How does he get away with lying on the ball, not rolling away and playing the ball off his feet? It's remarkable.

Overall a pretty average game considering these are the top two teams in the world.
I;m sure it will improve next week.

Oh and the ref, christ, put your whistle away for five seconds. I was int he crowd and at the start of the game I said to the guy next to me that Rolland will blow the pea out of his whistle all game, and an Irish guy sitting in front of me agreed. And low and behold, that's what he did, especially in the first half. He wouldn't let them play for more than twwo or three rucks at a time.

· Reply · Report

Leadbitter August 22, 2012 1:47 pm

I've not heard any whinging, but have (along with many others) taken interest in how the laws of the game at the very top level are interpreted.
Its important because it filters all the way down the rugby tree to the very roots of the game. I think all players should stay on their feet and that kids should be coached that.
We in the north are being told constantly of the huge divide the exists between us and the S.Hemisphere teams, so it's natural to look at these teams, how they play and how their play is referred in order to improve. The RWC final and this recent Bledisloe Cup would suggest that to chance our arm at virtually all breakdown situations, live constantly off side and block would be tacklers when using set piece strike moves is the way forward.

· Reply · Report

breakaway August 22, 2012 2:54 pm

I'm gonna move on Lb but first:
1) If you didn't get any of the whining about the reffing during the southern tours then we must be reading different sites and blogs.
2) As I've been saying, you only see one team pushing the limits of the law, I see all top teams doing it and if the loosies aren't going for every advantage they can get, I don't care what team they're on, then they're not doing their job.
3) Nobody "lives constantly offside", even in the 6N, so there's not much I can say about that.
4) Every single team uses dummy runners but you seem to be saying that NZ is somehow cheating... in fact I don't know what your saying. They were penalized for crossing once on Saturday but nobody including the Oz players (they would've appealed for sure), the commentators, the crowd, me, the guy I was watching it with or anybody else could figure out what it was for, except old Allain. I think he just got a bit confused. The only other thing you could possibly be referring to is during Cory Jane's try when Nonu took off in the completely opposite direction to the ball and a defender followed him and bumped into him. Neither player was anywhere near the ball and the defender wasn't within a bull's roar of being a potential tackler. Rolland got that right by ignoring it, so you see I don't think he was all bad.

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.