Seventieslord's thought exercise on goalie talent

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,264
12,888
Toronto, Ontario
So did Thomas, so did Cechmanek, so will Yutaka Fukufuji...doesn't necessarily make you a subject matter expert. You're plainly demonstrating that right now.

Yes, you ranked Stanley Cup champion and two time Vezina winner Tim Thomas below Peter Budaj and it's me that is plainly demonstrating that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to goaltending.

Got it.
 
Last edited:

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Would you say that although technically challenged, he had great reflexes and a good read on shots/good ice vision, at least for first shots?

Because as others said, he had to be doing something right to get 2 Vezinas and be as "statistically dominant" as he was. Maybe he did not control his rebound well and made great use of Chara and Bergeron for that, but he was stopping those first shots right?

Just an honest question here :)

Good question.

He had a horrific read of shots, poor vision and poor hockey sense. But he was a battler. He threw anything he could at pucks, the freedom in that came from reflex and from not being married to a technique. It creates a unique situation for a shooter that you cannot readily accommodate for...like a facing a knuckle ball pitcher in baseball...you can spend all the live-long day practicing for Tim Wakefield or whoever with the hopes of going 1 for 3 in the game and then having to re-adjust your swing and your reads back for the next night...or, you take some chops at it and hope to go 1 for 3 with a walk and get back to "regular" pitchers for the rest of the month and not mess with it...

In hockey, the same things apply. Advanced scouting is really laid on thick in the playoffs when you have to face the same guys for a 7-game series. That's why you see weak clubs like Montreal in 2011 beating up on him, because they knew how to beat him. Don't get close to him because he covers the low part of the net and he can swim...hesitate, because he bites on the first sign of anything (poor read, doesn't see the place of the puck on the blade...doesn't see the eyes of the shooter...loses track of danger easily, etc.) and then just go around him and throw it in a half-empty net...easier said than done when you're facing a tough Boston defense that is geared specifically to not allowing you to cross lanes or infiltrate layers...

It's seem in the system. The system was, by design, to give up shots...because they couldn't front as many shots because that would cause spacing issues in behind...Thomas can stop 45 foot wrist shots, every goalie in the NHL can, he cannot stop 28 footers and he has zero rebound control - I mean, zero. So, they can't allow those things. Give up the long shot - in the hyper-speed game with the back pressure we have, many players will jump at the chance to "throw pucks on net" but when they go to fight for a rebound - uh oh, there's the biggest f'n player in the history of the game there and he's always out there. Every other shift. That's to mention Patrice Bergeron and the other responsible forwards they had...I mean, you know you're living right when you got Michael Ryder on the goal line making glove saves with his goaltender not even in the frame haha - it takes a village when you have such a weak link in the chain and Boston personified that to the nth degree in 2011...

So, no, not a good reader. Very poor anticipation skills, you can see that in his ability to track danger and how he guesses when shots are released. The save selection isn't made until after the puck has left the stick, which is dangerous. But he was crafty in that he had ability to just throw body parts at things...a couple of other guys have tried that - Mike Murphy in junior...sometimes you even see guys do it to a lesser extent because they have some foundation in goaltending technique, but even a guy like Carter Hutton, you can see in his reactions that he's not good at reading shots...he's a guesser, he throws body parts out there and gives up a ton of crap goals and a ton of crap rebounds...in an environment like St. Louis, I'm sure he had the stats to make it seem like he was good...but now that he's Buffalo, I'm guessing he's going to fail miserably...they have a better goalie there too that no one knows about, I don't even know if he plays because I have only seen one Buffalo game this year but the young Swede Ullmark will absolutely take his job by mid- to late-season, so much better of a goalie...better at reading plays by a mile...then they have that big Finn on the way, also going to be a player...

Your job as a goalie is immensely easier when you don't have to worry about the repercussions of your decisions, right? Same goes for skaters. This is where coaching comes in and matching players up within a team concept. If I have a balls-to-wall forechecker who is just a manimal, I'm not going to pair him with another guy that plays that same style, that immediately creates a spacing issues high in the attack zone and in the low NZ...it will create a ton of odd-numbered situations against and it will give a lot of what I call "runway" for offensive exploitation against us.

I'll take my balls-to-wall forechecker and pair him with a studious and diligent forward as F2, so that we get the proper read and make the game more predictable for the remaining three players (I generally have a 2-1-2 swing or a 2-1-2 stack depending on the opponent...that's for another thread though I guess). When you pair two unpredictable players with each other, you get unpredictable results...as a coach, I don't want that. This is obvious around the league in forward pairings and defense pairings...also applies to goaltender-defender-center relationship. You control for the unpredictable variable as a coach, you can generally handle one...you even do film study on your own guy in some cases to prepare your group for what they have to shovel out of...

Similarly, so as I don't pick on Thomas this entire time...if I had a defenseman that is just "every puck, even if it's 20/80, you pinch and try to make a play" I need the proper partner, I need the proper cover-wing, I need the proper center and I need a goaltender that can skate, communicate and handle the puck well enough to account for this variable. The game is so easy for that d-man because he's not accountable for his actions because everyone is working in harmony to cover for his recklessness...but as long as we know this recklessness, we can figure out a way (well, a good coach, like Claude Julien) to work with it and mitigate the risk as best as possible...
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
I don't like the Bruins (Patrice Bergeron notwithstanding) and I don't like Tim Thomas. But I can't imagine how he could possibly be ranked behind the likes of Budaj, Lalime, Biron etc. who, while respectable goalies (as is anybody who had a cup of coffee in the NHL) had difficulty holding down starting jobs. Hell even as a 39 year old after a 1-year hiatus Thomas had a somewhat respectable 0.909 save percentage over 40 games on a poor Florida Panthers team.

Unorthodox, hilariously flawed style? Sure. Abrasive jackass? Yup. But with 2 Vezinas (and another top-10 voting result) and 2 1st Team All-star nods he sure fooled a lot of knowledgeable hockey people if he was truly that bad. I wish I could fake it like that.

Stats =! talent. I was asked to provide the coaching/scouting perspective on goaltenders and that's what was done. No looking at numbers, the numbers are influenced by things other than talent.

Vezinas compared to save pct record* are weak, check the voting ballot. A lot of GMs were not trusting of the player despite the stats. If save pct. was what it's supposed to represent, surely breaking the record* and having these balloon figures would lead to a near clean sweep against some of the weakest competition in history...Ryan Miller, Steve Mason, bleh...
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,144
240
Osgood can best be summed up as a pre-1994 goalie in a post-1994 world...very untidy game, a lot of pucks could bore a hole through him which is weird for a compact goalie...and he really did a poor job maintaining angles when the puck moved across even a single lane... or really even down through layers, a puck in shooting position at any point tends to lock him up and then you just see there is no depth adjustment, there is no back shoulder rotation and with his size, he can't cheat like a Bishop or Rinne can (and do)...

I know nothing about goaltending, but I always thought Osgood's biggests strengths were mental. He might not have been the best goaltender in the world, but he sure thought he had the potential to be. Listen to any interview with him. Every time he left the locker room he thought he was going to be the greatest goalie in the world, even though he might have had two terrible periods before that.

Do you think that in a position were focus and confidence seems to play a big role, maybe a good mindset can offset some of the technical weaknesses? One of those "stupid goalie tricks" we talk about I suppose. Or does it all come down to technique?
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,264
12,888
Toronto, Ontario
Stats =! talent. I was asked to provide the coaching/scouting perspective on goaltenders and that's what was done. No looking at numbers, the numbers are influenced by things other than talent.

Vezinas compared to save pct record* are weak, check the voting ballot. A lot of GMs were not trusting of the player despite the stats. If save pct. was what it's supposed to represent, surely breaking the record* and having these balloon figures would lead to a near clean sweep against some of the weakest competition in history...Ryan Miller, Steve Mason, bleh...

Thomas has 22 first place votes, Mason was the next highest with 3 first place votes. What on earth are you talking about?

How is that Thomas, that untalented bum had a .938 save percentage and an even 2.00 goals against meanwhile Rask, who you have ranked in in the second tier, oozing with talent, with the exact same team in front of him was only able to get a .918 save percentage and a 2.67 goals against? That's a huge difference despite the exact same team in front of them not to mention the dramatic difference in "talent" between these two.

How do you account for that?
 

McGuillicuddy

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
1,296
198
Stats =! talent. I was asked to provide the coaching/scouting perspective on goaltenders and that's what was done. No looking at numbers, the numbers are influenced by things other than talent.

Vezinas compared to save pct record* are weak, check the voting ballot. A lot of GMs were not trusting of the player despite the stats. If save pct. was what it's supposed to represent, surely breaking the record* and having these balloon figures would lead to a near clean sweep against some of the weakest competition in history...Ryan Miller, Steve Mason, bleh...

So your thinking is that voters for the Vezina trophy (NHL GMs) and post-season All Star Teams (hockey writers I think) were blinded by conventional stats (W, GAA, SPCT) and could not see that this was just a poor goalie benefiting from a team that was built/coached to compensate for his faults? Do you think that's fair/reasonable? Are they that unsophisticated?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Mike's point is, if you see a guy with Thomas' technicals, you're not exactly tempted to bet the future on him. He MIGHT be really good at stopping pucks, which Thomas ended up being, but there's a reason why it took a long why he had a chance.

....If you don't care about technicals, well, it's an entire different story.
 

McGuillicuddy

Registered User
Sep 6, 2005
1,296
198
Mike's point is, if you see a guy with Thomas' technicals, you're not exactly tempted to bet the future on him. He MIGHT be really good at stopping pucks, which Thomas ended up being, but there's a reason why it took a long why he had a chance.

....If you don't care about technicals, well, it's an entire different story.

But I don't think that is his point. It sounds to me that Mike's point is that Thomas actually was *not* good at stopping pucks. He was simply the benefactor of great team defense and a system that was set up (intentionally or otherwise) to cover up his vast weaknesses. And that few in the Vezina/AS voting pool were perceptive enough to notice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troubadour

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
But I don't think that is his point. It sounds to me that Mike's point is that Thomas actually was *not* good at stopping pucks. He was simply the benefactor of great team defense and a system that was set up (intentionally or otherwise) to cover up his vast weaknesses. And that few in the Vezina/AS voting pool were perceptive enough to notice.

Well he absolutely was the benefactor of great team defense.
But, to me, he also had lots of things going for him. Oh and he wasn't any better or worse at stopping pucks at 39 than most of his contemporaries were.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
I know nothing about goaltending, but I always thought Osgood's biggests strengths were mental. He might not have been the best goaltender in the world, but he sure thought he had the potential to be. Listen to any interview with him. Every time he left the locker room he thought he was going to be the greatest goalie in the world, even though he might have had two terrible periods before that.

Do you think that in a position were focus and confidence seems to play a big role, maybe a good mindset can offset some of the technical weaknesses? One of those "stupid goalie tricks" we talk about I suppose. Or does it all come down to technique?

Osgood was a very confident goaltender. I would think most anyone who has played a sport at a reasonable level would agree that confidence is a big part of the game...I know it is for me. Osgood didn't let goals of any quality really get to him...he always thought he was the best guy out there. Of course, he never was and it wasn't close...but he thought that, and that was his way of dealing with it...other guys have superstitions and routines and ways to get a clean slate...absolutely mental toughness is part of it. There are mentally weak goalies out there and it can reflect in their technique...Sergei Bobrovsky is a great example...I know what confident Bobrovsky looks like and I know what fighting-it and uncertain Bobrovsky looks like...there's a marked difference...
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Thomas has 22 first place votes, Mason was the next highest with 3 first place votes. What on earth are you talking about?

How is that Thomas, that untalented bum had a .938 save percentage and an even 2.00 goals against meanwhile Rask, who you have ranked in in the second tier, oozing with talent, with the exact same team in front of him was only able to get a .918 save percentage and a 2.67 goals against? That's a huge difference despite the exact same team in front of them not to mention the dramatic difference in "talent" between these two.

How do you account for that?

2009 wasn't the season in question really. But you do a good job to highlight how weak his competition...rookie Steve Mason and journeyman Niklas Backstrom were being fought with for votes...

2011 is the real key. 2 flat GAA, .938 record* save pct. 17 first place votes. 17! He is left off of more than a sixth of the ballots entirely. But the stats! He narrowly beats out Pekka Rinne despite his gaudy numbers. Compared to the previous season, where a good-not-great season from a good-not-great goalie in Ryan Miller earns 23 first place votes and he's on 28 of 30 ballots. Going against Brodeur, Luongo and Bryzgalov...

In 2012, Lundqvist appears on all 30 ballots, despite much stiffer competition from Rinne and Quick.

GMs not sold, even against limp competition in 2009 and, particularly, in 2011.

Exact same team and exact circumstances were not at all duplicated, of course. Since you're going to use statistics as a crutch here to compensate, you'll also note that rookie Tuukka Rask led the league in GAA and save pct. in 2010. Also posted a .940 save pct. in a playoff run that went the distance. And coming into the year was, I believe, second all-time* in save pct. for career. So, how do you account for the fact that Rask is far and a way better on the whole from your own goofball metrics...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
So your thinking is that voters for the Vezina trophy (NHL GMs) and post-season All Star Teams (hockey writers I think) were blinded by conventional stats (W, GAA, SPCT) and could not see that this was just a poor goalie benefiting from a team that was built/coached to compensate for his faults? Do you think that's fair/reasonable? Are they that unsophisticated?

NHL GMs showed that they had a good idea of it...but there was just nothing else to do for them...I mean, you see the competition...it's loser players like Steve Mason...

Media clearly isn't required to know anything about the game in modern times. Very evident in voting trends, post-game analysis, editorial pieces...just do the bare minimum, vote on stats/homerism, move along...the ballot is only taken seriously by some, unfortunately...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killion

NyQuil

Big F$&*in Q
Jan 5, 2005
95,340
59,233
Ottawa, ON
Anecdotally, I have a hard time thinking of Tim Thomas as a poor goaltender.

Ottawa was the team he probably played best against.

“I’m 12-1 in my last 13, I don’t think it’s this building,” said Thomas, when asked about his success at Scotiabank Place. “It’s not Ottawa, it’s not Canada. I get asked this a lot. This team is finding ways to win right now, whether we’re playing our best hockey … that might not be the case.”

36 GP 23-11-2 2.07 .935 and averaging around 32 shots per game.

Now I've seen terrible goalies who were just lucky - we all knew Andrew Hammond was that guy, even as he won game after game. The media tried to manufacture a goalie controversy where none existed. He was all over the place, and his team bailed him out.

Tim Thomas did not give me that impression over the many games that he owned the Senators - even in the early days when Boston wasn't particularly good.

And I get all the praise for Bergeron and Chara, but I was watching the games, and he put up some wonderful performances.

He reminded me a lot of Hasek who I also got to see up close for that one wonderful season in 2005-2006 until his groin exploded.

You can fault his technique, but I find it hard to fault his results, and I don't simply think "the system" is the explanation for his success.
 
Last edited:

Dr John Carlson

Registered User
Dec 21, 2011
9,726
4,031
Nova Scotia
I remember Braden Holtby's Vezina season. I'd often go to the opponent's fanbase's GDT after games to see their reaction and would find things like, "that was the easiest shutout of Holtby's career..." or "we made it way too easy on Holtby in that game...". The funny thing about goaltending is that a lot of times, the better you play the worse it looks.

I don't have enough knowledge or experience with the goaltending position to outright say that Tim Thomas sucks, but it is often the case that goalies who 'look good' do so because of their own faults. Leaky rebound control? That gives the goalie an opportunity to make an epic save to recover from it... of course, a goalie with good rebound control wouldn't need to make that epic save afterwards. Poor positioning? Just flop across the crease and make that glove save... although a better goalie probably would've just gotten in the proper position and swallowed the puck without any excitement.

As for the system... it's a legit point. Everyone can admit that Matt Moulson was a capable player when he was on John Tavares' wing, but away from him he's not so capable. Crosby has made bottom-6ers look like top-liners throughout his whole career. Trevor Daley went from useless in Chicago to a top-4 guy in Pittsburgh over the span of one season in 15-16. Did he improve astronomically at age 32, or did he move to a system that better suited his playstyle? It's accurate to look at Tim Thomas and say that he was irrelevant when not playing in Julien's system. Is it unfair to him to say that? Maybe, I don't know, like I said I don't have the knowledge to make such an extreme judgement. It's part of the reason why I think so highly of Henrik Lundqvist. Played in numerous systems, four coaching changes, suspicious personnel on defense... consistently one of the best goalies in the league in an era where goalies are notoriously inconsistent season-to-season.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,264
12,888
Toronto, Ontario
2011 is the real key. 2 flat GAA, .938 record* save pct. 17 first place votes. 17! He is left off of more than a sixth of the ballots entirely. But the stats! He narrowly beats out Pekka Rinne despite his gaudy numbers.

You're either intentionally leaving out information or you simply don't know what you are talking about.

You seem shocked that Thomas *only* had 17 first place votes as if that is somehow an indictment of him, then you point out the ballots he is not even on, as if that again is a slight, and then you go on to say that he "narrowly beat out Pekka Rinne despite his gaudy numbers."

Let's unpack some of the things that you have strangely left out.

First of all, he got 17 first place votes in large part because of the incredibly stiff competition that year. Rinne, who garnered six first place votes, had a 2.12 GAA and a .930 save percentage and Roberto Luongo, the third nominee, had a 2.11 GAA and a .928 save percentage. I don't know what it's shocking to you that the winner wouldn't sweep the first place votes in a scenario like that.

Then you point out that he's not even on a sixth of the ballots (he received 26 total votes) yet strangely you don't point out that no other goaltender received more votes than he did. Rinne also only had 26 total votes. Luongo had the third most with 13. What point do you think you are making here?

Finally, you say despite he "gaudy numbers" he narrowly edged out Rinne. Considering both he and Rinne (and Luongo) all had similar numbers, again, what point do you think you are making? Also, Thomas beat Rinne by 20 points. Pretending that is "narrowly" beating him is disingenuous at best.

In 2012, Lundqvist appears on all 30 ballots, despite much stiffer competition from Rinne and Quick.

Guess how many first place votes Lundqvist had? 17! The very same number that was apparently a damning indictment of Thomas in his win the year before. And now you want to pretend that Rinne and Quick are much stiffer competition than the excellent seasons put up by Rinne and Luongo?
 
Last edited:

Hoser

Registered User
Aug 7, 2005
1,846
403
"Goalie talent" is so ambiguous it's pretty much impossible to separate from results. It's pretty hard to argue it's on "luck" or "his team covers his faults" if you get results. Especially results like winning (two) Vezina trophies, a Conn Smythe and the Stanley Cup... Frankly it seems like you're trolling us a bit, making controversial choices for the sake of generating discussion. For shame, Mike.

Chicanery with respect to Tim Thomas aside, I'd say you put Tuukka Rask, Ondrej Pavelec, Johan Hedberg, Petr Budaj and Devan Dubnyk too high. Conversely you put Sergei Bobrovsky, Chris Osgood, Jose Theodore and Tommy Salo too low.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
You're either intentionally leaving out information or you simply don't know what you are talking about.

You seem shocked that Thomas *only* had 17 first place votes as if that is somehow an indictment of him, then you point out the ballots he is not even on, as if that again is a slight, and then you go on to say that he "narrowly beat out Pekka Rinne despite his gaudy numbers."

Let's unpack some of the things that you have strangely left out.

First of all, he got 17 first place votes in large part because of the incredibly stiff competition that year. Rinne, who garnered six first place votes, had a 2.12 GAA and a .930 save percentage and Roberto Luongo, the third nominee, had a 2.11 GAA and a .928 save percentage. I don't know what it's shocking to you that the winner wouldn't sweep the first place votes in a scenario like that.

Then you point out that he's not even on a sixth of the ballots (he received 26 total votes) yet strangely you don't point out that no other goaltender received more votes than he did. Rinne also only had 26 total votes. Luongo had the third most with 13. What point do you think you are making here?

Finally, you say despite he "gaudy numbers" he narrowly edged out Rinne. Considering both he and Rinne (and Luongo) all had similar numbers, again, what point do you think you are making? Also, Thomas beat Rinne by 20 points. Pretending that is "narrowly" breathing him is disingenuous at best.



Guess how many first place votes Lundqvist had? 17! The very same number that was apparently a damning indictment of Thomas in his win the year before. And now you want to pretend that Rinne and Quick are much stiffer competition than the excellent seasons put up by Rinne and Luongo?

In other words, I left nothing at all out. As you provided no new information that's relevant.

Unpack this: He broke the save pct. record* while having a flat 2.00 GAA - the stats that you continue to cite, he put up the best ever* mark...best ever*. He was left off 13 and a third percent of the ballots and barely netted half the first place votes. Say it out loud and slowly to yourself: He broke the record* for save pct. (reminder: that's the stat you are smitten with), he broke the record* for save pct. and not a small number of NHL GMs didn't think he was a top-3 goalie in the league that record-breaking* season...and moreover, half of them didn't think he was the best goalie in the league that record-breaking* season...

There were 18 seasons of .929+ save pct. in the 15 seasons leading up to that one. There was one that was over .933 (Hasek '99...won the MVP, I'm sure you've heard). Thomas breaks that and distances himself from all comers and now you're gonna come along and downplay it by playing up the other also-rans? That's not gonna work...pick what side of the fence you're on, start a cohesive argument and go from there...you're tearing down your own argument before I can get even to them, it's not any fun...

Your last paragraph is at odds with your first, so I don't need to address. Again, just pick what you're trying to defend, get a case together, and get back to me...this wasn't fun because you provided no new relevant info and you tore down your own "argument" (charitable) before I could even get there...let me know, I'm around...
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
He reminded me a lot of Hasek

You had me til this. I'm ok with anyone thinking Thomas is good...it's fine. I don't agree, but that's life...

The comparison to Hasek though does not jive with reality...they didn't play similarly. That's where I take exception. Again, this whole "non-butterfly goalies are this guy" thing needs to die...respectfully. Whether glass caskets catch on, well, remains to be seen...
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
"Goalie talent" is so ambiguous it's pretty much impossible to separate from results. It's pretty hard to argue it's on "luck" or "his team covers his faults" if you get results. Especially results like winning (two) Vezina trophies, a Conn Smythe and the Stanley Cup... Frankly it seems like you're trolling us a bit, making controversial choices for the sake of generating discussion. For shame, Mike.

Chicanery with respect to Tim Thomas aside, I'd say you put Tuukka Rask, Ondrej Pavelec, Johan Hedberg, Petr Budaj and Devan Dubnyk too high. Conversely you put Sergei Bobrovsky, Chris Osgood, Jose Theodore and Tommy Salo too low.

Goalie talent is not at all ambiguous - it's a competition of skills. What is ambiguous about it? This is how the world functions: on talent evaluation. If you have ever been involved in hiring with your company or with performance evaluations, that's talent evaluation. The hockey world runs on it. It was easy to argue and I already laid out a small piece of that argument.

I don't troll. I don't have that kind of time, nor do I think that's the internet's intended use. The internet is for communicating/sharing ideas, ensuring that no one can lie about anything in a bar ever again, and graphic websites that we read just for the articles...trolling doesn't apply to any of those.

If you care to share your thoughts on the technical aspects of the goalies you listed, I'm all ears...
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->