Those pondering what it says about snooker that a player can return barely having played since the previous year and successfully defend the world title are considering the wrong question.
They should be asking what it says about Ronnie O’Sullivan. And what it says about him is what we already knew: that he’s the best player who ever lived.
He hasn’t always been the most disciplined. He hasn’t always treated snooker with the dedication and respect it requires. For these reasons he hasn’t won as many titles as his fine talent perhaps deserves.
But at his best he is the best and he proved it again in Sheffield this year with a devastating march to a fifth world title.
And he had to play well in the final. The sneers Barry Hawkins had to endure before it began were unfounded. Hawkins played brilliantly but may look back on two key frames which O’Sullivan won on the black, the last of the second session and the third frame today.
I’m not really one to gush, but the clearance O’Sullivan made to win this latter frame was of a quality as high as you are ever likely to see. It was sublime.
There won’t be any snooker player who watched him this year – regardless of personal opinions about O’Sullivan – who won’t have been impressed. He has set the bar and the rest are all beneath it.
What has particularly impressed has been the quality of his matchplay. We all know he can pot great balls and make big breaks but his safety has been exemplary, as has his self control. He has kept his notoriously volatile emotions in check for all of the 71 frames he needed to become world champion again.
The Crucible has been in thrall to this charismatic man since 1993. That’s twenty years of drama and joy, heartbreak and controversy, sound bites and breath-taking snooker. As ever, we have been left wondering how much more we will see of him.
As for what comes next for Ronnie, I suspect even he doesn’t really know. He has proved his competitive desire is still strong. He has proved he can stay focused for the greatest test a snooker player can face – the 17 day marathon of the mind – but whether he will want to slog round the circuit is another matter. With the new prize money ranking system he won’t have to in order to protect his position.
Uniquely this year during the course of the championship he retired and then unretired. But this is all part of the enigma and, indeed, one of the reasons many don’t take to him.
Ronnie is Ronnie. Like Alex Higgins before him he doesn’t seek approval or respectability. Like Higgins he divides opinion.
What nobody can seriously deny is that he played at this year’s World Championship to a level the rest could not match.
Whatever the next chapter in his life and career – an intertwining potboiler which has kept fans and detractors around the world fascinated for more than two decades – he has delivered a satisfying sequel to last year.
He said originally that he wouldn't play but he came, he saw, he conquered. The imperious Ronnie O’Sullivan remains on top of the snooker world…just where this extraordinary player belongs.
69 comments:
A devastatingly brilliant player.Theres no weakness in his game.Strong,solid,and granite like.A great champion,and well deserves his 5th crown.Well done,Ronnie,your AWESOME!
Congrats ronnie I'm really pleased for you on winning a 5th world title !! This championship has proved he's a class apart from the rest of players. And I'm glad he's gone one up on John Higgins
Congratulations to Ronnie for winning it at this stage of his career.
If Ronnie participated in more tournaments would he be able to produce a good enough form to win the world title?
Tonight's final was one of the best I've seen. The tournament wasn't that great in the first week to be honest - apart from the entertainment that "Jack" has provided. But from the second Saturday on, it kept getting better and better. Matches like Murphy v Trump, O'Sullivan v Trump, and even Walden v Hawkins (considering Barry's fantastic comeback) are going to be remembered. The final was brilliant, maybe not as intense as others in terms of drama, but in terms of quality, it was awesome. Barry has lost the final, but many years later, I'm sure he will be thinking: I played as well as I could, and I still lost, but I lost to a man they called "The Rocket", a man they called a genius, a man they called the best player that has ever lived.
Ronnie is a transcendant talent and personality. I thought the 20th frame which Ronnie came back and stole with the reds past the blue and far away from the black and pink was one of the most surprising and sublime performances I've seen in any sport. Then to see Barry's cool response to come back and win the 20th when everyone will have expected him to be heartbroken tells me that he has stones the size of Gibraltar!
To me what's even more remarkable is how Ronnie always gives genuine respect and admiration to his opponents. He said "always knew [Barry] had the talent. Always knew he had the game."
I am new to snooker, so I don't have any perspective. What does everyone think about the quality of the play in the final and in the Championship overall?
I have to admit - I missed him this year. It was my 10th snooker season and 17 days ago I thought to myself that it was the weakest and most boring one. But now it's the most memorable one! Not for the crazy number of tournaments, not for some extraordinary players we've seen this past year. It reminded me how much I used to love this game and how much I missed this thrill when Ronnie is at his best. I hope that this time next year we'll be celebrating his sixth title.
Long live the king!
Dave, it must have been disappointing to be stuck in the Eurosport studio rather than be there at the crucible.
I suppose the question is... Why weren't all the eurosport team there in Sheffield for the most important event in the calendar?
Maybe the answer is cost?
Ronnie's snooker was truly awesome tonight. The post-match interviews with Hazel showed a lot of what is wrong with the way much of the media handles the game. Always asking one question too many. Neither of two reports about the Trump/O'Sullivan game in the Guardian mentioned the snooker - only the off-table issues. No wonder Ronnie gets so exasperated.
Ronnie you are the best and for me always be the one.
Fabulous stuff from Ronnie. 6 centuries in the final and as the commentators said, every time Barry threatened to made decisive inroads into Ronnie's lead with some heavy scoring of his own, Ronnie responded magnificently.
I was one of those who thought the final might not even need a 4th session but Barry happily proved me wrong. He made a few errors with his safety shots though which Ronnie capitalized on but he proved he is a match for anyone in break-building. He is an accomplished match player and I hope to see him make a breakthrough by winning one of the majors next season. Will rather watch him than the grinder Selby anytime really.
As for Ronnie, i hope to see him compete at least at the majors next season. If he plays like he did yesterday, hardly anyone apart from Murphy, Robertson, Selby, Trump and Higgins on their best form could stop him really from holding on to all 3 Triple Crown trophies at the same time.
18-12 Overture.
To win when winning is expected.
To win when only winning will do.
That is what sets O'Sullivan apart from the rest.
He makes the rest seem ordinary and he does it with apparent ease, with panache, with finesse.
A virtuoso of which we will never see the likes of again.
5th World Title - superb.
With ease - amazing.
After a very long absence - incredible.
Overtaking J.Higgins - priceless.
If participating on his own terms means producing the kind if performance that we have been lucky to witness over the past 17 days, then so be it.
Being able to cope in social situations can be a huge challenge for some, almost insurmountable. For others it can be just impossible.
Ronnie has his issues, no secret. Despite everything though, he had been able to face them and return to the very top of the game.
Instead of trying to unravel what makes him tick, trying to interpret what his comments could mean, and condemning him for his misdemeanours, let's just appreciate his talent for what it is. Truly without equal.
What do I do today with no snooker to watch?
At 37 he is oldest champion since 1978 and can't fight the trends of the game forever. He enjoyed a tactical advantage from the year off that you assume won't be repeated. Other seeds fell away in a somewhat providential way as well. Whilst worthy of the tributes and better than Reardon even if he has an extra title as it was a weaker era in depth- he is lucky in that various people like Selby, Robertson have promised much and not really delivered that often when it matters. That won't last may be other players that step up but players dominance is cyclical and ends. No one thought in 99 that Hendry would never win it again nor Davis in 89. ROS long game match in match out has deteriorated. Add the fact he is engaged and perhaps there will be a baby in the house that normally means players standard dips maybe this was it and there won't be a 6th let alone 7th. Everyone lauded J Higgins in similar terms- had more titles in him etc greatest ever- no one really thinks approaching 40 that he will do it again...
Ronnie was absolutely awesome, no getting away from it.
BUT, look at the "names" who lost, early days, during the Crucible journey. I can't think of one who played how he was capable to play.
Regardless of what Hearn says, the players WERE (ARE) burnt out. It is now time for the PTC's to leave the calendar. The players are between a rock and a hard place because, if they don't enter events, they risk being caught in the rankings trap. O'Sullivan looked a lot fresher out there.
There is merit in having a calendar month with no snooker whatsoever, somewhere in the year.
Finally, in response to your comment "He has kept his notoriously volatile emotions in check for all of the 71 frames he needed to become world champion again", that isn't accurate. There were AT LEAST, two occasions when the traditional 'wanker' gesture was there for all to see, disguised as wiping his cue between his legs. On one occasion, it drew a telling off from the Referee.
I attended the quarter final matches at the crucible and its rubbish to say standard was no good this year.....why even a lost Robertson got the golden cue prize for his 143 break! The Murphy/Trump match was excellent and a real highlight.As far as Ronnie goes i don't believe anything he says.... he is enough material for a life of Dr Peters!
Apart from a brief incident wiping his Cue in the semi-final he did just about behave himself.He also really did play brilliantly and whomever he could have faced in the final would have been winning 2nd place. When he is focused and concentrating no -one can beat him.Winnibng 5 finals over a 12 year span is still amazing.,...and he could still win more, but ONLY if he wants to.He mentioned interest in the PTC evens, but also the UK and wild card for the Masters... with his biography coming out in October...sales should be great! Of cource with maintanace ex wife payments ande kids to support he will have to get money someway.... and 1/4 million yesterday must help a lot...although much will go to greedy lawyers i bet!¬
8.47..,
Woulda, coulda, shoulda !
Selby,, Robertson, Ding, Murphy oh yeh, and that wee guy from Wishaw who almost sold the game down the Clyde. Supposing they weren't all too knackered, none have a game anywhere near O'Sullivan's.
They may look descent among each other but that's like comparing a few Div 3 teams with Man U.
When only winning was good enough, Ronnie produced.
The others extinguished themselves.
If the appetite is there, I'll give Hendry's magnificent 7 another 36 months.
he didn't keep his emotion in check when he "masturbated" his cue....
great player and deserved win though.
5th World Title - superb.
BUT NOT THE BEST
With ease - amazing.
HE SAID IT WAS FAR FROM EASY
After a very long absence - incredible.
NOT THAT LONG. HE GOT BEAT BY A NOBODY THEN VANISHED AGAIN.
Overtaking J.Higgins - priceless.
NOT AS PRICELESS AS BEING BEHING HENDRY - STILL
Fantastic achievement by the Rocket. I reckon John Higgins - at his best - would be the one player to have challenged him for the title but Higgins played awful.
If O'Sullivan continues to play he may break some more of Stephen Hendry's records. I think that's the real incentive for Ronnie to continue. Ronnie would love to win seven or even eight WCs. I'm sure he'll continue making comments to threaten to quit - that's part of his personality DNA (!) - but, thankfully, his contradictory personality doesn't impair his snooker skills. He won this year's tournament so easily. It's a bit worrying just how easily he won it. The other players must be thinking "how the heck do we beat this guy?!" I wish them good luck trying to find out how. :)
Is it burn out? Or is it simply that the amount of proper match experience outside of the elite has increased dramatically?
Whereas once you'd perhaps have expected those outside the game's "names" to be phased at least slightly by their occasional tournament appearances, now you'll see many more of them playing to their ability in the majors.
What happens once they run out of space on the trophy for new names? Will they get a new trophy or start rubbing a few out?
Getting rid of the ptc's absolute nonsense.players do not have to play in them you know.snooker is getting like golf or tennis with tournaments nearly every week.why should they scrap events.
I see the jealous Ronnie haters are conspicuous by their absence today.
Probably crying onto their "burnt out" Selby posters. ha ha.
Ronnie the greatest. We're not worthy.
Dave you are keeping quiet on this.what is your opinion do you think he can match davis on 6 or get to hendry's 7.imo i think he has 3 or 4 years left to win the WC.i think one more is within reach.
Hi Paul. I think he could win several more if the desire and discipline is still there.
Dave,
Was White there last night ?
I know they are close and much was made of White's support in the lead up but didn't see him there ?
Cheers,
Graeme.
I backed Ronnie this year,and last year,at a vastly overpriced 8/1,and trust me,absolutely cleaned up both times.Cheers Ronnie!Was never in doubt.Greatest ever player by a yard.
Don't think so Graeme. I'm sure the BBC would have made something of it if he had been.
did ronnie o sullivan dominate in 6 seasons consecutively like hendry and davis did in the 80s and 90s? Did Ronnie o Sullivan win the hat-trick (the UK, Masters and the world title). In Eonnie O sullivans 5 world finals, did ronnie ever have to compete against anyone in the top four of the world? apart from John higgins the answer to this is no, he has only ever had clowns to compete against. now, compare this with legends like Steve Davis and Stephen hendry. personally i believe that he is the third best player to ever lift a cue behind the two aforementioned legends. As for the most talented, i would rate him behind Alex Higgins and Stephen Hendry.
is it possible to argue with this?
it is completely ludicrous to begin to contemplate him as a contender for the best ever player.
6.17...yawn yawn yawn.Leave it be mate,were just rejoicing in Ronnies win,were pleased for him and why not.
To some he will always be the greatest ever.No amount of "facts" or "proving" will sway people,including myself.
Just let it go!
Could hendry take a year out and win it I don't think so. Ronnie is just a special talent a one off. 5 world titles is an amazing achievement considering his past demons. He has nothing left to prove.
Ronnie could play until he was 50 and still win theirs no such thing as decline with him lol if he wanted it I definetly think he could still win another 2 WCs, he actually said in an interview at the world championship launch before the tournament started he felt he had 2-3 more world titles in him potentially.
Stephen hendry hardly played top quality opposition in his finals, nigel bond ? Peter ebdon and desperate jimmy white with no safety game they couldn't live with today's game that's why hendry stopped winning after he was 30 because he got found out no plan b. o'sullivan is a much better tactician and break builder than hendry ever was FACT, and if it weren't for ronnies demons he would of broke every record in the book. We all know deep down he is the greatest, I would actually put davis above hendry on the all time list he had a much more solid game and won more proffessional titles which no one mentions.
Finally there is someone out there who thinks ss i do, to say ron is the best ever is like saying take that are the best because they're no 1 in charts, how people have short memories. yes ron is grest, very great BUT his quality of snooker is & i'm sorry to have to poor cold water on all of the ron fans who think he is the greatest, is not as good as what hendry has produced, when he murders an world class opponent as davis did to parrot in 89, as hendry did to white in 92 (14-8 down to win 14-18), white in 93 18-5) to name just a few of his awesome victorys maybe we can start to consider it, j.higgins has embarrased ron on occasions & set a record number of pionts tally without reply in the grand prix in 07 or 08, i am a ron fan but give it 10 yrs after hes retired for good the ask the quedtion who's the greatest coz at this moment in time it isnt ronnie.
Because I'm bored and waiting for the Dallas finale, I have compiled a few illuminating stats to put these world titles into perspective. Not many surprises really, although Reardon figures more prominently than I assumed he would.
World championships (number of wc) (number of wc including defeat to eventual multiple winner) (including defeat to eventual winner):
Hendry – 7 (11) (13)
Reardon – 6 (10) (10)
Davis – 6 (7) (13)
O'Sullivan – 5 (10) (11)
J. Higgins – 4 (6) (7)
Spencer – 3 (8) (8)
A. Higgins – 2 (6) (8)
Williams – 2 (6) (6)
Number of world finalists beaten during successful world title campaigns (world titles) (number of finalists beaten) (ratio of finalists to wins)
Hendry – 7 (17) (2.43)
Reardon – 6 (18) (3.00)
Davis – 6 (22) (3.67)
O'Sullivan – 5 (15) (3.00)
J. Higgins – 4 (10) (2.50)
Spencer – 3 (10) (3.33)
A. Higgins – 2 (6) (3.00)
Williams – 2 (4) (2.00)
Obviously Hendry has won the most titles, but when you factor in those world championships where a player lost to a multiple-times world champion (i.e. proper world class competition) it is much closer: both O'Sullivan, and surprisingly Reardon come just within one of Hendry. Once you widen the net and include championships where the player lost to the eventual champion then it's a dead heat between Hendry and Davis.
When you look at the number of world finalists beaten during successful campaigns then Davis comes out on top having beaten finalists on 22 occasions in winning his six (over 3.5 matches). That certainly implies there was quite a bit of depth in the 80s field, with Davis coming up against world title challengers as early as the second round. Hendry by contrast rarely encountered them before the semi-finals, although that is probably more due to Davis lacking a truly world class consistent opponent like what Hendry had with Jimmy.
(Memo for this week: lose my virginity)
7.41 - j.white not world class, think the term best player never to win WC springs to mind, course jimmy didn't win a single title in his entire career did he, your obviously an ill informed moron who dont know squat about snookers past, suggest more research, less i love ron fantacies. ever herd of steve davis, john parrot, ken doherty, john higgins, mark williams, joe swail, mathew stevens, paul hunter, seem to remember all these guys being about during hendrys prime & all pretty much came off second best, oh think ron was about early 90's also, durr durr....read'em & weap!
Does anyone understand the post at 9:58pm?
mike mouse @104, spot on.
virgin @958, nice post but I missed 2 important stats: "world finals won/lost ratio" and "successfully defended titles".
Dave, I love to read your views on the event as a whole.
I'm getting a feeling that the consensus is that it was a below-par World Championship.
In terms of playing standard, it clearly was lacking, as many top players failed to perform to their peak.
However, should a World Championship just be judged on this basis?
I believe you've got to factor in other things such as exciting matches, great storylines, benchmark individual performances, upsets and other leftfield ingredients (Poommania!) when assessing the quality of this great tournament.
Personally, this year's staging would get a thumbs up in all the other categories I mentioned.
We only had two classics, the final and Trump-Murphy, but we had more upsets than ever before which, I felt, made it the first round one of the most memorable. Hector Nunns doesn't agree with me though.
The 2002 and 2011 stagings remain my favourites, but I thought this was a superb tournament that defied conventional wisdom with many of the happenings, and was topped off by O'Sullivan, at times, playing snooker only the rest can dream about.
Also, before anyone says it, I didn't think it was an excellent championship because Ronnie won it. Not at all, as last year's event was only very good and he triumphed then.
Would someone explain to me a bit about the Ronnie proposition bets? If he does not compete for the World Championship at all, is your wager refunded?
I enjoyed these comments and have learned a lot from them.
I'm getting a feeling that the consensus is that it was a below-par World Championship.
You do crack me up sometimes Jaime! Only a feeling? In terms of quality it was the worst I have ever watched, but overall I enjoyed it one level: we've had great tournaments that have finished with an anticlimax, and now we've had a dud that finished with a bang. In all fairness the three high quality matches came in succession, with the Trump/Murphy QF, the Ronnie/Trump SF and then the final so the tournament served up continuous entertainment for most of the second week.
Ronnie weren't in his prime then when hendry dominated he would of battered hendry if he was. Ronnie the greatest. Some jealous people on here.
Ronnie's best is of a higher quality to anyone else's. That includes Hendry.
It's a great shame that they didn't meet in the final at Sheffield.
Ronnie's A game v Stephen's A game - Ronnie wins.
So what y saying is ron didn't peak until 01 when he was lets see 25 / 26, hadn't hendry wiped the floor with all & amassed 4 WC by then & what ron did upto that point doesn't count......y having a laugh aren't you ?
So when ron 'supposedly reached his prime' as you say who did he beat....? Oooh it was mr j.higgins...a player who won bugger all between 98 & 07, not satisfied with that 3 yrs later he beat some av player not unlike j.johnson called g.dott to win it again, followed a few years lated with victories againt.......who was it.....oh yeh the phnominon a.carter not once but twice & finally mr hawkins....
Anyone who thinks rons victims are anywhere near hendrys victims equal needs to go to spec saver.....but keep the comedy up, nothing wrong with some belly laughs.....!
No chance, when hendry was at the table you just knew there was a high probability he would score enough to win the frame, unless the balls are well spread y dont get that feeling with ron, ron wss about from 93, they played plenty of times during the 90's & ron was very much second best during this period.
The Ronnie v Trump semi was a whimper not a bang. The Dott v Murphy match was miles better.
Ronnie playing at his best lost several times to Hendry at the Crucible before Hendry lost his 'A' game.
Ronnie scores great in the balls but his long game and pressured snooker (when behind) is way short of Hendry at his best.
All of the other members of the 'big 9' from 13 years ago (Lee, Hunter, Stevens, Hendry, Williams, Higgins, Ebdon, Doherty) would have run him close as they would not have let him in so easily.
The standard in the championship was patchy with an excellent final. Hawkins and Walden were the best two players in the first round (although this seemed to be ignored as they were regarded as 'shock' semi-finalists!)
Ronnie has now pulled level with J.Higgins as the third best player in the modern era- look at the results. Would Ronnie have beaten Steve Davis in the 80s- on occasions yes but regularly no. Would he have beaten Hendry in the 90s - he did on occassions but in the biggest matches at the Crucible in the 90s the record book speaks for itself.
Is Ronnie a better player now than in the 90s- his safety is normally better, as is his temperament but his long game isnt up to it. I suspect Ronnie in 2001 or 2004 would have beaten Ronnie of 2013 before the final.
It is fascinating how different people have varying perceptions on the same performances and results.-Long may the variety of views continue to be expressed.
Hendry the 7th remained the best regular commentater on the freeview service this year- one position that I dont think Ronnie will ever take over from him!
Agreed nothing against Stephen he is a true legend but ronnie wins all the time in my opinion I don't care about stats and titles when I see a genius I see one.
Another World Championship ends, "Greatest of all time" yawnfest begins. Snooker blogs/forums are swamped with this crap every year post-WC final, and it never gets any more interesting.....the "tribal" nature of some "snooker" fans is truly disturbing at times.
One gem did stand out amongst these comments though....Trump-O'Sullivan one of 3 "classics" in this tournament? Seriously? It was awful! Trump spent the entire match trying to force some rhythm and ended up looking like an amateur basher. Did you not count how many times he broke down on 30???
It's a good job the snooker "fans" who crawl out at this time of year, are gone again by June. Bring back Jamie O'Reilly!
Give everyone a six month break. Hendry, Davis, the wee vodka swilling fella from Wishaw. Each at their respective peaks.
Each enters to play in the WC.
Who is your money on ?
I think we all know the answer.
Onwards... when is the Stephen Lee case due to be 'heard' - surely they aren't going to make him miss events from next season as well if he is going to be cleared...
Whats all this yr out crap, since when does nov to may count as a year ? & lets not pretend its the same as a footballer breaking his leg & unable to kick a ball for 6 months. rons had plenty of practice since hes been out, you make it sound like he hasnt picked up a cue for 5 months, bit rediculas dont you think!
So far i've read all the posts on this hendry osullivan thing & there just doesnt seem to be a compelling argument to back up the ronnie is better argument, all the stats that actually mean anything, quality of opposition, domination periods etc back the hendry argument, if someone has a statistic which categorically backs the ron corner please lets have it, not just rons better becasue he is rubbish like a 12 yr old would, i'm a neutral & dont care eitherway & as a neutral the evidence supports hendrys case.
04 semi final prime example, hendry didn't get a look in and 08 semi final.
Why do you mean pull level with John Higgins he won far more than him. Higgins is second best all the time against ronnie. More world titles more uks and more masters and loads more centuries.
People talk rubbish on this forum most fellow pros say o'sullivan is the greatest so there opinion should have more meaning than these ones surely especially as they know how easy he makes the game look at times, and with 5 world titles he should be within a shout of being the greatest not saying is but up there with hendry and davis in my book. A lot of people say who wins the most trophies are the greatest but that ain't the case look at tennis a lot of people say laver was the greatest but federer won more and in f1 schu won more but a lot said senna it's down to personal choice there's no right or wrong.
No one is disputing the genius fact, but this alone does not make him the best.
Stephen who, couldn"t care less to be honest.
Many comments on bbc sport snooker site from pros about poor standard of play this year, can only agree it was prob. worst year since 70's standard wise, some very mediocer play at times.
I'm a ronnie fan but even i have to admit his record is inferrior to that of davis & hendry, he prob needs to match their no of WC wins to be considered an equal, while he's playing he's got a chance, if he's not playing he's got no chance.
one bet you can be sure of - most of the top 16 wont be entering next years China Open which finishes just 12 days before Sheffield (excluding travel time)
JIM,0,69, you are, so correct, in my view.
Stephen Lee was cleared in the Premier League case, the WSA announced it just before the WC. I posted it up on here but for some bizarre reason Hendon nixed my post. As for the other allegations I think those still stand, but the WSA should really wrap it up before the new season starts or lift the suspension until the hearing.
Think we need to look deeper than 2 matches, for instance rons been about since 93 or 20 yrs, if we were to say the WC wss one of the key components in assessing both players how does hendrys first 20 yrs compare 86 on i think, all things being equal start to finish who's had most wins, finals, semi, qtr, 2nd rnd & rnd 1 losses ?
Oh c'mon, y dont really expect davis to sit there & say i'm the greatest then hendry to turn to steve & say 'hold on a minute chum but i believe i'm the greatest' or even say 'your right steve, u r the greatest', that would be laughable & destroy the aura that has come to be, more a case of players overdoing politeness.
Cleared?
Well, the WSA dropped the charge apparently. It's not quite the same as exonerating him, but if they had the evidence then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have dropped the charge.
Post a Comment