Connect with us

Culture

Why Guardiola, Maresca and Salah love chess: Space, patterns and 'controlling the centre'

Published

on

Why Guardiola, Maresca and Salah love chess: Space, patterns and 'controlling the centre'

Follow live coverage of Chelsea vs Manchester City in the Premier League today

What do Pep Guardiola and Enzo Maresca have in common?

Coaches wedded to a certain style of football? Midfielders who became managers? Worked together at Manchester City? Bald? All of these things are true, but that’s not the answer we have on the card.

The answer we’re looking for? Chess.

Both men, who meet at Stamford Bridge this afternoon, are keen proponents of the idea that football can learn plenty from chess, and they as coaches can take valuable lessons from it too.

Advertisement

After leaving Barcelona in 2012, Guardiola took a sabbatical and travelled to New York, where he met with Garry Kasparov, the Russian grandmaster. He has also studied the methods of the world’s top-ranked chess player, Magnus Carlsen.

“You have no idea how similar the two things are,” Guardiola said in Pep Confidential, Marti Perarnau’s book about his first season at Bayern Munich. “There was one thing Carlsen said that I loved. He said that it doesn’t matter if he has to make some sacrifices at the start of the game because he knows he is strongest in the latter stages. It got me thinking and I must learn how I can apply it to football.”

  • Want to stay up to date with the best news and features as the PL season kicks off? Sign up (for free) to The Athletic FC newsletter

Maresca dedicated large tracts of his 7,000-word coaching thesis, written for his diploma at the Italian coaching school Coverciano, to chess. “A coach can only benefit from acquiring the mind of a good chess player,” Maresca wrote. “I concluded that playing chess can train the mind of a coach. The fundamental element of chess is the logic that leads a player to understand and thus predict the opponents’ moves.”

Maresca also highlighted the two games’ tactical similarities. “The chess board is like a football pitch that can be divided into three channels — a central one and two external ones. In football as in chess, an inside game can be more interesting as it’s the quickest and most direct towards goal or the king.”

The similarities in how space is used also came up in an interview with Carlsen and Guardiola. “In chess and football, the important thing is to control the middle,” Carlsen said as Guardiola looked on, rapt. “If you control the middle, you control the pitch or the board. Another thing is that in chess, you attack on one side, so you overload, and then you switch so you have an advantage on the other side. In terms of space, it’s remarkably similar.”

Most people reading this piece will know why ‘controlling the middle’ is important in football, but an explanation in chess might be worth making. “Each of the pieces moves differently, but nearly all of them are better in the centre,” Gawain Jones, a grandmaster who recently won his third British Championship, tells The Athletic.

“It’s one of the first maxims you are taught: get your pieces out and control the centre squares, and starve your opponent of space and they’re hemmed in at the sides. The knights are referred to as ‘octopuses’ because they can move to eight squares, whereas if they’re at the side they can only go to three or four.”

In his book Football and Chess: Tactics, Strategy, Beauty, Adam Wells draws further parallels. “At the most fundamental level,” Wells writes, “football and chess involve using space effectively and getting the timing right to break down an opponent’s defence while preventing them from breaking down yours.

“And that’s it. There are very few limiting rules. There are no complicated scoring systems or procedures of play that have to be followed. It is clear cut: you must capture pieces or score goals while staying within the confines of the board or pitch.’


The list of football coaches and managers who apply chess to their profession is lengthy. During the European Championship this summer, Switzerland coach Murat Yakin was asked about a match being a ‘poker game’, to which he responded that he doesn’t like poker because too much depends on what hand you are given, and that he prefers chess.

Advertisement

“There are certainly parallels when it comes to tactics,” he told magazine Schweizer Illustrierte before the tournament. “I explain simple (chess) moves to my daughters: which steps they can make with which piece, how they have to think ahead and how to safeguard their tactics. If I set a strategy for the team, I have to be able to explain easily what I mean exactly.”

go-deeper

Rafa Benitez is a keen — and very competitive — player, which fits with the perception of a manager who doesn’t so much see 11 human beings running around on a football pitch, more 11 pieces that he emotionlessly shifts.

Maybe the most enthusiastic chess player in football management is former Barcelona and Villarreal coach Quique Setien, who used to compete in tournaments. At one point, he was so highly rated that, according to an interview with the Spanish newspaper Marca, he could have represented “51 of the countries at the Chess Olympiad”.

“As many as you wish to find,” he told Marca when asked about the similarities between football and chess. “You can be an offensive player, but you always need to control what’s going on in your camp, without leaving pieces unattended, in a synchronised way. The same happens in football when you have a coordinated team, in which all the players are connecting.”


Borussia Dortmund coach Mathias Kolodziej is watched by staff and players (Alexandre Simoes/Borussia Dortmund/Getty Images)

Perhaps slightly more surprising is the number of footballers who swear by chess.

Mohamed Salah told Sky Sports in 2023 that he was “addicted” and is rated at around 1,400, which, according to Chess.com, puts him somewhere between ‘decent’ and ‘proficient’. Salah mostly plays online, with a username that is his actual name with a bunch of numbers after it: he said he enjoys messing with people who ask him if he actually is Mohamed Salah.

Advertisement

Christian Pulisic almost seems to play as much chess as he does football: for him it’s partly an emotional connection, having been taught the game by his grandfather (he has a tattoo of a queen on his arm, with Mate, his grandfather’s name, beneath it), and partly a distraction because he started playing again regularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

“It’s an incredible game that can help you with a lot of things, like problem-solving or seeing different patterns,” Pulisic told the Daily Mail in 2021. “I’m not saying it directly correlates to me being a better footballer but it’s certainly better than staring at a screen, gaming. It can really help you to stay sharp in your head — you have to think very quickly.”

New Barcelona midfielder Dani Olmo believes chess can inform his use of space. “On the pitch, I try to think about every movement,” he told Sky Sports, “not just to move left because the ball is going left. I am always trying to find the best solutions when I have the ball and when I do not have the ball. Either for me or the team-mate, to create space for other guys or even for myself.”

This tallies with something Jones tells The Athletic. “Chess tactics tend to focus on pattern recognition,” he says, “recognising that there is something not quite right with the opposition’s tactics.”

For Anthony Gordon and Trent Alexander-Arnold, chess is more akin to brain training. “Chess is a life skill because it applies to everything,” Gordon told the BBC this year. “It’s a very peaceful game. It gets my brain working, which I love.”

Advertisement

Alexander-Arnold played Carlsen in a game arranged by sponsors in 2018: predictably he was routed in 17 moves, but you don’t have to be able to compete with the best player in the world to benefit. “It helps with concentration,” Alexander-Arnold said. “Because it takes a lot of concentration throughout both games to really focus on what your opponent is doing and how they’re trying to attack and hurt you. I think you can take notes from both of them and use them in each other’s games.”

The Liverpool defender isn’t the only player who has faced Carlsen, himself an almost obsessive football fan who, for a while, topped the world rankings in Fantasy Premier League. Pulisic, Martin Odegaard and former Real Madrid midfielder Esteban Granero are among those who have faced Carlsen.


Magnus Carlsen, chess champion, FPL master (Koen Suyk/ANP/AFP/Getty Images)

Others just use it to pass the time: Harry Kane took up chess after watching Netflix drama The Queen’s Gambit and has continued at Bayern Munich, playing against team-mates Joshua Kimmich and Kingsley Coman. “I use chess to switch off,” Kane told GQ. “It’s such a mental game. You have to focus on every moment, every move.”

During Euro 2024, the Netherlands squad travelled around Germany by train and on these long journeys, Bart Verbruggen and defender Stefan de Vrij would set up a board and play a game or two.


Chess also has a firm place in the language of football, but perhaps erroneously. When a match is likened to ‘a game of chess’, it’s normally a cypher for ‘this game is slow and boring’.

Advertisement

A more generous interpretation would describe a very controlled, cagey match, which fits the perception of chess. Jones argues that chess is a much more reactive game than that, which strengthens the link between it and football. “It’s much more chaotic than we would like to think,” he says. “It’s good to have a long-term plan, but you can’t just stick to it: it’s all about adapting your plan to what your opponent is doing. From that perspective, it’s much more like a team sport. You have to be reactive.”

Players or coaches are often said to be thinking three or four moves ahead, but that’s a misnomer. “I don’t think it’s that practical,” says Jones. “It’s more about thinking one move ahead. It’s just about making the right move. There’s always the idea of balancing your plan and your opponent’s. There will be some calculation involved, but chess is understood as a much more dry, mathematical game than it actually is.”

There are reasons to be sceptical about the influence of chess on football. The obvious difference is footballers are sentient while chess pieces are not: a chess player can have a plan and enact it while only worrying about their opponent, whereas a football coach has to rely on 11 independent human beings doing as they’re told.

But even if the realistic influence is relatively thin, there are ‘marginal gains’ that explain why coaches are so keen on chess. Someone like Guardiola will do or study almost anything if they think it will give them even the smallest advantage. “He does it with anyone who can contribute any small idea to continue progressing,” Marti Perarnau, Guardiola’s biographer, told the Spanish journalist Kike Marin about the manager’s meetings with Carlsen.

Like anyone who is good at anything, Guardiola and other football managers take inspiration and influence from many different sources, but that so many elite figures look to chess tells you the strength of its influence.

Advertisement

“If we’re the ones initiating the action, as opposed to simply reacting, then we’ll control the flow of the game,” Guardiola says in Perarnau’s book Pep Guardiola: The Evolution when describing similarities between chess and football. “The opponents then have to react to what we do, which automatically means a limited choice of options. It makes them more predictable.

“It’s a cycle: you take control, show that you have the upper hand and then you slam home your advantage… this is what it means to eclipse the opposition.”

go-deeper

GO DEEPER

How Pep Guardiola takes inspiration from other sports

Advertisement

Culture

Historical Fiction Books That Illustrate the Bonds Between Mother and Child

Published

on

Historical Fiction Books That Illustrate the Bonds Between Mother and Child

We often think of the past as if it were another world — and in some ways, it is. The politics, religion and social customs of other eras can be vastly different from our own. But one thing historians and historical fiction writers alike often notice is the constancy of human emotion. The righteous anger of a customer complaining about a Mesopotamian copper merchant in 1750 B.C. feels familiar. Tributes to beloved household pets from ancient Romans and Egyptians make us smile. And we are captivated by stories of love, betrayal and sacrifice from Homer to Shakespeare and beyond.

In literature, letters, tablets and even on coins, we find overwhelming evidence that people in the past felt the same emotions we do. Love, hate, fear, grief, joy: These feelings were as much a part of their lives as they are of our own. And they resonate especially acutely in the bond between mother and child. Here are eight historical novels that explore the meaning of motherhood across the centuries.

Continue Reading

Culture

How ‘The Sheep Detectives’ Brought its Ovine Sleuths to Life

Published

on

How ‘The Sheep Detectives’ Brought its Ovine Sleuths to Life

Sometime in the 2000s, the producer Lindsay Doran asked her doctor for a book recommendation. “I’m reading that book everybody’s reading,” the doctor replied. “You know, the one about the shepherd who’s murdered and the sheep solve the crime.”

Doran had not heard of the book, “Three Bags Full,” a best-selling novel by a German graduate student (“No one’s reading it,” she recalls responding, inaccurately), but she was struck by what sounded like an irresistible elevator pitch. “Everything came together for me in that one sentence,” she said. “The fact that it was sheep rather than some other animal felt so resonant.”

Doran spent years trying to extricate the book from a complicated rights situation, and years more turning it into a movie. The result, opening Friday, is “The Sheep Detectives,” which features Nicholas Braun and Emma Thompson as humans, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Patrick Stewart and others giving voice to C.G.I. sheep stirred from their customary ruminations by the death of their shepherd, George (Hugh Jackman).

The film, rated PG, is an Agatha Christie-lite mystery with eccentric suspects, a comically bumbling cop (Braun) and a passel of ovine investigators. It’s also a coming-of-age story about growing up and losing your innocence that might have a “Bambi”-like resonance for children. The movie’s sheep have a way of erasing unpleasant things from their minds — they believe, for instance, that instead of dying, they just turn into clouds — but learn that death is an inextricable part of life.

“In some ways, the most important character is Mopple, the sheep played by Chris O’Dowd,” the screenwriter, Craig Mazin, said in a video interview. “He has a defect — he does not know how to forget — and he’s been carrying his memories all alone.”

Advertisement

“Three Bags Full” is an adult novel that includes grown-up themes like drugs and suicide. In adapting it for a younger audience, Mazin toned down its darker elements, changed its ending, and — for help in writing about death — consulted a book by Fred Rogers, TV’s Mister Rogers, about how to talk to children about difficult subjects.

The journey from book to film has been long and circuitous. “Three Bags Full” was written by Leonie Swann, then a 20-something German doctoral student studying English literature. Distracting herself from her unwritten dissertation, on the topic of “the animal point of view in fiction,” she began a short story “playing around with the idea of sheep detectives,” she said. “And I realized it was more like a novel, and it wasn’t the worst novel I’d ever seen.”

Why sheep? “I wasn’t someone who was thinking about sheep all the time,” Swann, who lives in the English countryside and has a dog named Ezra Hound, said in a video interview. Yet they have always hovered on the periphery of her life.

There was a friendly sheep that she used to see on her way to school. There was an irate ram that once chased her through the streets of a Bavarian village. And there were thousands and thousands of sheep in the fields of Ireland, where she lived for a time. “There were so many of them, and you could tell there was a lot of personality behind them,” she said.

A book in which sheep are stirred to action had to be a mystery, she said, to motivate the main characters. “In a lot of other stories, you would have trouble making a sheep realize there’s a story there,” she said. “They would just keep grazing. But murder is an existential problem that speaks to sheep as well as humans.”

Advertisement

Swann (the name is a pseudonym; she has never publicly disclosed her real name) found a literary agent, Astrid Poppenhusen, who brought her manuscript to market. Published in 2005, the book was translated into 30 languages and ended up spending three and a half years on German best-seller lists. (The German title is “Glennkill,” after the village in which it takes place.) Other novels followed, including a sheep-centric sequel, “Big Bad Wool,” but Swann never finished her dissertation.

Doran, the producer, read the book — now published in the United States by Soho Press, along with four other Swann novels — soon after hearing about it. She was determined to make it into a movie. Whenever she told anyone about the idea, she said, she had them at “sheep.”

The director, Kyle Balda (whose credits include “Minions”), was so excited when he first read the script, in 2022, that “I immediately drove out to a sheep farm” near his house in Oregon, he said in a video interview. “Very instantly I could see the behavior of the sheep, their different personalities. I learned very quickly that there are more varieties of sheep than dogs.”

How to make the sheep look realistic, and how to strike the proper balance between their inherent sheep-iness and their human-esque emotions were important questions the filmmakers grappled with.

It was essential that “the sheep in this world are sheep” rather than humans in sheep’s clothing, Balda said. “It’s not the kind of story where they are partnered with humans and talking to each other.”

Advertisement

That means that like real sheep, the movie sheep have short attention spans. They’re afraid to cross the road. “They don’t drive cars; they don’t wear pants; they’re not joke characters saying things like, ‘This grass would taste better with a little ranch dressing,’” Doran said.

And whenever they speak, their words register to humans as bleating, the way the adult speech in “Peanuts” cartoons sounds like trombone-y gibberish to Charlie Brown and his friends.

Lily, the leader of the flock, is played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus. It is not her first time voicing an animal in a movie: She has played, among other creatures, an ant in “A Bug’s Life” and a horse in “Animal Farm.” “When I read the script, I thought, ‘Wow, this is so weird,’” she said in a video interview. “It’s not derivative of anything else.”

Lily is unquestionably not a person; among other things, like a real sheep, she has a relatively immobile face set off by lively ears. “But her journey is a human journey where she realizes certain things about life she didn’t understand,” Louis-Dreyfus said. “There’s also the question of being a leader, and how to do that when you’re questioning your own point of view.”

Nicholas Braun took easily to the role of Officer Tim, the inept constable charged with solving the shepherd’s murder.

Advertisement

“The part was a little Greg-adjacent in the beginning, and I don’t really want to play too many Gregs,” Braun said via video, referring to Cousin Greg, his hapless punching bag of a character in the TV drama “Succession.”

“I’m post-Greg,” he said.

It takes Officer Tim some time to notice that the neighborhood sheep might be actively helping him tackle the case. But Braun said that unlike Greg, who is stuck in perpetual ineptitude, Tim gets to grow into a braver and more assertive person, a take-charge romantic hero — much the way the sheep are forced into action from their default position of “just forgetting about it and moving on and going back to eating grass,” he said.

Braun mused for a bit about other potential animal detectives — horses, say, or cows — but concluded that the sheep in the film were just right for the job. He predicted that the movie would change people’s perception of sheep, much the way “Toy Story” made them “look at their toys, or their kids’ toys, differently.”

“I don’t think people are going to be eating as much lamb after this,” he said.,

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Culture

In Her New Memoir, Siri Hustvedt Captures Life With, And Without, Paul Auster

Published

on

In Her New Memoir, Siri Hustvedt Captures Life With, And Without, Paul Auster

Siri Hustvedt was halfway through a new novel, about a writer tasked with completing his father’s unfinished manuscript, when her husband, the novelist Paul Auster, died from lung cancer.

Continuing that story in his absence felt impossible. They were together for 43 years, the length of her career. She’d never published a book without his reading a draft of it first.

Two weeks later, in the Brooklyn townhouse they shared, she sat down and wrote the first two sentences of a new book: “I am alive. My husband, Paul Auster, is dead.”

“It was the only thing I could write about,” she said.

She wrote about her feelings of dislocation: how she vividly smelled cigar smoke, even though Auster had quit smoking nine years before; how she woke up disoriented on his side of the bed and got into the bath with her socks still on; how she felt a kind of “cognitive splintering” that bordered on derangement. She had lost not only her husband, but also the person she had been with him. She felt faded and washed-out, like an overexposed photograph.

Advertisement

Those reflections grew into “Ghost Stories,” Hustvedt’s memoir about her life with and without Auster. Partly a book about grief and its psychological and physiological side effects, it’s also a revealing and intimate glimpse into a literary marriage — the buoyant moments of their early courtship, their deep involvement in each other’s work, their inside jokes (“I’ll have the lamb for two for one”).

She also writes publicly for the first time about the tragedies the family endured several years ago, when Auster’s son, Daniel, who struggled with addiction, took heroin while his infant daughter Ruby was in his care, and woke up to find she wasn’t breathing. He was later charged with criminally negligent homicide, after an examination found that her death was caused by acute intoxication from opioids. Soon after he was released on bail, Daniel, 44, died of a drug overdose.

A few months later, Auster started to come down with fevers, and doctors later discovered he had cancer. He reacted to the news as perhaps only a novelist would — lamenting that dying from cancer would be such an obvious, unsatisfying ending to a life marked by so much tragedy.

“He said so many times, it would make for a bad story,” Hustvedt said. “It was so predetermined, almost, and he hated predictable stories.”

Tall and lanky with short blond hair, Hustvedt, who is 71, met me on an April afternoon at the elegant, art and book-filled townhouse in Park Slope where the couple lived for 30 years. She took me to the sunlit second floor library, where Auster spent his final days, surrounded by his family and books. “He loved this room,” Hustvedt said.

Advertisement

“I’ll show you his now quiet typewriter,” she said, leading me down to Auster’s office on the ground floor, which felt as tranquil and carefully preserved as a shrine. A desk held a small travel typewriter, an Olivetti, and next to it, his larger Olympia. “Click clack, it really made noise,” Hustvedt said.

Auster rose to fame in the 1980s thanks to postmodern novels like “City of Glass” and “Moon Palace,” which explore the mysteries and unreliability of memory and perception. Hustvedt gained renown for heady and cerebral literary novels that include “The Blazing World,” “What I Loved” and “The Summer Without Men.”

They were each other’s first readers, sharpest editors and biggest fans. They even shared characters — Auster borrowed Iris Vegan, the heroine of Hustvedt’s 1992 novel “The Blindfold,” and extended her story in his novel “Leviathan,” published the same year. (Critics and readers assumed she had used his character, not the other way around.)

“We were very different writers and always were, and that was part of the pleasure in the other’s work,” Hustvedt said.

Friends of the couple who have read “Ghost Stories” said they were moved by Hustvedt’s loving but not hagiographic portrait of her husband.

Advertisement

Salman Rushdie, who visited Auster just a few days before he died, said Hustvedt’s vivid portrayal of Auster — who was witty, warm and expansive, always ready with a joke — captured a side of him that was rarely reflected in his public image as a celebrated literary figure.

“He’s very present on the page,” Rushdie said. “They were so tightly knit, and Paul was Siri’s greatest champion. They were deeply engaged in each other’s work.”

Hustvedt was 26, a budding writer who had just published a poem in the Paris Review, when she met Auster, 34, after a reading at the 92nd Street Y. He was wearing a black leather jacket, smoking, and she was instantly smitten.

They went downtown to a party, then to a bar in Tribeca, and talked all night. He was married to the writer Lydia Davis, but they had separated. He showed her a photo of his and Davis’s 3-year-old son, Daniel. They kissed as she was about to get into a taxi, and he went home with her to her apartment on 109th Street.

Shortly after they began seeing each other, Auster broke it off and told her that he had to return to his wife and son. She won him back with ardent, unabashed love letters that she quotes in “Ghost Stories”: “I love you. I’m not leaving yet, not until I am banished.”

Advertisement

In 1982, a few days after Auster’s divorce, they got married. They were so broke that guests had to pay for their own dinners.

Their writing careers evolved in parallel, but Auster’s fame eclipsed Hustvedt’s. She often found herself belittled by interviewers who asked her what it was like to be married to a literary genius, and whether her husband wrote her books.

“People used to ask me what my favorite book of Paul’s was; no one would ever ask him that,” Hustvedt recalled.

When Hustvedt complained about the disparity, Auster joked that the next time a journalist asked what it was like to be married to him, she should brag about his skills as a lover.

The slights persisted even after Hustvedt had established herself as a formidable literary talent. “One imagines that will go away, but it didn’t,” she said. She’s sometimes felt reduced to “Paul Auster’s wife” even after his death: At a recent reading, a fan of his work asked if she took comfort in reading his books in his absence, as if the real loss was the death of the literary eminence, not the man she loved.

Advertisement

She felt the weight of his reputation acutely when Auster died, and news of his death spread online just moments after he stopped breathing, before the family had time to tell people close to him.

The shadow Auster’s fame cast over the family became especially pronounced when scandal and tragedy struck.

In “Ghost Stories,” Hustvedt details a side of Auster’s personal life that he closely guarded: his relationship with Daniel, whose drug use and shiftiness was a constant source of worry. As a teenager, he stole more than $13,000 from her bank account, her German royalties. In 2000, Auster and Hustvedt learned that Daniel had forged his transcripts from SUNY Purchase after he had promised to re-enroll; he hadn’t, and kept the tuition money.

After each breach of trust, she and Auster forgave him.

“I have to leave the door open, just a crack,” Paul said about Daniel, Hustvedt recalls in “Ghost Stories.”

Advertisement

She writes about rushing to the hospital in Park Slope, where Daniel’s daughter was pronounced dead: “It’s the image of her small, perfect dead body in the hospital on Nov. 1, 2021, that forces itself on me.”

The shock of Ruby’s death, followed by Daniel’s arrest and overdose, was made even more unbearable by the media frenzy. Auster and Hustvedt were hounded by reporters, and made no comment.

“We were not in a position to speak about it when it happened, it was all so shocking and overwhelming and trying to deal with your feelings was more than enough,” Hustvedt told me.

But she felt she had to write about Daniel and Ruby in “Ghost Stories” because their lives and deaths were a crucial part of the family’s story, yet had been reduced to lurid tabloid fodder, she said.

“It would not have been possible to write this book and pretend that these horrible things didn’t happen,” she said. “I also didn’t want the horrible things to overwhelm the book, and that’s a tricky thing, because it’s so horrible, you feel it has to be there, but it isn’t the whole story.”

Advertisement

Before he died, Auster told Hustvedt he wanted that story to be told.

“I didn’t feel that I was betraying him,” she said.

Auster and Hustvedt’s daughter, Sophie Auster, a musician who lives in Brooklyn, said reading her mother’s memoir was painful, but she also felt her father’s voice and presence in its pages.

“Opening the book was extremely difficult for me, but you just sink in,” she said. “She doesn’t let you sit in the sorrow for too long. There’s a lot of life and a lot of joy.”

Hustvedt found it strange to write “Ghost Stories” without sharing drafts with Auster, her habit throughout her career. But often, his voice popped into her head.

Advertisement

“I kind of heard him in my ear, saying things like, ‘That’s a wavy sentence, straighten that thing out,’” she said.

After finishing the memoir, Hustvedt went back to the novel she’d been working on when Auster died. She realized she had to rewrite the first half entirely.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending