2022-23 Bruins Season

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,465
What I love about this Bruins team is that they're so deep that they are just RELENTLESS. Every line they roll out there is quality. The opposing defense just can never relax. The Bruins just come at you in waves. BUT they're not just waves of above average players. They're waves of really good players with some superstars thrown in as well.

They're as well suited for the playoffs as any team I can remember. In some ways I think it comes down to (1) puck luck, and (2) Ullmark and Swayman not suddenly turning into pumpkins.
 
Dec 30, 2022
58
Bertuzzi has such great hockey sense and always seems to be in the right place at the right time - all the while looking like the slowest skater on the ice. He also appears to be one of the best passers on the team.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,865
306, row 14
This has been so successful....is there any rumor that the Bruins would change it up for the playoffs? Why in the world would they mess with what's been so wildly successful?
Not sure what line you are talking about. Bertuzzi has not played with Pastrnak a ton. He's primarily been with Coyle.

The constant second line has been Zacha - Krejci - Pastrnak. Their actual results are really good, outscoring opponents 34-14 when they are on the ice. I've been beating this horse dead for a while but that line's underlying numbers are, to be frank, awful.

I would've prefered more tinkering and seeing what Bertuzzi - Krejci - Pastrnak looked like for a meaningful sample size but that opportunity is gone with Krejci being injured. Bertuzzi is a extremely good passwer and Pastrnak is one of the best shooters on the planet. Seems like that pairing would work. As it stands, it appears Hall - Coyle - Bertuzzi will be the 3rd line in the playoffs. That seems great but it's also 3 guys who are most definitely pass first and don't shoot much.
 

durandal1707

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2007
6,668
We have a miniscule sample for Bertuzzi-Zacha-Pastrnak, and honestly it looks very similar to the "Czechia line." 53.5 minutes TOI, 9 to 14 high danger chances, 2.69 to 2.78 expected goals (49.2%), but... 6 to 3 actual goals. A 17% shooting percentage, which is probably going to come down considerably against playoff competition, and the line has been a liability defensively (on-ice save percentage is 89.3%).

It certainly makes for highly entertaining hockey but I doubt it's the best option for winning playoff games.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
11,227
Somerville, MA
I was originally not that impressed with Bertuzzi, but he has settled in nicely.
His strengths are very subtle but meaningful with his stick skills and quickness in small areas, while he visually has some of the slowest feet I've ever seen tracking back into his zone. I'm very much in the same boat in that the first game or two I saw him I was like "What is this?" and now I think he's been a huge addition.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
We have a miniscule sample for Bertuzzi-Zacha-Pastrnak, and honestly it looks very similar to the "Czechia line." 53.5 minutes TOI, 9 to 14 high danger chances, 2.69 to 2.78 expected goals (49.2%), but... 6 to 3 actual goals. A 17% shooting percentage, which is probably going to come down considerably against playoff competition, and the line has been a liability defensively (on-ice save percentage is 89.3%).

It certainly makes for highly entertaining hockey but I doubt it's the best option for winning playoff games.
This is some very revealing data that probably should sober me up after watching them against the Flyers where that defensive liability issue did not exactly bite them.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,507
I, too, think the net is ullmarks. But...
One thing they've got is that if it's apparent he "doesn't have it" some might, they can pull him and it's not Joe Shlabotnik going in for him.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,809
And congrats to Pavel Zacha for wining 7th player!!

I was wondering who was going to win it this season. Had Trent Frederic on my short list, but Zacha was equally deserving with a career high and both goals and assists, and may have helped convince Krejci to return as well. It also means a total of four 7th player awards for the Czech line (Pasta won it 2x).
 

FL4WL3SS

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
14,987
Andy Brickley's potty mouth
What a fucking season. I thought they'd top out at 60 wins and they blew by that and then I thought there was no chance to get to 132. Well then.

7 games ago I sat there and thought about how cool it would be for them to win out and crush both records and here we are.

Unbelievable.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
I find it encouraging that they got these records because they are an incredibly deep team that can rest multiple players a game for weeks, absorb injuries, and still rattle off wins.

They've lost 12 games this year and not one of them did I think, 'that makes sense, the other team is better at hockey.' The worst I have thought was, 'OK they look tired' or 'OK, I wonder if that would have been different with X,Y, or Z in the game.' But they have been just so good wire to wire where even the slump around the all star break was not a big deal.

It is really remarkable to see.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,714
I had this team pegged as a middle-tier team that would most probably make the playoffs and then get knocked out in the first round.

So yeah, I was totally correct! :fonz:
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
Am I the only one who forgot the season was 2 games shorter when the Haba set the record?
It was.

They also had ties at the time so it is not really an apples to apples thing, but I'm not convinced that the comparison always suggests that the Canadiens' season was more impressive.

Between the WHA, the lack of international players, and the still unbalanced team skill levels with expansion (and the fact that Montreal was the only team in their division above .500) I think the Bruins hold up just fine in a discussion of the all time greatest regular season teams.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,507
It was.
They also had ties at the time so it is not really an apples to apples thing, but I'm not convinced that the comparison always suggests that the Canadiens' season was more impressive.
Between the WHA, the lack of international players, and the still unbalanced team skill levels with expansion (and the fact that Montreal was the only team in their division above .500) I think the Bruins hold up just fine in a discussion of the all time greatest regular season teams.
The 76-77 Habs had a +216 goal differential. That's impressive in any era.
 

The B’s Knees

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
266
That Habs team also had 9 hall of famers in the lineup, not including the coach and GM which makes the total 11.

That season would be the 12th consecutive time the Habs would beat the Bruins when facing them in a playoff matchup.
The streak would go to 18 until the B's ended it in 1988.

I still despise that franchise with a passion to this day. They crushed part of my youth.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,465
An incredible season, deserving of any praise to be heaped upon the organization.

But now the real work begins. Not to discount the regular season, but we New England fans have experienced an historic regular season without winning the championship before. Once is enough of that crap. Win the whole thing, then go down as one of the (if not THE) greatest teams ever to lace up skates.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
11,227
Somerville, MA
The other thing I will say is that they haven't exactly had good injury luck. They're not riding some wave of health. Marchand and McAvoy missed the first quarter of the season. DeBrusk was out for 20 games in the middle. Krejci has been in and out for the last month. Hall missed 6 weeks. Foligno is out 6 weeks. Forbort is out for a couple months. They've been hit hard and answered the bell every time they've gotten into a rut for a couple game. That is incredibly encouraging to me in terms of being able to overcome adversity, even if they never really had a bad 10-game stretch that most teams hit. They just keep coming.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
The 76-77 Habs had a +216 goal differential. That's impressive in any era.
It is. I guess I just tend to see some of those Canadien teams as playing in such a different era that I am not going to allow the 82 game schedule and the ties to minimize the Bruins season.

And with regard to goal differential, the history of the game sort of marks the period from 1970-71 through the mid/late 1980s as a period with out of wack goal differentials, presumably because of a number of competitive balance issues in the period.

Notice that 1970-71 to 1979-80 is represented every single year on this list, sometimes with more than one team.
Notice that the 1943-44 Canadiens team is the only pre-1970s team on here at all.
Notice also that of the top 30 teams in goal diff. only the current Bruins, 95-96 Red Wings and that 43-44 Canadiens team are outside this 1971-1989 window.

https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask/largest-goal-differential-in-an-nhl-season
 
Last edited:

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,213
Gallows Hill
It is. I guess I just tend to see some of those Canadien teams as playing in such a different era that I am not going to allow the 82 game schedule and the ties to minimize the Bruins season.

And with regard to goal differential, the history of the game sort of marks the period from 1970-71 through the mid/late 1980s as period with out a wack goal differentials, presumably because of a number of competitive balance issues in the period.

Notice that 1970-71 to 1979-80 is represented every single year on this list, sometimes with more than one team.
Notice that the 1943-44 Canadiens team is the only pre-1970s team on here at all.
Notice also that of the top 30 teams in goal diff. only the current Bruins, 95-96 Red Wings and that 43-44 Canadiens team are outside this 1971-1989 window.

https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask/largest-goal-differential-in-an-nhl-season
I would also argue that any records between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day should be taken with a grain of salt considering the amount of guys that would normally be playing professional sports that were instead in active military service.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
I would also argue that any records between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day should be taken with a grain of salt considering the amount of guys that would normally be playing professional sports that were instead in active military service.
Nice catch.

I did not even think of that, but since you mention it, the NHL that season looks like a beer league that has not quite worked out competitive balance:
Montreal did that in a 50 game season, went 38-5-7, scored 6 or more in 30% of their games and put up a 13 goal night vs. the Bruins. Meanwhile, the Rangers finished 6-39-5 and at a -148.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,507
It is. I guess I just tend to see some of those Canadien teams as playing in such a different era that I am not going to allow the 82 game schedule and the ties to minimize the Bruins season.

And with regard to goal differential, the history of the game sort of marks the period from 1970-71 through the mid/late 1980s as a period with out a wack goal differentials, presumably because of a number of competitive balance issues in the period.

Notice that 1970-71 to 1979-80 is represented every single year on this list, sometimes with more than one team.
Notice that the 1943-44 Canadiens team is the only pre-1970s team on here at all.
Notice also that of the top 30 teams in goal diff. only the current Bruins, 95-96 Red Wings and that 43-44 Canadiens team are outside this 1971-1989 window.

https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask/largest-goal-differential-in-an-nhl-season
Good point.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
An incredible season, deserving of any praise to be heaped upon the organization.

But now the real work begins. Not to discount the regular season, but we New England fans have experienced an historic regular season without winning the championship before. Once is enough of that crap. Win the whole thing, then go down as one of the (if not THE) greatest teams ever to lace up skates.
What team had the most dominant postseason run ever? Be that measured in winning pct, goal differential, etc?
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
12,121
Multivac
It is. I guess I just tend to see some of those Canadien teams as playing in such a different era that I am not going to allow the 82 game schedule and the ties to minimize the Bruins season.

And with regard to goal differential, the history of the game sort of marks the period from 1970-71 through the mid/late 1980s as a period with out of wack goal differentials, presumably because of a number of competitive balance issues in the period.

Notice that 1970-71 to 1979-80 is represented every single year on this list, sometimes with more than one team.
Notice that the 1943-44 Canadiens team is the only pre-1970s team on here at all.
Notice also that of the top 30 teams in goal diff. only the current Bruins, 95-96 Red Wings and that 43-44 Canadiens team are outside this 1971-1989 window.

https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask/largest-goal-differential-in-an-nhl-season
This is an awesome post.
 

tonyandpals

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 18, 2004
7,918
Burlington
re: the Bertuzzi-Zacha-Pastrnak talk, Montgomery made the comment when asked about a possibly keeping 59/88 together, simply saying that change was not coming for the playoffs, but they know what they have to work with. If they need to move to it for whatever reason, at any time, they know it's there. It wouldn't be a surprise to see either of those guys shuffled through another line.
 

Red Right Ankle

Formerly the Story of Your Red Right Ankle
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
12,121
Multivac
What team had the most dominant postseason run ever? Be that measured in winning pct, goal differential, etc?
87-88 Oilers only lost 2 games en route to the Cup which is the fewest ever. The 80-81 Isles outscored opponents by 49 goals in 18 games (most ever) and lost only 3 games.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,465
What team had the most dominant postseason run ever? Be that measured in winning pct, goal differential, etc?
This is a quiz? I will fail. I have no idea the answer to this. I’m imagining one of the great Montreal or Gretzky Edmonton teams.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,465
From 1976-1990 - 15 years' worth of time - Stanley Cup champs....

Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
NY Isles
NY Isles
NY Isles
NY Isles
Edmonton
Edmonton
Montreal
Edmonton
Edmonton
Calgary
Edmonton

So:
Montreal = 5
Edmonton = 5
NY Isles = 4
Calgary = 1

Amazing run of three straight dynasties in a row.
 

Gammon_Clark

New Member
Apr 24, 2010
272
fuck the Habs and fuck anyone trying to take down this record ever. At 64 it's going to stand for a long time. If they win tomorrow and finish with 65 and 135, those sound like forever records to me. Granted, forever is a mighty long time, but with salary caps, efforts at parity by the league via draft protocols, etc... I'm 43 and I'm extremely confident both myself and my 12yr old son will be long gone before this is matched or surpassed again.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
36,865
306, row 14
I guess they've done what they can on the resting front. Since the Orlov deal they've been rotating players in and out on defense each night so they're all about evenly rested. They have Zboril too if they want to sit someone tomorrow.. Up front, Bergeron has had his days off over the last month. Krejci has been off lately with whatever he is dealing with. Lauko sat last night so he can replace someone if they want.

I'm a little surprised Marchand and Pastrnak haven't had a day off. I guess for Marchand he might still be trying to work through the hip stuff. Pasta was chasing 60 and is young so I guess let him play as long as he wants.

I'd definitely start Bussi tomorrow though. The messaging is that Ullmark is fine but there is no sense in risking the backup just in case. Plus it's a reward for a player who has had a really good, unexpected AHL season.
 

sheamonu

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2004
1,345
Dublin, Ireland
That’s right, the Bruins had a chance to wrap that series up in game 6 in Montreal. Instead they gave up 8 goals that night. They had the game tied at 2, and proceeded to get out scored 6-1 after the mid way point. I’m sorry, they scored three goals in that game, it should’ve been plenty. Dryden was damn good in that series, but I think the narrative that was built around a deification of Ken Dryden was a convenient way to let a great team that pissed away a winnable series off the hook.
You're not wrong - and there were other games in that series that hurt even worse than Game 6 (Game 2 - up 5-2 going into the 3rd period). But Dryden was the difference - the Bruins that year thought they could score their way out of any hole (and they were, until Dryden came along - absolutely right). Dryden changed that group from an aging shadow of a dynasty into the winners of the Stanley Cup. The fact that they won the Cup is the only saving grace for the Bruins losing that series (and even that only softens the blow slightly). It also points out what I think might be the major difference between that year's Bruins and this year's and why I still feel the Bobby Orr led version may have been the better (regular season) squad. In 1970-71 the league boasted three original 6 franchises that may have had the best teams they had ever put on the ice to that point in time - and none of them won the Cup. The Bruins - certainly. The Black Hawks were absolutely loaded - the Hulls, Tony Esposito, Stan Mikita, Magnuson, Martin, Maki - stacked. Then there were the Rangers with the GAG line of Hatfield, Ratelle and Gilbert, Ed Giacomin and Brad Park - I think that was (up to then) their best team. Despite the competition being at that level the Bruins had 57 wins and set multiple records. While there may be greater parity nowadays - I don't think there is any franchise that will confidently walk away from this part of the season saying - "we've never had a better team". That said - the one team that - if they win it all - will be able to say that are the Bruins. We shall see.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
Montreal is their last opportunity to 'scrimmage' another team at game speed. And Thursday to Tuesday is plenty of time to overcome the immediate fatigue of this one game. I'm glad they are all going, even if I kinda hope the 4th line plays a bunch of 3 minute shifts in the third.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,809
You're not wrong - and there were other games in that series that hurt even worse than Game 6 (Game 2 - up 5-2 going into the 3rd period). But Dryden was the difference - the Bruins that year thought they could score their way out of any hole (and they were, until Dryden came along - absolutely right). Dryden changed that group from an aging shadow of a dynasty into the winners of the Stanley Cup. The fact that they won the Cup is the only saving grace for the Bruins losing that series (and even that only softens the blow slightly). It also points out what I think might be the major difference between that year's Bruins and this year's and why I still feel the Bobby Orr led version may have been the better (regular season) squad. In 1970-71 the league boasted three original 6 franchises that may have had the best teams they had ever put on the ice to that point in time - and none of them won the Cup. The Bruins - certainly. The Black Hawks were absolutely loaded - the Hulls, Tony Esposito, Stan Mikita, Magnuson, Martin, Maki - stacked. Then there were the Rangers with the GAG line of Hatfield, Ratelle and Gilbert, Ed Giacomin and Brad Park - I think that was (up to then) their best team. Despite the competition being at that level the Bruins had 57 wins and set multiple records. While there may be greater parity nowadays - I don't think there is any franchise that will confidently walk away from this part of the season saying - "we've never had a better team". That said - the one team that - if they win it all - will be able to say that are the Bruins. We shall see.
The 1970-71 Bruins went a combined 4-5-3 against the Rangers and BlackHawks that season.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,299
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
On a completely separate note, it was a touching occasion with Dale Arnold's retirement. I did not know that at one point or another he announced for the Bruins, Red Sox, Celtics, and Patriots.
 

Dick Drago

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2002
1,312
From 1976-1990 - 15 years' worth of time - Stanley Cup champs....

Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
Montreal
NY Isles
NY Isles
NY Isles
NY Isles
Edmonton
Edmonton
Montreal
Edmonton
Edmonton
Calgary
Edmonton

So:
Montreal = 5
Edmonton = 5
NY Isles = 4
Calgary = 1

Amazing run of three straight dynasties in a row.
I can’t help but think about what could have been-the Orr/Espo Bruins gutted by Orr’s injury, WHA defections, and apparently too much nightlife. Feels like they should’ve won at least 2, 3 more titles.
 

barclay

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 27, 2006
1,589
You're not wrong - and there were other games in that series that hurt even worse than Game 6 (Game 2 - up 5-2 going into the 3rd period). But Dryden was the difference - the Bruins that year thought they could score their way out of any hole (and they were, until Dryden came along - absolutely right). Dryden changed that group from an aging shadow of a dynasty into the winners of the Stanley Cup. The fact that they won the Cup is the only saving grace for the Bruins losing that series (and even that only softens the blow slightly). It also points out what I think might be the major difference between that year's Bruins and this year's and why I still feel the Bobby Orr led version may have been the better (regular season) squad. In 1970-71 the league boasted three original 6 franchises that may have had the best teams they had ever put on the ice to that point in time - and none of them won the Cup. The Bruins - certainly. The Black Hawks were absolutely loaded - the Hulls, Tony Esposito, Stan Mikita, Magnuson, Martin, Maki - stacked. Then there were the Rangers with the GAG line of Hatfield, Ratelle and Gilbert, Ed Giacomin and Brad Park - I think that was (up to then) their best team. Despite the competition being at that level the Bruins had 57 wins and set multiple records. While there may be greater parity nowadays - I don't think there is any franchise that will confidently walk away from this part of the season saying - "we've never had a better team". That said - the one team that - if they win it all - will be able to say that are the Bruins. We shall see.
I am absolultely loving this retrospective since -- like others on this board -- the Habs of the 70s left an indelible traumatic imprint on my childhood. To say I don't like them much is being charitable (which I am now capable of being only because of the passage of time combined with the Habs going into the toilet). Lets not forget that the Habs had the rights to the very best of the French Canadian players for years until they changed the rules --which in part accounts for their supremacy. But as to the bolded in the above quote -- in the 7th game of that final (CHI/HABS -- each team winning all their games at home and this last one was in CHI) CHI was up 2-0 and suffocating the Habs on on their way to the win when Lemaire's slapper from damn near center ice was missed by Tony O -- the entire hockey world gasped and the Habs of course won 3-2. Tony faced up to his gaffe but really, they had that game won. The Habs got lucky. I remember that gaffe more than anything in the playoffs. It's still painful.
 

Cotillion

New Member
Jun 11, 2019
5,412
I am absolultely loving this retrospective since -- like others on this board -- the Habs of the 70s left an indelible traumatic imprint on my childhood. To say I don't like them much is being charitable (which I am now capable of being only because of the passage of time combined with the Habs going into the toilet). Lets not forget that the Habs had the rights to the very best of the French Canadian players for years until they changed the rules --which in part accounts for their supremacy. But as to the bolded in the above quote -- in the 7th game of that final (CHI/HABS -- each team winning all their games at home and this last one was in CHI) CHI was up 2-0 and suffocating the Habs on on their way to the win when Lemaire's slapper from damn near center ice was missed by Tony O -- the entire hockey world gasped and the Habs of course won 3-2. Tony faced up to his gaffe but really, they had that game won. The Habs got lucky. I remember that gaffe more than anything in the playoffs. It's still painful.
Bit of myth isn't it? The French Supremacy rule... the thing that really separated them is they apparently setup a fairly modern development system and grew it to a large size before anyone else did.

Myth of the Montreal Canadiens' Early Success (thehockeywriters.com)
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,771
In the simulacrum
Bit of myth isn't it?
I thought the myth was that when they dismantled the rink in the old forum people noticed that the goal Montreal defended in the first and third period was a pinch smaller than the one they defended in the second (and shot on in the first/third).

(Am I the only one who has ever heard this story? Have I somehow just imagined this?)
 

barclay

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 27, 2006
1,589
Bit of myth isn't it? The French Supremacy rule... the thing that really separated them is they apparently setup a fairly modern development system and grew it to a large size before anyone else did.

Myth of the Montreal Canadiens' Early Success (thehockeywriters.com)
Thanks for the article. I do appreciate it and I am always seeking to learn, and I was not aware of Mike Moore's essay. That said, and noting that Moore seems like a decent chap, some of his argument perplexes me and seems to make the point he denies. Perhaps you can help me. For example, he admits that for decades the sponsorship system benefited the Habs (10k players on 750 teams), which he attributes to Selke and increased capital (I think market forces played a much larger role than he gives it credit for -- and more, the existing rules allowed for what amounts to a monopoly on the best payers. The sociological reasons, then, are less causal (the great man) as they are of an "elective affinity" type). He then suggests that it was unfair, for he notes that in the 1960s then President Clarence Campbell, knowing it was unfair and envisioning (and here I quote Moore) "a level playing field", made the NHL replace the sponsorship system with the draft. Unfortunately, the best players (at least for awhile) were already taken. In further speaking to the draft, Moore seizes on the fallacy of the "French Canadien" draft rule which, in deference to the Habs, gave them two FC players of their choice (as if they needed it), but then says it didn't help them. But what DID help was that as a result of the sponsorship rules the Habs were so "deeply stocked" with players that they could trade some of that stock to expansion teams hungry for basic NHL talent so they could garner a paying social base of fans (so it wasn't "just" Pollock after all). Interestingly, he omits that through such efforts the Habs amassed 17 first round draft picks from 1969-1974 (including the one that went to LaFleur). Up to 1979 the Habs won 22 championships. Since then? 2. Wonder why.
 
Last edited: