# Tim Duncan or Drob?



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

which was the better player? both were known to be some of the best defenders in league history with great offensive skills.


----------



## TonyMontana_83 (Dec 4, 2004)

I bet I can guess who's gonna win this poll.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

doesnt look too close


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Timmay. It's his understanding for the game that puts him above the admiral.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I'm sure Duncan will win this, but I think it may be a case of forgetting recent history. 

It's a tough comparison in a way, because a lot of Duncan's attributes are tough to measure. But I still have to go with Robinson, who was: 1) longer, 2) more athletic, 3) a much more feared defender (believe it!), and 4) more dominant offensively. During the years that they overlapped on the Spurs, Duncan was generally the superior player (although even their teammates considered Robinson more important in their defensive schemes). But looking at Robinson's overall career, I think he has it over Duncan by a nose. 

Duncan may get the nod from me in time if he keeps up his steady, strong performance for several more years. Robinson was more spectacular and (again I'll say) more dominant, but perhaps Duncan will prove to be more durable.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Timmay. It's his understanding for the game that puts him above the admiral.


But do you really think Robinson understood the game less well?


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 24, 2004)

D-Rob, mostly because I'm partial towards dominant offensive players. Tim Duncan has never been dominant offensively and isn't very athletic. D-Rob could explode and get huge numbers, he even scored 71 against the Clips one game.


----------



## jminges (Aug 25, 2005)

David Robinson.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

I think Duncan by a hair


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

D-Rob in his prime was like Amare in the last playoffs, but with 200% more defense, and a lot bigger.

If Duncan actually played the center position full time, as he is built for, against the competition D-Rob faced, he'd be less jocked than he is now.

As it stands, in the structured system Duncan plays in (offense and defense), with another big man standing closer to the basket behind him (as a PF), or a shooting big man in front of him (playing C with Horry as PF), D-Rob would be more effective.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Robinson was a smart player. It's difficult to say who had a better understanding of the game.
D-Rob was the better defender, though not by a whole lot.
Robinson scored more and did it more efficiently, but he didn't draw as many double teams. They are roughly equal in passing. I'd say Robinson was slightly better offensively.
Playoff performance drags D-Rob down a bit, but overall I still think he's better.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jericho said:


> But do you really think Robinson understood the game less well?


Yes. Duncan is one of the most cerebral players of all-time. David Robinson is one of the most imposing physical specimens of all time with his combination of height, strength, length and athleticism. I think they're pretty similar but it comes down to Robinson's advantage physically against Duncan's advantage mentally. 

That's not to say Duncan isn't athletic, or that Robinson isn't a smart player, but compared to the other, they are inferior in those aspects.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

david robinson and its not even close.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

PartisanRanger said:


> D-Rob, mostly because I'm partial towards dominant offensive players. Tim Duncan has never been dominant offensively and isn't very athletic. D-Rob could explode and get huge numbers, he even scored 71 against the Clips one game.



That 71 was not a true 71 btw. That was the Clips basically giving DRob the scoring title over Shaq. I'm pretty sure coming into the last game he needed to score 60-70 pts to win it and they let him.

As far as the thread ... tough one. By the end of his career I think it would definitely be Duncan. Right now, i'd probably still go with Duncan but barely.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

JNice said:


> That 71 was not a true 71 btw. That was the Clips basically giving DRob the scoring title over Shaq. I'm pretty sure coming into the last game he needed to score 60-70 pts to win it and they let him.


they didn't let him do anything. these guys are still nba players with will and pride...they were fouling david hard to stop him.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/8895/71sco.htm


----------



## spursindonesia (Mar 6, 2003)

DRob was the better athlete, TD's the better BBall player


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't know how anyone can say it's not close. That's basically saying today's NBA is extremely inferior to what it was in the 90's.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

3 titles as team's best player > D-Rob's career. It comes to rings when it comes to 2 great players. TD just did it better than D-Rob ever could in his prime.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

Duncan just has "IT."


----------



## The-Future-Phenom (Oct 4, 2005)

Robinson was a *great* but Timothy edges him out.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Robinson was the superior player. In his prime, he was a more dominant scorer than Duncan _and_ a superior defensive player, one of the five best defensive big men ever. Only a step behind Russell/Olajuwon. The two were pretty equivalent rebounders.

In my opinion, this poll won't truly reflect a comparison of each player's best...it will reflect the contrast between a young prime Duncan taking over for an aging Robinson who was a very pale shadow of his former self. That's the last image of Robinson and it's the image that will dominate perceptions (not for every person, but in general), not Robinson's prime which was nearly a decade ago now.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

That's true. Robinson wasn't the same player after his injury.


----------



## TonyMontana_83 (Dec 4, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Robinson was the superior player. In his prime, he was a more dominant scorer than Duncan _and_ a superior defensive player, one of the five best defensive big men ever. Only a step behind Russell/Olajuwon. The two were pretty equivalent rebounders.
> 
> In my opinion, this poll won't truly reflect a comparison of each player's best...it will reflect the contrast between a young prime Duncan taking over for an aging Robinson who was a very pale shadow of his former self. That's the last image of Robinson and it's the image that will dominate perceptions (not for every person, but in general), not Robinson's prime which was nearly a decade ago now.


Wow, so true Minstrel. It's the same exact thing with Stockton and Malone. The last image people have of them is their late 30's, early 40's days. People easily forget just how amazing they were in their prime.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> That's the last image of Robinson and it's the image that will dominate perceptions (not for every person, but in general), not Robinson's prime which was nearly a decade ago now.


I think this is partly true. But I remember looking back at some old NBA scouting/register books in the early to mid 90s and they always seemed to mention that Robinson didn't have that special drive that could elevate himself and players around him the playoffs. Sure it might sound cliche for most elite players who had inferior teamattes etc.. But the stats show that not only did he not play well in the playoffs by his standards, but statistically he was extremely below his regular season averages (especially if you factor efficiency). In some seasons he probably didn't have the help, but in other seasons he did, and still never really showed up or elevated his own game. He was a spectacular regular season player who probably was as valuable as Michael Jordan considering his excellent defense. But Drob didn't have the offensive intangibles to pick it up come playoff time, namely a back to the basket post game. If you use Drob's regular season numbers and contributions you could say he was as good as they come including as good as Hakeem and even MJ.

Despite that I think Drob and Duncan were close. Drob had superior regular seasons, but Duncan has played better in the playoffs, or should I say elevated his game more on average. But if Duncan keeps up his rate for another year or so and gains another title, I would say he should be regarded as the superior player. At some point you have to give credit to Duncan for leading his team to several titles, and even when he didn't, generally played well in the playoffs (with maybe the exception being in Game 3 and 4 against LA in 2001 (where the team basically gave up after Game 2, and everyone was underacheiving -- plus the team has injuries).

Considering the fact I think Duncan will continue his success for at least a few more years of elite play, I say Duncan is better by a just a little bit.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Nikos said:


> I think this is partly true. But I remember looking back at some old NBA scouting/register books in the early to mid 90s and they always seemed to mention that Robinson didn't have that special drive that could elevate himself and players around him the playoffs. Sure it might sound cliche for most elite players who had inferior teamattes etc.. But the stats show that not only did he not play well in the playoffs by his standards, but statistically he was extremely below his regular season averages (especially if you factor efficiency). In some seasons he probably didn't have the help, but in other seasons he did, and still never really showed up or elevated his own game. He was a spectacular regular season player who probably was as valuable as Michael Jordan considering his excellent defense. But Drob didn't have the offensive intangibles to pick it up come playoff time, namely a back to the basket post game. If you use Drob's regular season numbers and contributions you could say he was as good as they come including as good as Hakeem and even MJ.
> 
> Despite that I think Drob and Duncan were close. Drob had superior regular seasons, but Duncan has played better in the playoffs, or should I say elevated his game more on average. But if Duncan keeps up his rate for another year or so and gains another title, I would say he should be regarded as the superior player. At some point you have to give credit to Duncan for leading his team to several titles, and even when he didn't, generally played well in the playoffs (with maybe the exception being in Game 3 and 4 against LA in 2001 (where the team basically gave up after Game 2, and everyone was underacheiving -- plus the team has injuries).
> 
> Considering the fact I think Duncan will continue his success for at least a few more years of elite play, I say Duncan is better by a just a little bit.


 I think that's a fair appraisal, though I slightly disagree with your conclusion, obviously.

I think it's fair to say that Robinson didn't dominate in the playoffs as much as should have been expected, but I think his postseason trevails are overblown, and I wonder if they would be so magnified had it not been for one series where he was overmatched by Hakeem Olajuwon. In some sense, his playoff rep was forged in that single series, which is unfair. He wasn't an amazing playoff performer, but he was still extremely good. His numbers were close to his regular season numbers, and his defense never fell off.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

As of right now I'm going with Robinson. Ask me again in a few years and it may be different.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I think it's fair to say that Robinson didn't dominate in the playoffs as much as should have been expected, but I think his postseason trevails are overblown, and I wonder if they would be so magnified had it not been for one series where he was overmatched by Hakeem Olajuwon. In some sense, his playoff rep was forged in that single series, which is unfair. He wasn't an amazing playoff performer, but he was still extremely good. His numbers were close to his regular season numbers, and his defense never fell off.


I mentioned this in some other thread recently, but over the course of 9 postseasons -- '93 to '02 -- Robinson only shot at above 47% from the field once. In the regular season those years, he shot at above 50% all _but_ once. His ppg in the playoffs were generally lower despite playing more minutes. His teams won a lot of regular season games, but lost to opposition with inferior records four times during his seven-year prime. I think he's better than Duncan, but still, a superstar is expected to elevate come the postseason, not get worse.


----------



## aNgelo5 (Oct 24, 2005)

I would say Duncan, he is a leader defently


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> I mentioned this in some other thread recently, but over the course of 9 postseasons -- '93 to '02 -- Robinson only shot at above 47% from the field once. In the regular season those years, he shot at above 50% all _but_ once. His ppg in the playoffs were generally lower despite playing more minutes. His teams won a lot of regular season games, but lost to opposition with inferior records four times during his seven-year prime. I think he's better than Duncan, but still, a superstar is expected to elevate come the postseason, not get worse.


I agree that he dropped off more than he should have in the post-season, but I think that the perceived drop-off is greater than the actual. Most players, superstars included, suffer some drop-off in the playoffs due to superior teams and defense. Duncan, for example, has a career drop-off in field goal percentage of 10 points (.507 to .497) in the playoffs.

Again, I agree that Robinson's drop-off was more than it should have been, but not as much as popularly conceived, in my opinion.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

D Rob by a nose...

I think Duncan is less atheletic by a huge margin, but he does make it up by being a positional player. Duncan is a more high percentage offensive player, mainly due to him being primarily positioned down low. But D Rob was a complete package type of center, he had a turn around game inside the paint, although not as effective as Duncan's was pretty good enough. Robinson also had the base line jump shot that he consistently hit making his opponents come out there... very valuable.

Defensive wise... Robinson is superior PERIOD. Duncan is as good as the 97-99 D Robinson, but D Rob in his prime was like a superior Ben Wallace, very quick, best weak side blocker I've ever seen, he also challenged a lot of shots front on, but D Rob's main advantage is the ability to explode for a shot block from the back, side anywhere within 5 feet of the defender. He aint Hakeem overall, but defensively D Rob was as good. Imagine Amare's explosive shot blocking ability but performed a lot more consistently and smarter (he blocks the ball and keep it in play).

As good as Duncan is, D Rob in his prime is superior in every thing except maybe positional defense/offense. Duncan can get deeper down low and a better position to score more consistently, but Robinson can do that too but he roamed the around the inside and outside a lot more due to his athletic ability. 

I can remember D Robinson just running the court as good as most small forwards and dunking the ball like the ring is 8 feet high, D Rob is the more exciting player also.

Its a shame a lot of new fans missed out on the golden era of Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing.


----------



## joshed_up (Aug 6, 2005)

i love Timothy's fundamentals.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Robinson was the superior player. In his prime, he was a more dominant scorer than Duncan _and_ a superior defensive player, one of the five best defensive big men ever. Only a step behind Russell/Olajuwon. The two were pretty equivalent rebounders.
> 
> In my opinion, this poll won't truly reflect a comparison of each player's best...it will reflect the contrast between a young prime Duncan taking over for an aging Robinson who was a very pale shadow of his former self. That's the last image of Robinson and it's the image that will dominate perceptions (not for every person, but in general), not Robinson's prime which was nearly a decade ago now.



I agree 100% wholeheartedly.

People dont realize that the D Robinson they saw in those championship teams are about 50% of his capability. The back injury was devastating and the funny thing is, Robinson was still considered top defensive center with a fragile back and slowed down game. 

Robinson is a lot more versatile also, he can fit a lot of different "systems", he can dominate in all of them, in his prime. 

I recommend fans to search fore D Robinson games and see how really good he was.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Was David Robinson even better than Kevin Garnett? I actually think that's a better comparison based on their style of play, stats and similarity in athleticism, height and length.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Was David Robinson even better than Kevin Garnett? I actually think that's a better comparison based on their style of play, stats and similarity in athleticism, height and length.


Garnett had a better outside game and was a better playmaker, but that's about it.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Yeah, Garnett is obviously the more versatile player overall. But Robinson is trhe better 7 footer/big man player.

Anyone remember that play where Robinson blocked a shot, ran coast to coast got the ball near the free throw line... jumped and dunked the ball with double hand as hard as possible... Better comparison would be if Amare, Garnett and Ben Wallace combined all their best attributes... you get Robinson.

Hakeem and Duncan had more similar styles... but Hakeem had about 3 times the arsenal post moves than Duncan... Nothing against Duncan he is definitely the best big man player since 2001 Shaq, but the big man golden era has passed.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

1 Penny said:


> Hakeem and Duncan had more similar styles... but Hakeem had about 3 times the arsenal post moves than Duncan... Nothing against Duncan he is definitely the best big man player since 2001 Shaq, but the big man golden era has passed.


And that big man golden era was dominated by a guard. You must think todays game is really inferior to the talent the NBA had in the 90's.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

CiMa said:


> Garnett had a better outside game and was a better playmaker, but that's about it.


He is also a better rebounder than Robinson was.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> And that big man golden era was dominated by a guard. You must think todays game is really inferior to the talent the NBA had in the 90's.


Why? You can't deny that the mid-'90's was the big man golden era. How does the fact that the best player in the league back then was a guard translate into him thinking that today's game is really inferior in talent?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> Why? You can't deny that the mid-'90's was the big man golden era. How does the fact that the best player in the league back then was a guard translate into him thinking that today's game is really inferior in talent?


How many MVP's did Robinson win? How many first teams did he make? How many first team defenses? About half as many as Duncan in twice as many years, and Duncan is listed at a position that is considered the best in the NBA right now. 

So 2 and 2, you'd have to think that the NBA today is very inferior to the NBA in the 90's to think that Robinson is better than Duncan, imo.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

player: Drob > duncan
spurs team: duncan's team > Drob

therefore makes duncan look better than Drob, but if we are just comparing PURELY players, Drob at the prime was the slight better player


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How many MVP's did Robinson win? How many first teams did he make? How many first team defenses? About half as many as Duncan in twice as many years, and Duncan is listed at a position that is considered the best in the NBA right now.
> 
> So 2 and 2, you'd have to think that the NBA today is very inferior to the NBA in the 90's to think that Robinson is better than Duncan, imo.


No, I think it just means that the best position in the mid-'90's was relatively better than the best position today.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How many MVP's did Robinson win? How many first teams did he make? How many first team defenses? About half as many as Duncan in twice as many years, and Duncan is listed at a position that is considered the best in the NBA right now.
> 
> So 2 and 2, you'd have to think that the NBA today is very inferior to the NBA in the 90's to think that Robinson is better than Duncan, imo.



Let's look at some of D Rob's best years:

93-94: 29.8 PPG, 10.7 RPG, 4.8 APG, 1.7 SPG, 3.3 BPG 55-27 Record
94-95: 27.6 PPG, 10.8 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.7 SPG, 3.2 BPG 62-20 Record
95-96: 25.0 PPG, 12.2 RPG, 3.0 APG, 1.4 SPG, 3.3 BPG 59-23 Record

If he put up those numbers in today's league, he could easily walk away with MVP and DPOY.

Amazing to think he puts up those kind of numbers, and in that day he wasn't even the best big man in the league.

Also for the record, David Robinson has 4 All-NBA First Team Defensive apperances and 3 second team appearances. David has 3 All-NBA first team apperances too and whenever he didn't make the first team (for all NBA or all NBA defense) he was beat out by the likes of Hakeem, Shaq, Zo, and Patrick Ewing, four guys that would beat out Tim Duncan as well.

David Robinson could give a young Shaq and Hakeem problems. Duncan couldnt hold their jock straps.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

it seems Drob is really underrated by most fans when compared to TD, like anyone in the league. not only was he much more dominant offensively, as was his defense. TD seems very slow paced, and i really think his defense is overrated. Drob was one of the most disruptive defensive beasts in league history. but it will always be TD won rings without drob but the admiral couldnt without TD.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

its a really tough cookie, coz duncan was the finals MVP 3 times, and twice dave was on the team, but then u cant knock him coz the guy was in his mid-late 30's....but if ur gonna take 7 or 8 years of prime play, D-Rob eats Tim duncan alive....looks who TD has to play against these days, compared to who D-Rob had to play against.....besides Shaq (shaq has terrorised both players) lets compare the players (in primes) D.R faced compared to duncans...

Karl Malone>KG
Hakeem Olajuwan >>>>>>>>Yao Ming
Patrick Ewing>>>Rasheed Wallace
Dennis Rodman>>Ben Wallace
Zo>>Jermaine Oneal (Zo would probably do a good number on him now haha)

just stating, the bigs now dont have nothing compared to the bigs/PFs of back in the 90's...Tim is playing in a weaker, but fast paced game then in the 90's and it shows....


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

These kind of polls (today's star vs star player from the past) prove only one thing - that majority of these boards is VERY young. 
And they haven't seen any ball in the 90' (and I'm not even talking about 80' or even more "ancient" times) so can't really compare. They don't dispute the greatness of MJ coz it's a given, even if they haven't seen him live in his prime, but as far as any other player goes, things get kind of funny.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> How many MVP's did Robinson win? How many first teams did he make? How many first team defenses? About half as many as Duncan in twice as many years, and Duncan is listed at a position that is considered the best in the NBA right now.
> 
> So 2 and 2, you'd have to think that the NBA today is very inferior to the NBA in the 90's to think that Robinson is better than Duncan, imo.


You are using faulty logic in two ways. First, as Hakeem mentioned, comparing the best positions of different eras doesn't imply that the quality at those positions are equal; just that each was better than the collection of players at other positions in their respective times.

And second, even if they were exactly equal, using All-NBA teams as a comparison means is flawed. All-NBA/All-Defensive Teams allow only one center on each team. However, they do allow two power forwards to occupy the forward slots. So the best and second best PF can make the 1st team, while the second best center can only make the 2nd team.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

SianTao said:


> These kind of polls (today's star vs star player from the past) prove only one thing - that majority of these boards is VERY young.
> And they haven't seen any ball in the 90' (and I'm not even talking about 80' or even more "ancient" times) so can't really compare. They don't dispute the greatness of MJ coz it's a given, even if they haven't seen him live in his prime, but as far as any other player goes, things get kind of funny.


people like u kill these fun and interesting posts, people have their own opinions and u gotta admit everyone thinks their rite even if they are totally rong, so dont kill out fun i say.....Stephen Jackson, delete his post....


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

it all comes down to the team achievements. duncan benefits most from spurs superior team system, lack of big men today. Robinson had never won a title as the no.1 option, but you cna't deny the fact that the 90's, during D-rob's prime years, the league was loaded with quality big men. not to mention that certain bald guy from chicago won 6 of those titles during D-rob's years. even if D-rob made it to the NBA finals, he would still had lost to the bulls. look at whom the spurs had beaten for the 3 titles, 
the 8th seed knicks at 99, the weak without inside present NJ nets, and last year, BARELY beat a det team without a superstar. sometimes winning titles can make you look alot better than you actually are. people say stats don't really matter, it's the rings that count. I think in order to be considered as the true greatness, you need BOTH great numbers + Rings. the fact is, numbers don't lie, it flat out shows how dominant you are. Rings are there if your team clicks, and u have the right supporting cast. 

but from the purely players, i think Drob was slightly the better player. he was just more dominant on both end of the floor. the only aspect duncan has advantage over D-rob is the mental toughness.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

dwade3 said:


> its a really tough cookie, coz duncan was the finals MVP 3 times, and twice dave was on the team, but then u cant knock him coz the guy was in his mid-late 30's....but if ur gonna take 7 or 8 years of prime play, D-Rob eats Tim duncan alive....looks who TD has to play against these days, compared to who D-Rob had to play against.....besides Shaq (shaq has terrorised both players) lets compare the players (in primes) D.R faced compared to duncans...
> 
> Karl Malone>KG
> Hakeem Olajuwan >>>>>>>>Yao Ming
> ...



Good points, most of the league's centers today wouldnt start back in the 90s. 

It may seem Im putting down the current league (kinda), but thats my impression, I just happen to witness both generation and era and thats my Impression.... others have their own.

Today, if a player is tall, fairly atheletic and can "bother" the inside by simply being there.. then they can play NBA as a center. Back then, the big men ruled the league... with the exception of MJ... exception since its MJ... first off the MOST dominant player period and he dominated the perimeter away from the defense of the star centers and power forward. Thats like today, most of the talented players are playing the perimeter instead of the inside, hence big men like Duncan, Amare and 32 year old injury prone Shaq isnt bothered by matching talent for talent, they just dominate the spot because they can.


I think almost anyone who got to watch Hakeem, Robinson during their primes would agree how terrific the center spot back then really was. I mean seeing Centers dominate the stat line with 7-8 blocks 4-5 steals putting up 20 points and grabbing 15 rebounds... whoa... call me spoiled but its definitely a rarity today.... very rare indeed.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

As Sith said, yeah the one thing Duncan clearly is better than Robinson is mental toughness..

I remember big games back then, Robinson would look nervous, even "scared". And that was his achilles heel, he didnt believe he deserved to be in the post season, he took it for granted. Even Dennis Rodman wrote about, how mentally unstable Robinson was during big games, like he "shaked" and acted all nervous before the warm ups. Guess what... Hakeem wasnt and he was at the same level as Robinson during the regular season only to leave him for dust when it came to the Big games.

Duncan has that mental toughness that Robinson lacked.


----------

