Analysis: How Force India threw away a podium in Canadian GP – and not the way you think
Force India F1
Strategy Report
Posted By: James Allen  |  13 Jun 2017   |  4:43 pm GMT  |  121 comments

For the winning team in Montreal this was as easy a race from a strategy point of view as you will ever see, with the main opposition falling away early.

However behind the winner, Lewis Hamilton, there was some fascinating decision making going on and a lot of attention has focussed on the battle between the Force India drivers, with Sergio Perez refusing team requests to let the Estaban Ocon try to pass Daniel Ricciardo for a podium.

However the hidden dynamic here is that, even without a team order, Force India had a clear pathway to a guaranteed podium with one of their drivers; they just didn’t see it. We will explain fully in this report.

Meanwhile Ferrari was on a recovery drive with Vettel after damage at the start, but how could they have effected things differently there and did Kimi Raikkonen have a pathway to a podium with better decision making?

All will be revealed.

Pirelli F1
Pre-race expectations

Friday’s practice running was somewhat inconclusive as the long runs were compromised by a red flag stoppage.

However some indicators were available; the ultra soft qualifying tyre looked fine for a decent length first stint and the supersoft would do the rest of the race. It was the old scenario where a two stop was fast, but required a car to overtake the one stopper on track. The pace differential needed for that was around one second per lap.

Valtteri Bottas did some effective running on the soft tyre on the Friday long runs and that planted a seed for him and a couple of others that the soft might be a good race tyre, especially as the forecast for Sunday was warmer than Friday, which should play to its strengths.

However both Bottas and Daniel Ricciardo took the soft tyre in the race and found it slow. It was a mistake that both were able to recover from; Ricciardo by some great defensive driving and also by Force India missing a golden opportunity; Bottas by having no threat from behind so only time was lost, not track positions.

Force India
So how could Force India have got a podium without issuing team orders to Perez?

The post race debrief at Force India will have been a bittersweet experience; on the one hand they bagged another 18 points – their second best result of the year – from a strong double finish in P5 and P6.

But they will have to initiate a new set of protocols after Sergio Perez declined to allow Esteban Ocon to try a pass on Daniel Ricciardo for third place. The team explained that Perez was instructed to increase his pace and push up to Ricciardo otherwise the team would consider asking him to move aside for Esteban to have an attempt at Ricciardo.

The topic was discussed five times in total.

But more painfully, they will also see that there was a podium there for the taking, without even needing to resort to a team order.

The background is that Force India were able to take advantage of a great start for both drivers, which put them ahead of Kimi Raikkonen. And with Sebastian Vettel sustaining front wing damage, which forced an early pit stop, they were ahead of him too.

Raikkonen went aggressive by pitting on Lap 17, which was an attempt to pull the cars ahead of him into stopping earlier than they would wish. Force India’s response was to pit the lead car, Perez, and then to stay out and built an offset with Ocon, who did a masterful job of maintaining strong pace while looking after the tyres for 13 more laps.

Esteban Ocon

This gave Ocon a substantial tyre offset; 13 laps to Perez and 14 to Ricciardo who was on the slower soft tyre.

Ten laps on these tyres was worth two to three tenths of a second every lap compared to the other car in Montreal this year. Having set up the offset strategy for Ocon however, Force India failed to enforce it as Perez was unwilling to allow Ocon to have a try.

Several F1 teams, including Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and Sauber have a developed structure for moving their cars around in circumstaces such as these, to gain the best result, which the drivers are contractually obliged to obey. For a smaller team, like Sauber, this can be hugely important as every point can have consequences in the millions of dollars. At the front end of the field it can mean a win and an extra seven points when fighting for a championship.

Mercedes have asked one driver to move over on four occasions since 2014, including the famous occasion in Hungary 2014, where Hamilton declined but said he wouldn’t block Rosberg if he tried a move – and including this year with Bottas in Bahrain.

However, what Force India missed was the opportunity to pit Perez on Lap 42; a move that would almost certainly have led to one of their drivers getting a podium.

Force India

How? Because this would have created a pincer movement with two cars on different strategies against one – impossible for Ricciardo to cover both. Ironically it would have replicated on Ricciardo what Red Bull drivers did to Bottas in Monaco last week.

In the short term it meant giving up a track position to Vettel, but his tyres were already 37 laps old and he was always likely struggle or to stop again with 28 more laps left to run to the flag.

So once Vettel stopped a second time he’d have struggled to pass Perez on the same tyres and so the move would effectively have put Perez ahead of both Ferraris.

Now Ocon would have been clear to attack Ricciardo and he believed he had that pace offset necessary to pass the Red Bull driver, who had made the mistake of choosing the soft tyre for the second stint, which was proving too slow compared to the supersoft.

Even if Ocon had failed, Perez would then be coming up quickly on fresh tyres and Ocon would then have moved aside to let Perez try his luck in the final laps.

By doing nothing, they invited Vettel to attack them. He passed both and a potential podium became fifth and sixth.

What was the point of setting up Ocon’s offset strategy if you don’t use it? And why do a split strategy early in the race if you don’t do one later when there is clearly something to play for? In war gaming terms, this was a win-win.

Staying put and allowing the lead car on older, slower tyres to stay ahead was a lose-lose.

Vettel F1
Impressive recovery by Vettel as Ferrari slips back into operational errors

Last year in Montreal Mercedes had a faster car, but Ferrari and Sebastian Vettel had track position at the start and a bad strategy call to pit early lost them the chance to pull the levers, handing the win to Hamilton.

This year was different. There was nothing to choose between Ferrari and Mercedes on pace and on Saturday only an inspired qualifying lap by Hamilton was the difference.

At the start of the race, Vettel damaged his wing as Verstappen made an aggressive move into Turn 1. But due to a big accident further back in the field, the Safety Car was quickly deployed. At this stage Vettel had not had time to feel the damage to his wing, then the speed of the field was reduced behind the Safety Car, which masked it.

Now all F1 teams have a service called “Follow Me” provided by F1 Management’s broadcast service, which gives a forward facing on board camera shot of both team cars. Vettel’s showed wing damage and other teams were able to see it.

Somehow Ferrari’s on site aerodynamicist missed it and so it was not until the car went back up to racing speeds that Vettel realised he had a problem. If you click on the photo above it will enlarge and you can clearly see the damage to the left side as we look at it.

He therefore pitted two laps after the end of the Safety Car period, dropping to last place.

What did it cost him, pitting at racing speed rather than under the Safety Car? About 20 seconds of race time and four track positions.

When you consider that he missed a podium by a fraction at the end, needing just one more lap to pass Ricciardo, that was an expensive operational error.

But there was also the question of whether he could still have made it if he’d been pitted a lap earlier for the second stop. When he came out he was told that he would have eight laps to fight the Force India duo and Ricciardo. In fact he caught them with only six laps to go, so the modelling was slightly out.

Kimi Raikkonen

Meanwhile on Raikkonen’s car, there were even stranger decisions. The decision to pit Raikkonen first on Lap 17 to trigger a rush of stops for the cars ahead was brilliant, as Ferrari had two stops in mind and tactically he had nothing to lose.

He was also being used here by Ferrari to do a job for Vettel’s recovery as it pulled the other cars into sub optimal strategies, which ended up helping him to get the Force India pair.

But why they didn’t pit Raikkonen under the Virtual Safety Car on Lap 11/12/13? The pit window for a two stop is certainly open at that point.

If they had two stops in mind for a car that has lost two track positions to the Force Indias at the start (which is entirely reasonable) then why not save the seven seconds that a stop under a VSC gives you?

The answer hangs on whether the motive was to get the maximum result for Raikkonen.. or for Vettel.

We at JA on F1 remain firmly of the belief that in Monaco they didn’t deliberately switch the cars, it was a modelling mistake compounded by Vettel pulling unforeseen performance from his tyres in the five laps that followed Raikkonen’s stop.

Here it looks like Raikkonen may have been employed doing a job to disrupt the field and help minimise the damage to Vettel’s championship lead, rather than bag a podium for himself.

Ferrari F1

The UBS Race Strategy Report is written by James Allen with input and data from several F1 team strategists and from Pirelli

Race History and Tyre Usage Chart

Kindly supplied by Martini Williams Racing.

Illustrating the performance gaps between the cars during the race. A line, which moves steeply upwards shows strong pace. Sharp drops indicate pit stops.

Compare Ricciardo’s pace to the Force Indias – the Red Bull was very much on the defensive.

Canadian GP 2017

Canadian GP 2017

Strategy Insights
Strategy Briefings
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

There is no i in team but there is in sergio.




James, if I am not mistaken Ferrari twitted during the race that Vettel also had damage to his floor. If true that makes his comeback even more remarkable.


damage to his floor

I read on a different race report his floor was damaged when the damaged wing came away – they said it also damaged one of the barge boards.


I posted in another thread that i think Kimi could have attacked all 3 cars in front of him if not for the technical problems. And watching the graph Kimi would have overtaken the FI’s 3 laps before Vettel. Defending would have cost time for the 3 and would have given more time to Vettel for an attack.
So Kimi 3 and Vettel 4 was the best possible result for team points and without the then not known problems at Kimi’s car it was possible.
If it had worked all would say a brilliant move from Ferrari to do a 3/4 given the circumstances.


This is very well worked out.
The one possible fly in the ointment is that when Kimi stopped on lap 40 he was 1.5 seconds behind Perez, and changed onto new Super-softs , a really good out lap and he could have undercut his way in front.
He came out 19 seconds behind Perez and maybe Force India thought he’d be able to catch but not pass, or Perez would be past Ricciardo and out of reach. The risk of being undercut vs the hope Kimi wouldn’t able to close up and pass – you can understand why they didn’t make a snap call to bring Perez in.

By lap 48 when Vettel stopped (he was then within 3 secs of Perez) Kimi had only closed by 4.5 seconds so wasn’t going to catch by the end. RIC was holding up the two force Indias, and was on the Soft, Kimi had newer tyres, two grades software and clear air but was only closing at 0.5 sec per lap.
So Force India weren’t going to stop at that point because they would have been behind Kimi and (depending on his out lap) possibly behind Seb – if Kimi’s speed was representative Seb wasn’t going to catch them. But he closed from 19 seconds behind Perez to behind Ocon in a dozen laps, and that was that.

If they’d pitted Perez – based on Seb’s speed – he would have caught RIC and had a bigger tyre advantage to help him pass. If Ocon hadn’t managed to pass RIC in the meantime he’d be slower than Perez so could be told to move over, and if he had, well, let them race. (and yes, I think they could have got 3rd and 4th by stopping as described )
But they needed to confident that the Seb wasn’t going to do 65 laps on a set of Super-softs; because if he did, handing him track position might ensure he got third place.


Hi James,
with regard to the Force India pincher, which I don’t understand:

looking at the race history chart, if Perez would have pitted around lap 42 he would have rejoined right behind Raikkonen. That means a race order of Ocon, Raikkonen, Perez, Vettel. At that point of time one has to assume that Perez would never be able to catch Raikkonen, so Perez race would be ruined (from 4, possible 3 to 6 or 7 if Vettel would have overtaken Perez). All this for the uncertainty that Ocon would be able to overtake Ricciardo. Far the better option to rely on Perez giving a chance to Ocon.

Secondly, I notice that a pincher movement is always detrimental to the driver in the foremost position, ie the driver that has to execute the movement. So the team always has to weigh up some gain in the constructor’s championship against the unfairness of cutting out their front runner.


Much is being made of Max “ruining Seb’s race” at the first corner. But Vettel has been around a while and seeing Max on the outside of him, he should have known that there was nowhere else for Max to go other than to turn into the corner. Max made the corner so was clearly not going too fast. Vettel was plainly slower off the line and Bottas was already up the inside of Vettel, so it could be argued his own poor start and bad positioning led to his troubles. He could have slowed down a tiny bit more and then Max would have slotted in just in front of him with no damage caused. Fantastic race for him after that point though, a great recovery.

Alexandre Simard

There are two factual errors in this report. Both make Ferrari look worse than they actually were.

1. As pointed in another comment, the picture of Vettel’s front wing is from after the restart. At safety car speed, the wing looked fine from the on board camera. There were only a few seconds at racing speed during which you could see part of the wing flapping about. That isn’t enough information to determine conclusively that the wing needs to be replaced. It was a gamble either way.

2. Vettel caught the Force Indias at the beginning of lap 63, leaving him _exactly_ 8 laps to overtake them, just as his engineer had told him. Brundle was unable to perform simple arithmetic in his commentary on this occasion.


That there was damage to Seb’s front wing was definitely visible upfront. The extent of the damage though was not clear. Once the SC was deployed on Lap 1, Ferrari should have pitted to change the wing, even though they did not know the damage.

The early laps were eerily reminiscent of Malaysia 2013, when Ferrari failed to stop at the end of Lap 1 and Alonso crashed out. Thankfully for them, Ferrari avoided that.

Alexandre Simard

You’re judging the decision based on the outcome instead of the process. If you know in advance the wing is going to break, of course you bring Vettel in under safety car.

Attached (if it works) is what Vettel’s front wing looked like during safety car. You can see something is broken, but nothing is moving and there’s no way to know for sure it’s going to break apart as soon as the race restarts.

Consider the opposite scenario: you pit Vettel under SC, putting him last on track, and the inspection reveals that the wing only had minor damage and that Seb would have been able to drive around it enough to build a gap until his scheduled stop. This is an even worse combination than what actually happened.


I saw the race only from timing screen from android app while travelling. The Ferrari blunder were clearly visible, I was swearing to my phone. Ferrari made us to think grandma driving number 7 car.

FI’s had free pitstop while Kimi pitted, but they were blind.
FI’s will learn to become more bold with theie strategies other than -1 pitstop.

James I think Ferrari simulation model should be correct, he should have caught Fi with in 10 laps. But SV was doing only 1:15.451, I expected 1:14:900 two laps after last pitstop.
Lewis pulled 1:14.551 at 64th lap from nowhere. Was late safety car was covered form Merc point of view? I was expecting one due to Fi tangle.

Ricciardo Aficionado

Posted this a while ago. Time for an update.
(Now with each section also in rank order)

Post Chinese GP

Championship Material

Championship Potential

No2 / Place Holder / Semi retired

PayDriver / JoyRider

Current Standing

Championship Material

Championship Potential

No2 / Place Holder / Semi retired

PayDriver / JoyRider


James, this is one of the best strategy reports I’ve read in a while. Thank you for your hard work and for sharing your insight.

Tornillo Amarillo

Craziness is getting hard on some drivers you could say?
What Sainz, Max are doing lately, and Perez hitting cars in some races and now not letting Ocon pass, I don’t know, I guess they have too much pressure.

Only Hulk keep his cool I think and keep control of himself among teams out of the big 3. Kmag, Kvyat… too many errors too.
I don’t know what happens, but I don’t like it.


Nice one, @Tornillo. Comparing Max’s one time slight cutoff (jury still out to boot) with the repeated bad conduct of Sainz (diving into Stroll and Grosjean, a.o.) and Perez (ending Kvyat’s race and endangering VET and OCO, a.o.). That’s called double standard.


Very insightful report, James. Joy to read!
I got a few possibly controversial angles of my own though.
You write: “The soft tyre in the race (…) was a mistake”: I suspected as much when when Red Bull decided to issue Ricciardo with soft tyres. He barely got away with it.
Way too cautious, should have gone for supersoft. Remarkable the softs were deployed at all (Bottas and Ricci) and seriously contemplated for Hamilton.
Have the strategists learned nothing from Monaco and pre-Monaco testing? Are they obtuse? When will it dawn upon them that this year’s ultras and supers are quite adequate to cover most races? Furthermore, compared to Monaco Canada is brake-based rather than tyre-based.
I’ll go even further. I maintain that the ultrasofts – in the hands of the top teams at least – should have been used for a greater number of laps.
Still convinced that for several drivers in Monaco they would have lasted an incredible 40-42 laps. Therefore, good US stints close to or in excess of 35 laps should have been possible in Canada. Remember, Canada is 70 laps = 2 times 35.
So, where there’s talk of Vettel maybe beginning his last 21-lap US stint 1 or 2 laps earlier, I believe he could actually have done so 5 to 10 laps earlier.

Even bolder but still viable I think would have been the following race strategy:
– speculate on a pretty likely SC in lap 1/2
– qualify on supers in Q2
– start on supers
– under VSC change to ultras in lap 2
– depending on track position, team strategy and re-entry point traffic start another US stint in a round between about 36 and 42.
Now for one or two top teams, that would have been an interesting and exciting option to implement for one driver.
Instead we got a sullen, mostly history-based cliché choice for soft tyres.

Posters, if you laughingly dismiss or ignore my argument, I suggest you take a look at the following UBS race report data of Hamilton stints on ultrasofts:
Monaco: lap 1-42, especially free air part (lap 24-40 shows fine pace)
Canada: lap 1-31, no problem to sustain pace.

Tornillo Amarillo

I don’t buy Kimi with brakes problems just when Vettel needed to pass with a team order… I’m sick of this kind of coincidences, any thought James?


I have no way of knowing what state his brakes were in but not aware of many brake issues as there were a couple of ‘breaks’ for them with S Car and VSC for example

Tornillo Amarillo

I think Perez is in the middle generation, 27 years old, like Hulk, Bottas, in a crossroad, how can they get finally a top seat?
I think the best way is being in the right place at the right time, doing podiums and constantly beating your teammate… Bottas did it, but he was lucky Rosberg just chicken out.
Perez has under his belt… 0 wins… in 121 starts. 7 podiums are not enough to land in Ferrari ? And a bad experience in McLaren.
Suddenly, Ocon is a fast learner, nice guy, fairy tale racer growing in a caravan, and he is only 20.
Of course Perez CANNOT let his teammate Ocon pass, not now, not near the summer time.
Bit just put a short list of future new champions and Perez is hardly there…
My list:
Bottas 2018, 2019?
Sainz when he gets a car
Ocon sooner than later, in Renault 2021?
Max – but maybe never in Red Bull


Absolutely fascinating analysis. Race strategy can be a complicated thing, and it is very nice to have it explained by such an expert.


Fascinating reading with plenty of insights and food for thought.

Please James never stop doing these amazing reports, for me they are an absolute essential reading after every GP. Hope everyone who comes here really appreciate the quality and time you put on bringing the sport closer to the fans to understand its complexity. Thanks a lot!



Make sure you share with your friends


James, thank you for your excellent reports. I have a question, has a team ever given you credit for your reports and admitted that they got it wrong?
And can you see that a team had learn a lesson of your reports and made a gain in a race by using the knowledge from your reports?
Or is it just us hardcore-fans that love the reports?


What went wrong with the F1 Latinos en acá nada? (Iberian origin for the name Canada)

Perez was totally wrong not to let Ocon overtake. Carlos Sainz Jr. lost his mind the whole weekend.

Massa was hilarious: he said: “Unbelievable!” when he was overtaken by Hülkenberg, and a second later, “Mega unbelievable!” as he was taken out by Romain Grosjean and Sainz Jr.

Some lesson for Massa and Vettel: Don’t drive slow in the left lane.


Do you remember, „Manolo el del bombo or “El bombo de España” (The drum of Spain) with his large beret, red number 12 jersey and his famous bass drum, who has become a national institution in Spain supporting Valencia CF and the Spain national football team?

I thought the same about Alonso when I saw joining F1 Fans In after, yet another engine blows. When did Fernando win something last time? In 2006. Perhaps it’s time for Alonso to borrow Manolo’s bass drum and beat it for Hamilton.


said it in other post, will say it again…
sadly for Perez he is not #1 driver material, and on sunday he show that is not #2 material either, so he just ruin his chances to go to Ferrari next year. Too bad, because in a top car he could show that has the potential.

so, there it is, a battle between Alonso and Perez for williams/renault sit next year its on… lol.


Thanks James for the article.
But there are some things that come to mind,concerning these Pirelli tires.Firstly,how could one do 40 laps on an ultra soft tire?Talking about Alonso’s.Ultra softs should be ultra softs,and not hards or mediums under pretext.
Then,there comes to my mind,what transpired on Mercedes’ and Ferrari’s tire consumption.Mercedes are hard on their tires on this circuit.But this year,it did not seem so.
If what Toto said was to be taken serious that,they have found out their miscues,then Ferrari can say goodbye to both championships if Mercedes wins again in Baku.Because the advantage Ferrari has over Mercedes is tire oriented and not any superiority in the engine nor aerodynamics.
So in my opinion,Baku will be the litmus test for the rest of the seazso.


@John Unwise

“So in my opinion,Baku will be the litmus test for the rest of the seazso.”

Yes, another track with long straight and heavy breaking zones is sure to be indicative of entire rest of the season.


It’s a shame Mercedes didn’t hire Perez instead of Bottas!


😉 Merc would find a way, they’d just put the harder tyres on his car at his pitstop and pretend it was the optimal strategy at the time.


Get in there Sars!!


Nice said, best comment. You bet, this guy would not digest an order.


Who needs to get up at 3.00am to watch the race when you can just click on James Race Report and get a thorough and balanced overview with five minutes of your time.
The only thing I’m left pondering over is how fans, and indeed James himself, compare this race to the rest of those this season in relation to the excitement factor. Was it an edge of your seat race or a boring, try not to fall asleep snooze-fest?


I wouldn’t say it was an edge of your seat race as such, although obviously I was pleased with the result. But it was quite exciting (for me at least) to see how far Vet would recover and what the resultant gap in the WDC standings would be. It was also good fun watching the FI’s squabble with each other and, in Perez case, the pit wall. Danny Ric did well too, to hang onto third – I thought he’d be toast with the FI’s breathing down his neck with the Merc PU in the back. I thought it was a good race all in all.


I think its fair and safe to say without any doubt now that these cars handle the wake/dirty air of the car in front as poorly as their predecessors (many would say worse).
How can that be rectified? My opinion is without the reintroduction of ground effects it can’t. Its a taboo word for many, especially with F1 these days being so safety focused, however it enables slip-streaming and gives the following cars that ability to follow closely.
DRS is nothing but a gimmick and even when it does stimulate an over taking move it still leaves you with the feeling of being short changed a nugget in your Happy Meal.
Should we ask James for an open thread so we, the fans, can offer up suggestions as to how this fundamental piece of Formula One’s appeal, and indeed motor-racings in general, can be rectified because at the moment its costing the sport fans more so than any of the other issues the Formula is facing.
I know I’ve gone off on a tangent however thanks for your insight.


I enjoyed it but clearly there was zero excitement for the outright win


@ james…likewise. It wasn’t gripping but the battle for third was enough to keep me interested. There has been very few accolades for Ricciardo, who put in a sterling effort for his hard earned 3rd place. All the attention was on Verstappen who once again showed his potential as a future driver but he ruined for all of us a great clash between Hamilton and Vettel, which was what i really wanted to witness. It seems like Ricciardo has matured successfully and he is reaping the benefits at the long game rather than the short one. I think that that race really showed just how much the Mercedes has left in the Bank when they can draw a sizeable lead. Anyway james, thanks for a great report. Makes sense to me. The only thing lacking was a definitive order to Perez….then we;d see what Ocon can really do. They last an opportunity there and they’ll never get it back.


Ferrari showed the signs of Ferrari this weekend


Kimi would have ended up 7th with good or bad call..FI were quicker than him..but yes this report is consistent with Ferraris poor ability to focus on two cars for best finish..they will be losing WCC for two reasons now


PER got himself in a “damned if I do, damned if I don’t” situation

Checo fans will like his determination and fighting spirit (which is the same we have seen from HAM or VER while disobeying team orders)
Checo haters will accuse him of being arrogant, selfish and a bad team player (which to me is more or less the definition of a racing driver)

From the comfort of my armchair traveling at no speed at all, he should have let OCO by for several reasons:

1. From my point of view it was highly unlikely OCO would have made it past RIC, and then he would have his place back and could use the annoying “I told you so”, and gain stature with the team and his mate

2. He could have let OCO past and try a double pass on RIC using him as a distraction, or wait for both to tangle and sail alone to the podium

3. If OCO did get past, he could use a “you owe me one” card for future use with mate and team, and have a better defense against VET

I think driving at 320 while fending of your mate and a charging VET, he did not stop to evaluate properly these options, and instead will be lectured by VJ and Fernley, and will have OCO looking for payback when possible

I also think from radio chat about OCO before the “orders” came, he was already upset with the team and feeling shortchanged by the different strategies
After all he qualified higher, started in a similar fashion, and jumped RAI when he blinked, so if he was ahead on merit, why should he move over on orders?

I also think we forget both FI drivers were fighting for a podium, which is the top place they usually aspire to because of their car’s speed relative to the top 3 teams, so for both of them it was a now or never chance, and they attacked/defended accordingly

Anybody who thinks PER is a poor FI team player can ask who else has given them more podiums, WCC points and prize cash for the past 3 years

Top Tags
SEARCH Strategy