My Top Ten Teammates, Jim Forrest

Twosignals

Well-Known Member
Must've been a sight to see when Baxter and Henderson we're in full flow at that time. It's like watching clips of George Best,you can literally hear the roars of anticipation from the terracing.

Is there a player in the game today who can illicit that kind of reaction from a crowd? I don't think so.
We of our generation were blessed to see the finest of all teams that came within Scotland. No over dosed stars, just a hard working, “TEAM” of players that were also pals, that we’ll never the likes to be seen again. Nowadays players with the least we knock, and their out for weeks, pampered pedigrees, there’s only a few players of recent times don’t fall into that brigade, “Big Marv, Ammo And Butcher (until he went int a Huff)”
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
No doubt that Baxter was a great supplier in many of Forrest's goals,
but not so sure that Forrest suffered too much without Baxter.

In the 64 -65 season when Baxter suffered that injury in Vienna, he was out for 13 Games
(9 League, 2 Scottish Cup, 2 European Cup).
In Baxter's absence, Jim Forrest managed 16 Goals in those 13 games,
including scoring home and away against the World Club Champions, Inter Milan
which was the only goal Inter Milan conceded that season at home in Europe,
including the final, played at the San Siro v Benfica, Eusebio and all.
In what was a horrible season in the League where we finished a lowly 5th place,
we did only lose 1 League match in Baxter's absence.
With Baxter in the side, we lost 7 League Games (in 22 appearances), and lost the only Scottish Cup tie he played in (our only domestic Cup defeat in two and half years/36 Cup Ties).

Following the sale of Baxter in the summer of 65',
Forrest would score 35 Goals in 44 Games in the 1965-66 season.
This does not include the two goals he scored in the superb 3-1 win over European Cup Finalists Benfica, in a prestigous friendly at Ibrox in late Sept.
The much maligned George McLean, who partnered him, and sometimes wore the No.9 shirt that season was our top scorer with 39 Goals in 34 Games.
74 goals in 78 appearances between them in a season, was only bettered once during Baxter's time, when Millar and Brand combined to score 80 goals in the 62-63 season,
but, they had 102 appearances between them

Rangers defeated arguably the two best club sides in the world at Ibrox in 1965,
without Baxter in the side, and Jim Forrest scored 3 goals in those two marvelous wins.
I knew squire that you would back because I've read some of your important facts in other threads.

Would it be fair to say Jim Forrest, a scourge of the yahoos, only scored one goal against the yahoos post Baxter, and that was September 65?

I would love that Time Machine. Baxter, Forrest, Caldow and further back. Way, way back.

BTW, my first Rangers strip was circa 65 and I had No 10 on the back. At that time it was George McLean.
 

MO_TxTruBlu

Well-Known Member
I knew squire that you would back because I've read some of your important facts in other threads.

Would it be fair to say Jim Forrest, a scourge of the yahoos, only scored one goal against the yahoos post Baxter, and that was September 65?

I would love that Time Machine. Baxter, Forrest, Caldow and further back. Way, way back.

BTW, my first Rangers strip was circa 65 and I had No 10 on the back. At that time it was George McLean.

Yes it would be fair to say that Forrest did only score once against Celtic, post Baxter.
It is also fair to say, that Rangers were no longer the force they once were with Baxter in the side 1960-64, and Celtic were most definitely a much better side 65 onwards, compared to the team of pre 65', who won nothing between 60-64.

Forrest did score the only goal in the 1-0 win v Filth on Jan 65, without Baxter in the side, a side that had Wilson Wood and Tottie Beck in it.

My first Rangers strip had two pieces of white tape, that my Maw stuck on so carefully, making the Number 7 of Willie Henderson, which a year or two later was redesigned to make the Number 11 of Willie Johnston.
PS. I think Jim Forrest wore the No. 10 shirt in his last 4 games for Rangers.
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
As much as I loved Colin stein - Forrest was the better player.
As I have said to MO_X, I was too young to have appreciated Jim Forrest.

Colin Stein, possibly because of the circumstances at the time, was an explosion for the support.

Just possibly, a support who dined out on Millar and Brand and Forrest were crying out for that centre once again.
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
Yes it would be fair to say that Forrest did only score once against Celtic, post Baxter.
It is also fair to say, that Rangers were no longer the force they once were with Baxter in the side 1960-64, and Celtic were most definitely a much better side 65 onwards, compared to the team of pre 65', who won nothing between 60-64.

Forrest did score the only goal in the 1-0 win v Filth on Jan 65, without Baxter in the side, a side that had Wilson Wood and Tottie Beck in it.

My first Rangers strip had two pieces of white tape, that my Maw stuck on so carefully, making the Number 7 of Willie Henderson, which a year or two later was redesigned to make the Number 11 of Willie Johnston.
PS. I think Jim Forrest wore the No. 10 shirt in his last 4 games for Rangers.
And memories are made of these.

1965 is the most important year in the filth's calendar. Baxter leaving coinciding with ba face coming to them.

Yet it could be argued that we papped away the two titles of 66 and 68. You don't need to be a genius to recognise winning the league in 65/66 and what it meant.
 

MO_TxTruBlu

Well-Known Member
And memories are made of these.

1965 is the most important year in the filth's calendar. Baxter leaving coinciding with ba face coming to them.

Yet it could be argued that we papped away the two titles of 66 and 68. You don't need to be a genius to recognise winning the league in 65/66 and what it meant.
I'm yet to be convinced that Baxter leaving was significant in Celtic's dominance post 65'.

I'm sure at the time that it seemed that way, to thousands of us (and to them too),
but with hindsight and a few stats and facts, it tells me otherwise.

In the two seasons (62/63 and 63/64) when Rangers (and Baxter) ruled the roost in Scotland,
Baxter played in 90 Games for Rangers.
Of those 90 domestic games that Baxter played in, we lost only 3 games.

By 1964-65 we were no longer the dominant force (and imho, unfortunately, neither was Baxter).
We had already suffered 3 league Defeats in the first 16 games that Baxter played in that season.
(1-3 v Celtic, 1-4 v Dundee, and 2-4 v Hibs).
Our only decent spell in that 64-65 season was in the period that Baxter was out injured,
when we lost only 1 of the 11 Games (9 League, 2 Scottish Cup).
When Baxter did return to the side in March 65', he played in 9 of our remaining 12 fixtures.
Of the 9 Baxter played in, we suffered 5 defeats, which included his comeback game in a 2-1 defeat to Hibs in the Scottish Cup (our only domestic Cup defeat in two and half years/36 Cup Ties).
Over the course of that 64-65 season, we lost 8 League Games.
7 of those 8 defeats, was with Baxter in the side (Baxter played in 22 league games).
In the 12 League games that Baxter did not play in, we suffered defeat only once.

I struggle to remember a single domestic game that Baxter was involved in that was significant after 1965.
Yes, he could still do the business at International level as his performances against Italy 65', Brazil 66' and Wembley 67' proved, but as a consistent performer in the domestic game on a regular basis,
he was shot.
He failed to improve a big spending Sunderland in his two seasons there, with Sunderland finishing 19th and 17th in the English First Division.
His Wembley performance against England in 67' saw Nottingham Forest fork out £100,000 for him.
Forest had finished Runners Up to Man Utd (of Best, Law and Charlton) in Div 1 that 66-67 season.
With Baxter in the side, Forest finished the next two seasons in 11th and 18th in Div 1.

My apologies for the rant, but hindsight tells me we let Baxter go at the right time,
and we should be grateful for that,
in that we can always celebrate the genius that he was in those wonderful years at Ibrox.

Now getting back on track, this is after all a Jim Forrest thread.
We did come close in 66' to winning the League, but for those 3 horrible weeks in March when we dropped 6 of 8 points, and lost the League by 2 points.
I will always be convinced that we would have won the League (and the ECWC) in 67' if we had not been so ridiculously foolish to get rid of a phenomenal goalscoring 22 year old.
After that, who knows what would have been, if Davie White had a Jim Forrest instead of an Alex Ferguson.
History might well have been a lot kinder to you and I in our adolescence.
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
I'm yet to be convinced that Baxter leaving was significant in Celtic's dominance post 65'.

I'm sure at the time that it seemed that way, to thousands of us (and to them too),
but with hindsight and a few stats and facts, it tells me otherwise.

In the two seasons (62/63 and 63/64) when Rangers (and Baxter) ruled the roost in Scotland,
Baxter played in 90 Games for Rangers.
Of those 90 domestic games that Baxter played in, we lost only 3 games.

By 1964-65 we were no longer the dominant force (and imho, unfortunately, neither was Baxter).
We had already suffered 3 league Defeats in the first 16 games that Baxter played in that season.
(1-3 v Celtic, 1-4 v Dundee, and 2-4 v Hibs).
Our only decent spell in that 64-65 season was in the period that Baxter was out injured,
when we lost only 1 of the 11 Games (9 League, 2 Scottish Cup).
When Baxter did return to the side in March 65', he played in 9 of our remaining 12 fixtures.
Of the 9 Baxter played in, we suffered 5 defeats, which included his comeback game in a 2-1 defeat to Hibs in the Scottish Cup (our only domestic Cup defeat in two and half years/36 Cup Ties).
Over the course of that 64-65 season, we lost 8 League Games.
7 of those 8 defeats, was with Baxter in the side (Baxter played in 22 league games).
In the 12 League games that Baxter did not play in, we suffered defeat only once.

I struggle to remember a single domestic game that Baxter was involved in that was significant after 1965.
Yes, he could still do the business at International level as his performances against Italy 65', Brazil 66' and Wembley 67' proved, but as a consistent performer in the domestic game on a regular basis,
he was shot.
He failed to improve a big spending Sunderland in his two seasons there, with Sunderland finishing 19th and 17th in the English First Division.
His Wembley performance against England in 67' saw Nottingham Forest fork out £100,000 for him.
Forest had finished Runners Up to Man Utd (of Best, Law and Charlton) in Div 1 that 66-67 season.
With Baxter in the side, Forest finished the next two seasons in 11th and 18th in Div 1.

My apologies for the rant, but hindsight tells me we let Baxter go at the right time,
and we should be grateful for that,
in that we can always celebrate the genius that he was in those wonderful years at Ibrox.

Now getting back on track, this is after all a Jim Forrest thread.
We did come close in 66' to winning the League, but for those 3 horrible weeks in March when we dropped 6 of 8 points, and lost the League by 2 points.
I will always be convinced that we would have won the League (and the ECWC) in 67' if we had not been so ridiculously foolish to get rid of a phenomenal goalscoring 22 year old.
After that, who knows what would have been, if Davie White had a Jim Forrest instead of an Alex Ferguson.
History might well have been a lot kinder to you and I in our adolescence.

I'll read it better tomorrow.

I think Rangers were ready for a Baxter and Baxter deep down needed Rangers.

I'll freely admit I don't care about Sunderland or Notts Forrest.

But one thing still comes to mind from my old man.

Back in the day, Sunderland had an Irishman called Charlie Hurley and he had an article in one of the Sundays to the effect 'I was the King of Wearside till Baxter came to town.'

I can't and will not argue with your stats, in fact, they enrich our knowledge as a support.

I sill maintain with a 'finished' Baxter we'd have garnered a few more points in the March of 66. Beware the ides and all that..
 

o7o

Well-Known Member
For me Laudrup.

I think in terms of class, De Boer was up there with Laudrup and Gazza, but we witnessed it less. So for me, he is the lesser of the three.

Just my opinion, but De Boer the footballer on form was something to behold.
Imagine all 3 together...woosh
 

o7o

Well-Known Member
I'm yet to be convinced that Baxter leaving was significant in Celtic's dominance post 65'.

I'm sure at the time that it seemed that way, to thousands of us (and to them too),
but with hindsight and a few stats and facts, it tells me otherwise.

In the two seasons (62/63 and 63/64) when Rangers (and Baxter) ruled the roost in Scotland,
Baxter played in 90 Games for Rangers.
Of those 90 domestic games that Baxter played in, we lost only 3 games.

By 1964-65 we were no longer the dominant force (and imho, unfortunately, neither was Baxter).
We had already suffered 3 league Defeats in the first 16 games that Baxter played in that season.
(1-3 v Celtic, 1-4 v Dundee, and 2-4 v Hibs).
Our only decent spell in that 64-65 season was in the period that Baxter was out injured,
when we lost only 1 of the 11 Games (9 League, 2 Scottish Cup).
When Baxter did return to the side in March 65', he played in 9 of our remaining 12 fixtures.
Of the 9 Baxter played in, we suffered 5 defeats, which included his comeback game in a 2-1 defeat to Hibs in the Scottish Cup (our only domestic Cup defeat in two and half years/36 Cup Ties).
Over the course of that 64-65 season, we lost 8 League Games.
7 of those 8 defeats, was with Baxter in the side (Baxter played in 22 league games).
In the 12 League games that Baxter did not play in, we suffered defeat only once.

I struggle to remember a single domestic game that Baxter was involved in that was significant after 1965.
Yes, he could still do the business at International level as his performances against Italy 65', Brazil 66' and Wembley 67' proved, but as a consistent performer in the domestic game on a regular basis,
he was shot.
He failed to improve a big spending Sunderland in his two seasons there, with Sunderland finishing 19th and 17th in the English First Division.
His Wembley performance against England in 67' saw Nottingham Forest fork out £100,000 for him.
Forest had finished Runners Up to Man Utd (of Best, Law and Charlton) in Div 1 that 66-67 season.
With Baxter in the side, Forest finished the next two seasons in 11th and 18th in Div 1.

My apologies for the rant, but hindsight tells me we let Baxter go at the right time,
and we should be grateful for that,
in that we can always celebrate the genius that he was in those wonderful years at Ibrox.

Now getting back on track, this is after all a Jim Forrest thread.
We did come close in 66' to winning the League, but for those 3 horrible weeks in March when we dropped 6 of 8 points, and lost the League by 2 points.
I will always be convinced that we would have won the League (and the ECWC) in 67' if we had not been so ridiculously foolish to get rid of a phenomenal goalscoring 22 year old.
After that, who knows what would have been, if Davie White had a Jim Forrest instead of an Alex Ferguson.
History might well have been a lot kinder to you and I in our adolescence.
Great shout mate... Baxter was the greatest but his off field antics got to him.

In fairness he usually destroyed them and only lost 1 or 2 times....as for The other Jim...Mr Forrest a goal machine
 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
I'm yet to be convinced that Baxter leaving was significant in Celtic's dominance post 65'.

I'm sure at the time that it seemed that way, to thousands of us (and to them too),
but with hindsight and a few stats and facts, it tells me otherwise.

In the two seasons (62/63 and 63/64) when Rangers (and Baxter) ruled the roost in Scotland,
Baxter played in 90 Games for Rangers.
Of those 90 domestic games that Baxter played in, we lost only 3 games.

By 1964-65 we were no longer the dominant force (and imho, unfortunately, neither was Baxter).
We had already suffered 3 league Defeats in the first 16 games that Baxter played in that season.
(1-3 v Celtic, 1-4 v Dundee, and 2-4 v Hibs).
Our only decent spell in that 64-65 season was in the period that Baxter was out injured,
when we lost only 1 of the 11 Games (9 League, 2 Scottish Cup).
When Baxter did return to the side in March 65', he played in 9 of our remaining 12 fixtures.
Of the 9 Baxter played in, we suffered 5 defeats, which included his comeback game in a 2-1 defeat to Hibs in the Scottish Cup (our only domestic Cup defeat in two and half years/36 Cup Ties).
Over the course of that 64-65 season, we lost 8 League Games.
7 of those 8 defeats, was with Baxter in the side (Baxter played in 22 league games).
In the 12 League games that Baxter did not play in, we suffered defeat only once.

I struggle to remember a single domestic game that Baxter was involved in that was significant after 1965.
Yes, he could still do the business at International level as his performances against Italy 65', Brazil 66' and Wembley 67' proved, but as a consistent performer in the domestic game on a regular basis,
he was shot.
He failed to improve a big spending Sunderland in his two seasons there, with Sunderland finishing 19th and 17th in the English First Division.
His Wembley performance against England in 67' saw Nottingham Forest fork out £100,000 for him.
Forest had finished Runners Up to Man Utd (of Best, Law and Charlton) in Div 1 that 66-67 season.
With Baxter in the side, Forest finished the next two seasons in 11th and 18th in Div 1.

My apologies for the rant, but hindsight tells me we let Baxter go at the right time,
and we should be grateful for that,
in that we can always celebrate the genius that he was in those wonderful years at Ibrox.

Now getting back on track, this is after all a Jim Forrest thread.
We did come close in 66' to winning the League, but for those 3 horrible weeks in March when we dropped 6 of 8 points, and lost the League by 2 points.
I will always be convinced that we would have won the League (and the ECWC) in 67' if we had not been so ridiculously foolish to get rid of a phenomenal goalscoring 22 year old.
After that, who knows what would have been, if Davie White had a Jim Forrest instead of an Alex Ferguson.
History might well have been a lot kinder to you and I in our adolescence.
I think the one thing stats don't give us is how teams think.

From what I was told. Baxter wasn't just the greatest player in our shirt, he also destroyed the Celtic team mindset before they had even put their strips on. They simply didn't think they could beat him.

Baxter leaving wasntjust about results.
It freed their heads.
 

Alex Venters

Well-Known Member
I think the one thing stats don't give us is how teams think.

From what I was told. Baxter wasn't just the greatest player in our shirt, he also destroyed the Celtic team mindset before they had even put their strips on. They simply didn't think they could beat him.

Baxter leaving wasntjust about results.
It freed their heads.
That indefinable quality.
Well,Jim Baxter had it in spades, no wonder their squad erupted in cheers, mid-flight, when they heard the news of his transfer.
 

MO_TxTruBlu

Well-Known Member
I think the one thing stats don't give us is how teams think.

From what I was told. Baxter wasn't just the greatest player in our shirt, he also destroyed the Celtic team mindset before they had even put their strips on. They simply didn't think they could beat him.

Baxter leaving wasntjust about results.
It freed their heads.
Are you a Therapist? ;)

Celtic became a better side 65' onwards, because of Jock Stein, not because Jim Baxter left Rangers.

You do realise that Celtic were not a great side between 1960 and 1965?
They were never even Runners Up in the League in any of those five years.
In three of those five seasons they were the THIRD best team in Glasgow, finishing below
Third Lanark (1960-61), Partick Thistle (62-63) and Clyde (64-65).

I remember having a discussion with you previously on another thread about the effect of losing Jim Forrest (who this thread is intended to be about), and you questioned about what difference he would have made, and were adamant that he did very little after leaving Rangers,
which of course, I disagreed with.

Jim Baxter, as great as he was,
and he was a genius in a Rangers jersey 1960-64.
But by 1965, as I have detailed in posts above, he was no longer the player he once was,
and he went on to be a complete failure in the English League, and did nothing to improve the fortunes at the two clubs he played for, over the next four seasons.

We let Baxter go at the right time,
and we should be grateful for that,
in that we can always celebrate the genius that he was in those wonderful years at Ibrox.

Now let's get back to celebrating that other great Jim from the 1960's :))
 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
Are you a Therapist? ;)

Celtic became a better side 65' onwards, because of Jock Stein, not because Jim Baxter left Rangers.

You do realise that Celtic were not a great side between 1960 and 1965?
They were never even Runners Up in the League in any of those five years.
In three of those five seasons they were the THIRD best team in Glasgow, finishing below
Third Lanark (1960-61), Partick Thistle (62-63) and Clyde (64-65).

I remember having a discussion with you previously on another thread about the effect of losing Jim Forrest (who this thread is intended to be about), and you questioned about what difference he would have made, and were adamant that he did very little after leaving Rangers,
which of course, I disagreed with.

Jim Baxter, as great as he was,
and he was a genius in a Rangers jersey 1960-64.
But by 1965, as I have detailed in posts above, he was no longer the player he once was,
and he went on to be a complete failure in the English League, and did nothing to improve the fortunes at the two clubs he played for, over the next four seasons.

We let Baxter go at the right time,
and we should be grateful for that,
in that we can always celebrate the genius that he was in those wonderful years at Ibrox.

Now let's get back to celebrating that other great Jim from the 1960's :))
We are allowed to occasionally disagree.

I obviously wasn't old enough to remember Baxter first time round, so rely on what my old man told me. And he absolutely maintained to his dying day that if Baxter had stayed, Celtic's history would have that one big gap in it as they had numerous players who became legends that were terrified of him and flourished only after he wasn't there to toy with them.

I choose to believe that, just like I choose to believe Baxter at Ibrox would have been different to the one at Sunderland.
 

MO_TxTruBlu

Well-Known Member
We are allowed to occasionally disagree.

I obviously wasn't old enough to remember Baxter first time round, so rely on what my old man told me. And he absolutely maintained to his dying day that if Baxter had stayed, Celtic's history would have that one big gap in it as they had numerous players who became legends that were terrified of him and flourished only after he wasn't there to toy with them.

I choose to believe that, just like I choose to believe Baxter at Ibrox would have been different to the one at Sunderland.

Of course we are allowed to disagree, that's what makes these threads worthy, and even when we do, I always appreciate your contribution and your opinions.

I am not old enough either to have appreciated Jim Baxter in his pomp, and the 64-65 season was probably my first season watching Rangers on a fairly regular basis.
At such a young age, I obviously didn't understand the game that well, but I do remember that I was watching a Rangers side who didn't seem to win every week,
something that they seemed to do 1960-64.
So I do rely on stats to form opinions, where my knowledge was not that good, and the stats from that particular season (64-65) tend to bear out my logic, that Baxter was no longer the player he had been in the previous four seasons.
Many people will tell you he was the greatest Scottish player of all time, many will tell you, he was the best Half Back in Britain, and he may well have been in the earlier part of the sixties, but I have to question why none of the big boys in England came in to sign the best player in Scotland in 1965.
MacKay, White and Gilzean at Spurs, St John and Yeats at Liverpool, Scott and Young at Everton, Crerand at Man Utd, Bobby Collins, Charlie Cooke, were all players who left Scotland and forged successful careers down south.
As successful and important as these Scottish players were to their English sides during that period, why did none of the major clubs come in for the best of them all?
As far as I know, only Stoke City and Sunderland were willing to take on Baxter.

Another 'stat' that is often ignored, is the fact that after Baxter departed Rangers, our League form in 1965-66 improved considerably, where we finished 3 places higher than the 64-65 season, and 11 points better off, with the same number of points that we achieved in the 64' treble season.
The Problem though, was that Celtic for the first time in over a decade, finished above Rangers.
That was simply not acceptable to a generation of Rangers fans.

I still maintain that we let Baxter go at the right time.
We were blessed to have the genius that Jim Baxter was from 1960-64,
and we should all be grateful for that.
 

Alex Venters

Well-Known Member
Of course we are allowed to disagree, that's what makes these threads worthy, and even when we do, I always appreciate your contribution and your opinions.

I am not old enough either to have appreciated Jim Baxter in his pomp, and the 64-65 season was probably my first season watching Rangers on a fairly regular basis.
At such a young age, I obviously didn't understand the game that well, but I do remember that I was watching a Rangers side who didn't seem to win every week,
something that they seemed to do 1960-64.
So I do rely on stats to form opinions, where my knowledge was not that good, and the stats from that particular season (64-65) tend to bear out my logic, that Baxter was no longer the player he had been in the previous four seasons.
Many people will tell you he was the greatest Scottish player of all time, many will tell you, he was the best Half Back in Britain, and he may well have been in the earlier part of the sixties, but I have to question why none of the big boys in England came in to sign the best player in Scotland in 1965.
MacKay, White and Gilzean at Spurs, St John and Yeats at Liverpool, Scott and Young at Everton, Crerand at Man Utd, Bobby Collins, Charlie Cooke, were all players who left Scotland and forged successful careers down south.
As successful and important as these Scottish players were to their English sides during that period, why did none of the major clubs come in for the best of them all?
As far as I know, only Stoke City and Sunderland were willing to take on Baxter.

Another 'stat' that is often ignored, is the fact that after Baxter departed Rangers, our League form in 1965-66 improved considerably, where we finished 3 places higher than the 64-65 season, and 11 points better off, with the same number of points that we achieved in the 64' treble season.
The Problem though, was that Celtic for the first time in over a decade, finished above Rangers.
That was simply not acceptable to a generation of Rangers fans.

I still maintain that we let Baxter go at the right time.
We were blessed to have the genius that Jim Baxter was from 1960-64,
and we should all be grateful for that.
I believe Baxter's extra curricular activities are what put teams off signing him.
Manchester Utd considered bidding for him in 1963, but opted for Crerand, a clearly inferior player. Likewise Bill Nicholson gave serious consideration to replacing Blanchflower with Baxter. Maybe, just maybe Dave McKay marked his card.
Anyway, we undoubtedly saw the best of James Curran Baxter.
 
change consent
Top