McEnroe/Borg Fire & Ice...

[bottle]

Yes, thanks for this history, which enriches my existence on the edge of Lake St. Clair.

[stotty]

When Aaron was a junior...perhaps as young as eleven or twelve years old the wise old master who took Jimmy Connors under his wing made the comment that Aaron Krickstein may be the next Bjorn Borg of the tennis world. At the time that was quite a stunning comment to make coming from him. Perhaps it was made around 1980 or so when Borg was at his zenith.

Bjorn began his run on Wimbledon and the French Open in 1974 with a victory at Roland Garros. Just prior to this his serve was the weak link in his game. The foundation of his game was his legendary ground stroke game. As a teenage phenom he was prone to attack on his serve...particularly his second serve which was a real creampuff...but when he suddenly bolstered his serve he was virtually unbeatable at these two venues not to mention making the finals of the U. S. Open on a number of occasions. His performance in the tennis world has perhaps been unprecedented considering the longevity of his career which was ended at a pretty young age.

Pancho Segura's comment was not so far off base in my opinion knowing what I know about the development of young Aaron's game. I don't take any credit to his development but I do have a very good knowledge of it and came to understand his game which like Borg's was basically in defiance of all conventional wisdom in terms of grips and strokes. Nothing about his game was standard issue and it seems to be of his own creation. Aaron had every shot in the book and what's more he could imitate virtually any player that was playing at the time including Borg, McEnroe, Connors or Lendl.

I certainly never suggested to change anything about his totally individualistic interpretation of his ground game but just before he left for "The Academy" I did make a bit of a presentation to his father about his serve technique and tactics along with a copy of Bill Tilden's "How to Play Better Tennis: A complete guide to technique and tactics". This is before tennisplayer.net was even an idea. I had never written a word about tennis at that point either.

Your comparison of you own plight does not compare to the situation of Aaron...but I truly understand where you are coming from. The major fallacy being that Aaron's foundation was already cast in stone being in his ground game. What I presented to his father in 1983 was an idea about his service motion and that being that I was of the opinion that it was time in his stage of development that the serve be the focal point of his potential...the fulfillment of in order to transition into the men's game. What I was suggesting would not hinder any part of his game...at that point a better service game would only have enhanced the rest of the picture.

I remember in the course of my conversation with his father talking about the pitching star of the Detroit Tigers at the time who was a fellow by the name of Jack Morris. I was referring to how pitchers strategize as it relates to different batters. Something that I knew a bit about as I had been a pitcher in baseball as well. I had a big serve too...and I was very clever with it. I had all of the spins plus I was left handed so I would say that I was very crafty as well. This is what I was suggesting to Dr. Krickstein.

Aaron possessed much more than just a sound ground game. In fact he possessed much more than a superlative ground game. GeoffWilliams touches on it with his citing his extraordinary record of coming from behind 10 times when down two sets to love. This boy was something of a Mozart who had this quality about him that was truly regal. He had this greatness about him but he was such a modest boy...just an ordinary boy at heart. He was like Arthur in a sense...The Once and Future King. A possibility to a dreamer.

His understanding of game...of game sense in general was one of his biggest weapons. His strongest strengths. With him it seemed to be almost intuitive. He didn't seem to give much thought to tactics or strategy but his matches had this sense of order and perfection. He was terribly hard to figure out...as if he was always a step ahead of his opponent. Even against older and more experienced opponents. My big left handed serve frustrated him to no end...when he was eleven years old but by the time he was fourteen it was coming back faster than I was delivering it.

He could adapt his game to any conditions and to any opponent with relative ease. If anything, this is what we talked about when I was with him...it was playing the game. I was pretty young and I had not really developed myself into who I am now so my input was limited in some ways. But the one thing that I was pretty certain about was the serve and it was the one thing that I attempted to bring into the discussion when it concerned his future.

I remember once in Kalamazoo in 1983...it was the year that he came back from two sets to love to beat Vitas Gerulaitis at the U. S. Open...he had also beaten Stefan Edberg in five sets in the first round. Aaron was to play Patrick McEnroe in the finals of the 18 and under and I was in the tower at the Kalamazoo stadium talking with Pat Wood who was the coach at the Grosse Point high school tennis team. He told me that he overheard the McEnroe coaches in discussion about the upcoming match against Aaron and that they had pretty much come to the conclusion that Aaron could not or would not pass down the line off of his backhand. Patrick was going to try and exploit this in his coming to the net. I relayed this information to Aaron and sure enough...time and time again McEnroe was approaching to the backhand anticipating cross court only to see the ball going precisely down the line.

It was the serve that quite possibly "limited" Aaron in his career from not attaining the lofty level of Pancho Segura's comment. In my opinion...and I watched him dominate the 18 and under crowd when he was only 15...he was quite capable of having a shot at such a level. When I say limited you understand that I am using it relatively speaking.

I wished that I had known then what I know now. I would have asserted myself more on my ideas. But even then I was not a full time tennis coach. I was just a poor working stiff trying to eek out a living working for the Ford Motor Company. Doing a stint in the workplace that Ferdinand Celine describes so beautifully and so eloquently in his novel..."Journey to the End of the Night".

But in no way should this be taken as any criticism of Aaron or even his father's judgement. These two fellows played such a wonderful role in my life at the time...I will always love them and respect them to the end of my life. Aaron's father was such a shrewd and wise man...he invested everything in his children and gave them every opportunity in life to live out their dreams. He even masterminded his grand daughter Morgan Pressel in her golf career from what I understand or at least had a very heavy influence. The combination of Herb's intelligence and Aaron's extraordinary talent got Aaron to number six in the world at one point. But still I wonder...what if Nick Bolletieri had actually developed Aaron's game instead of exploiting what he was handed to him. Aaron essentially played the junior backcourt game in the professional world of tennis. I believe that there was some unrealized potential left in his system.

The service game that I am talking about would never in a million years been detrimental to the game of Aaron Krickstein. First of all...he was like my little brother and I would never in a billion years suggest something to his detriment. I remember the three of us saw "The Raging Bull" together and from then on I was the Jake LaMotta character and Aaron was the little brother Joey. Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci. I'm laughing to myself just remembering that. Secondly...if he would have had such a serve he probably would not have had to come from behind on those ten occasions from two sets to love. That might be the one point to his detriment...he would not possess that incredible record or feat of heart, courage and resilience. Instead...who knows? Ten Grand Slam titles?

I have to say this is a significantly good post. Thoughtful and sensitively written. I remember little of Aaron. I don't know why as he was through my era. I see he missed many Wimbledon's and didn't fair well at the event in the years he did enter. That's probably how he got under my radar.

I am off to see what I can watch of Aaron on YouTube. I may want to ask questions about him...standby.

Once again, terrific post. I found it really interesting and informative.

[don_budge]

Bjorn Borg vs. Aaron Krickstein...levels of the game

I know what you meant don_budge.

What I'm saying is A bigger serve could have been a huge advantage for Aaron. Although, it could have been detrimental as well. We'll never know. Maybe Aaron's ground game was good because he had to rely on that and not so many free points on the serve. Sometimes the serve is so effective we tend to not get as many reps on the groundstrokes and that part of the game tends to weaken or get cast aside. Tough to say for Aaron. As this is all hypothetical but no doubt Aaron had a great game. My club's ball machine still yells mercy when Aaron uses it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I can only speak for myself and my history teaching and coaching players of all levels. When I was growing up playing juniors and even in college I got away with alot. I possessed a cannonball serve and didn't think too much about the rest of my game besides a few volleys.

I never gave much thought to tactics or strategy or even consistency and working the point from the baseline.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Aaron K. would have chosen a huge serve over his fh. The only man to come back from two sets down 10 times in slams, Fed next at 9 times.

When Aaron was a junior...perhaps as young as eleven or twelve years old the wise old master who took Jimmy Connors under his wing made the comment that Aaron Krickstein may be the next Bjorn Borg of the tennis world. At the time that was quite a stunning comment to make coming from him. Perhaps it was made around 1980 or so when Borg was at his zenith.

Bjorn began his run on Wimbledon and the French Open in 1974 with a victory at Roland Garros. Just prior to this his serve was the weak link in his game. The foundation of his game was his legendary ground stroke game. As a teenage phenom he was prone to attack on his serve...particularly his second serve which was a real creampuff...but when he suddenly bolstered his serve he was virtually unbeatable at these two venues not to mention making the finals of the U. S. Open on a number of occasions. His performance in the tennis world has perhaps been unprecedented considering the longevity of his career which was ended at a pretty young age.

Pancho Segura's comment was not so far off base in my opinion knowing what I know about the development of young Aaron's game. I don't take any credit to his development but I do have a very good knowledge of it and came to understand his game which like Borg's was basically in defiance of all conventional wisdom in terms of grips and strokes. Nothing about his game was standard issue and it seems to be of his own creation. Aaron had every shot in the book and what's more he could imitate virtually any player that was playing at the time including Borg, McEnroe, Connors or Lendl.

I certainly never suggested to change anything about his totally individualistic interpretation of his ground game but just before he left for "The Academy" I did make a bit of a presentation to his father about his serve technique and tactics along with a copy of Bill Tilden's "How to Play Better Tennis: A complete guide to technique and tactics". This is before tennisplayer.net was even an idea. I had never written a word about tennis at that point either.

Your comparison of you own plight does not compare to the situation of Aaron...but I truly understand where you are coming from. The major fallacy being that Aaron's foundation was already cast in stone being in his ground game. What I presented to his father in 1983 was an idea about his service motion and that being that I was of the opinion that it was time in his stage of development that the serve be the focal point of his potential...the fulfillment of in order to transition into the men's game. What I was suggesting would not hinder any part of his game...at that point a better service game would only have enhanced the rest of the picture.

I remember in the course of my conversation with his father talking about the pitching star of the Detroit Tigers at the time who was a fellow by the name of Jack Morris. I was referring to how pitchers strategize as it relates to different batters. Something that I knew a bit about as I had been a pitcher in baseball as well. I had a big serve too...and I was very clever with it. I had all of the spins plus I was left handed so I would say that I was very crafty as well. This is what I was suggesting to Dr. Krickstein.

Aaron possessed much more than just a sound ground game. In fact he possessed much more than a superlative ground game. GeoffWilliams touches on it with his citing his extraordinary record of coming from behind 10 times when down two sets to love. This boy was something of a Mozart who had this quality about him that was truly regal. He had this greatness about him but he was such a modest boy...just an ordinary boy at heart. He was like Arthur in a sense...The Once and Future King. A possibility to a dreamer.

His understanding of game...of game sense in general was one of his biggest weapons. His strongest strengths. With him it seemed to be almost intuitive. He didn't seem to give much thought to tactics or strategy but his matches had this sense of order and perfection. He was terribly hard to figure out...as if he was always a step ahead of his opponent. Even against older and more experienced opponents. My big left handed serve frustrated him to no end...when he was eleven years old but by the time he was fourteen it was coming back faster than I was delivering it.

He could adapt his game to any conditions and to any opponent with relative ease. If anything, this is what we talked about when I was with him...it was playing the game. I was pretty young and I had not really developed myself into who I am now so my input was limited in some ways. But the one thing that I was pretty certain about was the serve and it was the one thing that I attempted to bring into the discussion when it concerned his future.

I remember once in Kalamazoo in 1983...it was the year that he came back from two sets to love to beat Vitas Gerulaitis at the U. S. Open...he had also beaten Stefan Edberg in five sets in the first round. Aaron was to play Patrick McEnroe in the finals of the 18 and under and I was in the tower at the Kalamazoo stadium talking with Pat Wood who was the coach at the Grosse Point high school tennis team. He told me that he overheard the McEnroe coaches in discussion about the upcoming match against Aaron and that they had pretty much come to the conclusion that Aaron could not or would not pass down the line off of his backhand. Patrick was going to try and exploit this in his coming to the net. I relayed this information to Aaron and sure enough...time and time again McEnroe was approaching to the backhand anticipating cross court only to see the ball going precisely down the line.

It was the serve that quite possibly "limited" Aaron in his career from not attaining the lofty level of Pancho Segura's comment. In my opinion...and I watched him dominate the 18 and under crowd when he was only 15...he was quite capable of having a shot at such a level. When I say limited you understand that I am using it relatively speaking.

I wished that I had known then what I know now. I would have asserted myself more on my ideas. But even then I was not a full time tennis coach. I was just a poor working stiff trying to eek out a living working for the Ford Motor Company. Doing a stint in the workplace that Ferdinand Celine describes so beautifully and so eloquently in his novel..."Journey to the End of the Night".

But in no way should this be taken as any criticism of Aaron or even his father's judgement. These two fellows played such a wonderful role in my life at the time...I will always love them and respect them to the end of my life. Aaron's father was such a shrewd and wise man...he invested everything in his children and gave them every opportunity in life to live out their dreams. He even masterminded his grand daughter Morgan Pressel in her golf career from what I understand or at least had a very heavy influence. The combination of Herb's intelligence and Aaron's extraordinary talent got Aaron to number six in the world at one point. But still I wonder...what if Nick Bolletieri had actually developed Aaron's game instead of exploiting what he was handed to him. Aaron essentially played the junior backcourt game in the professional world of tennis. I believe that there was some unrealized potential left in his system.

The service game that I am talking about would never in a million years been detrimental to the game of Aaron Krickstein. First of all...he was like my little brother and I would never in a billion years suggest something to his detriment. I remember the three of us saw "The Raging Bull" together and from then on I was the Jake LaMotta character and Aaron was the little brother Joey. Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci. I'm laughing to myself just remembering that. Secondly...if he would have had such a serve he probably would not have had to come from behind on those ten occasions from two sets to love. That might be the one point to his detriment...he would not possess that incredible record or feat of heart, courage and resilience. Instead...who knows? Ten Grand Slam titles?

[klacr]

Your forehand was just like mine then...

It's only players like us who don't have forehands who can fully appreciate that a decent forehand is worth its weight in gold. If I had had a forehand, I would have won a lot, lot more matches.

Perhaps we should start a "No Forehand" club...members only. Anyone who can hit a forehand over on match point can't join. You can be President and I will be membership secretary. We will be a small club to start with but no doubt we will quickly swell in numbers. From what I have seen there are plenty of us.

Good idea. I've accepted the fact of my forehand will never be as natural as other parts of my game. With that said, tennisplayer.net has helped immensely in improving the shot. I can hit with the best male players at my club (5.0) with relative comfort, it's when I train and play with strong men's open players or visiting pros to my club like Jarkko Nieminen or Vince Spadea(when he was on tour) that when I need to go for it and use it as a weapon it doesn't have the explosion. I can rally with it and use multiple spins but can't drop hammer when I need to. I'd rather slice it, approach and attempt to hit a volley. If not hit perfect, Jarkko will pass me. Always. Always. Always.

Kyle LaCroix President of No Forehand Club
USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Aaron K. would have chosen a huge serve over his fh. The only man to come back from two sets down 10 times in slams, Fed next at 9 times. Count me into the no fh club. Also no serve club. No over head club. No movement club. No trophy club.

[stotty]

My forehand was a big flat shot but very erratic and would disappear for days and weeks on end. A huge liability.

Your forehand was just like mine then...

It's only players like us who don't have forehands who can fully appreciate that a decent forehand is worth its weight in gold. If I had had a forehand, I would have won a lot, lot more matches.

Perhaps we should start a "No Forehand" club...members only. Anyone who can hit a forehand over on match point can't join. You can be President and I will be membership secretary. We will be a small club to start with but no doubt we will quickly swell in numbers. From what I have seen there are plenty of us.

[klacr]

Players who have to compensate often have the most interesting games. Great shots would seem to emerge from having an achilles heel.

What's even harder to figure out is urgency. A soccer team losing a match with only five minutes remaining will start to play with an intensity that makes you wonder why they didn't play like that all along. Somehow things have to get urgent first...funny psychology when you think about it.

Very true post Stotty

I can only speak for myself and my history teaching and coaching players of all levels. When I was growing up playing juniors and even in college I got away with alot. I possessed a cannonball serve and didn't think too much about the rest of my game besides a few volleys. My forehand was a big flat shot but very erratic and would disappear for days and weeks on end. A huge liability. My backhand had easy power, versatility and naturally better than my forehand. My ground game was questionable if someone could penetrate the court or keep me off the net.

I never gave much thought to tactics or strategy or even consistency and working the point from the baseline. Quite frankly, points wouldn't last long enough for me to "grind" like so many of my smaller contemporaries had to. I'm ashmed to admit this but in college, on lightning fast indoor courts, my serve when I found a great rhythm would turn into a weapon of mass destruction, making games go by in under 60 seconds. Sounds fine, until I come clean and admit there would be points, games, sets and matches that went by in which I won comfortably but walked off without learning anything or improving any weaknesses. I simply got into a zone on serving but the rest of my game suffered. looking back, I actually felt that I played my "best" or at least "smartest" tennis when on the rare occasion I actually struggled on serve. If I was atrocious or in a funk and serving in the 30-50% range on 1st serve, I felt that i had to think, plan, strategize more. It made me think about the whole point, my opponents game and how i had to construct the point, as opposed to just "taking it" with one or two swings of my racquet. In fact, serving poorly made the rest of my game flourish. Even in losses, I'd walk off the court feeling like I somehow played a higher level of tennis that didn't quite show up on the scoreboard.

Nowadays, with competitive tennis far behind me and 9 months removed from a neck surgery that prevented me from serving all out, I never really need to "crank up" my serve to my students and club members. But I discovered that since I've just been hitting these easy serves, the rest of my game has improved all around. Defensive capabilities and point construction are light years beyond where they could have been in my younger days. I could chalk some of that improvement to my maturity, age and patience level. But much of it is due to my ability to embrace the whole game and not relying on a big serve to get me out of every jam I found myself in. Not that it was a bad thing back in the day

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I know what you meant don_budge.

What I'm saying is A bigger serve could have been a huge advantage for Aaron. Although, it could have been detrimental as well. We'll never know. Maybe Aaron's ground game was good because he had to rely on that and not so many free points on the serve. Sometimes the serve is so effective we tend to not get as many reps on the groundstrokes and that part of the game tends to weaken or get cast aside. Tough to say for Aaron. As this is all hypothetical but no doubt Aaron had a great game. My club's ball machine still yells mercy when Aaron uses it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Players who have to compensate often have the most interesting games. Great shots would seem to emerge from having an achilles heel.

What's even harder to figure out is urgency. A soccer team losing a match with only five minutes remaining will start to play with an intensity that makes you wonder why they didn't play like that all along. Somehow things have to get urgent first...funny psychology when you think about it.

[klacr]

I know what you meant don_budge.

What I'm saying is A bigger serve could have been a huge advantage for Aaron. Although, it could have been detrimental as well. We'll never know. Maybe Aaron's ground game was good because he had to rely on that and not so many free points on the serve. Sometimes the serve is so effective we tend to not get as many reps on the groundstrokes and that part of the game tends to weaken or get cast aside. Tough to say for Aaron. As this is all hypothetical but no doubt Aaron had a great game. My club's ball machine still yells mercy when Aaron uses it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

God bless his Norse soul.

Love it. Along with the double-perspective description of Paris. I feel the same way about Paris but also about Budapest (and sadly haven't been to Prague).

In Budapest, the storefronts at ground level seem very "modern" but as you look up the architecture gets older and older in layers until the very top where there are gargoylish looking things.

I'd like to know how those huns and pests and budas did that.

[don_budge]

Success...little things can make a big difference

Too bad he never developed the perfect service motion. It could have been a whole different story with him.

Could have been a different story for Aaron. Sure. But please take my word for it, he's doing pretty well despite the serve issue. Pretty well indeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

You have to be careful of what you say...it may just get taken out of context. Don't misinterpret what I say about Aaron. Of course he did "pretty well". Of course his success was the top .01% of the competitive tennis population with Borg and McEnroe being at perhaps .001%. Pretty well indeed...as you put it. I'll take your word for it.

The only thing that I was implying was that with a perfect service motion Aaron might just have had that kind of success. Also he might have also developed his all court game to a higher level. He certainly had the ability to do it. I think too that the racquet issues worked against him rather than for him. If things would have remained the same throughout his career with the equipment it may have been a different story.

What exactly do I mean by a different story? Only that for instance at one point when Aaron was very young Pancho Segura was saying stuff like he may be the next Bjorn Borg...and this may have been possible. What separates multiple Slam winners from the others that are contesting them? Little things...things that make the chain that much stronger. The chain being only as strong as the weakest link. Things that fortify the bonds.

[klacr]

Could have been a different story for Aaron. Sure. But please take my word for it, he's doing pretty well despite the serve issue. Pretty well indeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Classic Tennis...Kyle LaCroix

Thanks for posting. Great Video. Both men are genius.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I guess these guys were a little before your time. What a shame. You are obviously a classic at heart. Your buddy...Aaron Krickstein can relate to this era. He was coming through on the cusp. He played Bjorn Borg in a exhibition match at The Palace in Auburn Hills when he turned pro in 1983 I believe. He was a huge admirer of John McEnroe as well.

In 1980 at the time of the Wimbledon final Aaron was playing with the standard sized Wilson Graphite Ultra racquet. He could simply murder that forehand even at that young age. Too bad he never developed the perfect service motion. It could have been a whole different story with him.

[don_budge]

John McEnroe...Myth and Legend

Mac was perhaps the biggest Ahole the game has ever seen, and Borg did not have the mental toughness to deal with losing to it. The game has legislated out that type of explosive temper, to the fans' detriment, to the manufacturers advantage.

John played during the most volatile period of tennis in the history of the game. His personality must be observed from a historical perspective. "Being John McEnroe" is a book written by Tim Adams that sort of explains the phenomena. Not that the small minded give a hoot...historically they are quite content with the limited perceptions as well. Not paying stringers...big deal. Stringers are notorious odd balls...how does a story like that get started and gain traction. Answer...it doesn't. I have never heard that in all of my life...except here.

The game of tennis has witnessed and continues to attract quite a few characters as GeoffWilliams suggests. While the sport of tennis can conceivably bring out the best in a person's character...sometimes it does quite the opposite. Even in the video "Fire and Ice" it is apparent that Borg is not all "Ice Bear" as he let's go with a couple of expletives as he expresses himself. He had a volcanic nature too...when he was young. Even as he got older these sorts of things manifest themselves in his behavior as he matured and evolved.

Not all of these characters make it to the professional ranks either. Some are relegated to lesser venues where they cast stones from their glass houses.

[klacr]

Watch it and weep. The death of Classic Tennis. John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg. The game was evolving and then there was the intervention and it was dead. The day that tennis died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlfL7gYGoy0

Thanks for posting. Great Video. Both men are genius.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton