We had the chance to play with multiple Angell frames last night and we had amazing fun doing so. For reference, I am a 3.5 level player and my partner is a mid-level 4.0. On hand we had Wilson PS85, TC90, TC95, TC97-I and TC97-II. Here are the strung specs for each:
- P85, we did not measure, stock frame with multifilament strings at unknown tension
- TC90: 16x18, 339 gm, 318 mm balance, 27.25” length, full bed Halo at 58#
- TC95: 18x20, 333 gm, 330 mm, 27.5”, full bed Halo at 56#
- TC97-I: 16x19, 346 gm, 324 mm, 27.5”, Klip Legend 16 @ 56# and Halo @ 56#
- TC97-II: 18x20, 335 gm, 326 mm, 27”, Klip Legend 16 @ 56# and Halo @ 56#
Couple of notes up front: (1) I have to retract all my first-impression comments on the TC97 18x20 that were negative. I had a blast playing with it this time around, just a superb frame all around. (2) At the end of 70 mins of playing we concluded that all Angell frames played really well, we could pick anyone of them up and not feel any remorse, and (3) the PS85
felt heavier than the TC90 and less maneuverable.
Ground strokes:
The TC90 requires good footwork and timing to get the most out of it. If those two are there, it is a very rewarding frame. The 2nd most unforgiving frame of the bunch (first place goes to the PS85), but when you get the shot right, the pace, precision and spin are pretty much unmatched as a combination. Each of the frames do one, two or even three things great, but the TC90 does more so in all aspects, particularly ground strokes, volleys and slices. Its power could only be matched by the TC97s in our hands, I suspect that the 70 RA rating had something to do with it. At the same time, it was the most muted and as plush as any of the other racquets. It also was closest to the PS85 in feel and certainly the word “classic” came to mind frequently.
The TC97-I produced superb pace, but comparatively was the least accurate frame of the bunch. You’d only notice this when you play these frames back to back, because I always thought it is quite accurate and precise, but next to TC90 or TC97-II, it lacked ease of ball placement. As expected though, besides its power, it also had ton of spin on ground strokes, more so than any other, but
not by a wide margin. One thing that worked better for the TC97-I was ball pocketing seemed better and it produced a feel that was crisper with touch shots at the volley IMHO, but that did not translate into more precision compared to the TC90 or 97-II. If you were just playing with the 97-I, you’d think it has great feel, which it certainly does, and consequently offers better placement, which it does not.
TC97-II was the most surprising to us. I really had difficulty generating any amount of spin with it the first time I played with it, but this time, it was very close to the 97-I which has an open string pattern. It also nearly matched 97-I’s power, but it absolutely surpassed it in ball placement and generating underspin, sidespin and long razor sharp slices. It is also quite forgiving as its sweetspot is pretty large, particularly compared to the TC90. Unfortunately, the part that is not as good as the TC90 is its balance, it just cannot match it, and the TC90 feels very light on its feet, whippy!
TC95 felt lacking in all the attributes of the others just slightly. It felt like a frame that does it all, but no master of any. It was a little more precise than the 97-I, similar spin to 97-II, but lacked the capability of under spin of the 97-II or the power of the 97-I. The TC90 had more feel and inspired the most confidence, at the same time when I got tired towards the end, my timing was slightly off and made more errors with the TC90, still a highly desirable frame IMO.
Ratings: TC90: 9.5, TC95: 7.5, TC97-I: 8, TC97-II: 9.5
Volleys:
This was very easy to conclude: The TC90 and PS85 outgun everything else. The maneuverability and precision is just not found with the other frames, although TC97-II comes closest. The only thing that holds the TC97-II back, is its balance being more head heavy, or I should say, less HL. The TC90 is so easy to get in front of the ball and its sweetspot being smaller is not a disadvantage in this case at all.
The TC95 came close in the volleys to the TC97-II, but we just could not find a reason to prefer the TC95 over the 97-II as the later is slightly more forgiving, and equally or more effective.
The 97-I is just not the best weapon in this company; lacked the precision, feel and crispness of the others. By itself, it performs very well, but in this bunch it lacks behind. We could not tap into its groundstroke power with short volley motion, finishing points with it was tougher.
Ratings: TC90: 10, TC95: 8.5, TC97-I: 6.5, TC97-II: 9
Chip-and-Charge:
This is the domain of the TC90 and TC97-II, they were the clear winners. TC95 was again close, but not quite at the same level. With the TC97-I it became apparent that it is mostly detrimental to even try to chip-and-charge once you get used to the ease of doing so with the other racquets. I suspect the open string pattern is to blame for this as it was hard to control and judge where and how to best place the ball to actually create the opportunity to charge. Most of the time, we just put the ball out of bounds or to the net with the TC97-I.
Ratings: TC90: 9.5, TC95: 9, TC97-I: 5, TC97-II: 10
Serves:
This was a tough call in every regard. We tried so many different types of serves and each racquet gave us varying amount of success, and mostly we had to adjust few things to get the most out of each to our liking. Overall though my partner had great pace and placement with the TC97-II, and I did so with the TC97-I as I have been using that frame for more than a year now. The kick serves just jump
over 6’ with the TC97-II, and spin serves have beautiful curves with the 97-I, and TC95 gave us a little bit of both but not enough to persuade us to use it for serves. We generated weakest serves, but most precise placements with the TC90. Towards the end, we figured out that we had to toss the ball further forward than we already do with other racquets, and jump slightly higher to before hitting, which then generates good pace in addition to spin. However, serving kicks with the TC90 were difficult, we could not be consistent with it. The only knock we have on the TC97-II is that we had the most sensitivity on our shoulders with it than any other frame.
Ratings: TC90: 7.5, TC95: 8.5, TC97-I: 9.5, TC97-II: 9.5
RoS:
This one was easy, very easy in fact. The TC90 and TC97-II were so far above everything else, it is difficult to compare them. Surprisingly the TC95 wasn’t also close this time. With the TC90 and TC97-II you just think of how and where to return the service and they are on remote control almost, it just happens. The only two issues with the TC97-II compared to the TC90 were (1) lack of comparative maneuverability caused few bad hits, and (2) for some reason my CC returns were dropping short, I just could not hit all the way to the back corner, and because of short returns, I got killed on the next shot. DTL returns were no issues at all, in fact they were beyond effective. With TC97-II the best parts were returning flat serves to my BH with hard slices or flat block returns, they were dream-like and extremely effective. TC90 was equally effective, more so on CC returns, but we had to have our timing just right. Its easy maneuverability paid dividends here.
With the TC95, most returns were relatively short and I had to pray not to get creamed next shot. Left a lot to be desired compared to the TC90 and 97-II.
The TC97-I does great topspin returns, better than others I think, but it lacks in every other area; precision, slice returns or block returns.
Ratings: TC90: 9.5, TC95: 7.5, TC97-I: 6.5, TC97-II: 9
It was so much fun to get all these frames together and play, I hope to do it again soon. There is another 4.0 player with a TC100 near by, I hope we can include him or the frame or both next time too
Here is a short vid to help with visualization:
