n6.1 90 , n6.1 95

i currently play w/ a n6.1 95, and i was wondering if the 90 plays better? From what I've read is that its less forgiving but if I could handle it.. would there be any benefits from the switch?
 

AlpineCadet

Hall of Fame
i've noticed that the 95 always seems to play a bit more forgiving in comparison, and definitely has more power than the 90. although, for some reason with the demo's i've tried, the 90 seems to always have been strung way above middle tension which makes the stick feel so damn stiff and powerless. and everytime i've use the 95, it's an enjoyable experience. there are a lot of other rackets out there that catch my attention based on performance, like the o3 tour midsize/midplus playabilitly-wise, but i tend to go back to wilson mainly because it looks so damn nice. :rolleyes: there are plenty of obvious choices out there that would better suit me, but for some reason, since roger is number one, and there's a lack of higher ranked players who use the o3 tour, i seem to want to find reasons to use the ncode 95/90. i know that's a bad reason, but i'm sure i'm not the only person who would want, or has bought the wilson line mainly based on fed's amazing skills. im about 50/50 between the ncode tour 90 and the midsize O3 tour.
 

Schnickle

New User
That's interesting. I'm debating on whether to buy the Nsix One 95 or the O3 Tour Mid. After being a loyal Wilson player and demoing the Nsix One 95 & reading so much good stuff about the NSix One 95, I'm leaning towards the Wilson. The O3 Tour feels amazing at times, but I need more reasons to switch. I did demo the Nsix Tour 90 and I found the sweetspot and power to be more superb on the Nsix One 95.

I wouldn't buy a racquet based on the pros. They all get them customized. Hey, we'd all be playing with Babolats then, right??
 

jasonbourne

Professional
Rob the Tennis Player said:
i currently play w/ a n6.1 95, and i was wondering if the 90 plays better? From what I've read is that its less forgiving but if I could handle it.. would there be any benefits from the switch?
Rob, which 95 string pattern do you use?
 

jasonbourne

Professional
Rob, I think you can do everything with the 90 you currently can from the 16x18 95 and more. You can expect more stability, variety, feel, and consistency in your arsenal of shots. However, it will require more effort and energy from you each time you swing.

I found it more fun to play tennis with the n90 over either 95s.
 
jasonbourne said:
Rob, I think you can do everything with the 90 you currently can from the 16x18 95 and more. You can expect more stability, variety, feel, and consistency in your arsenal of shots. However, it will require more effort and energy from you each time you swing.

I found it more fun to play tennis with the n90 over either 95s.
It was stated earlier that the 90 has less power than the 95. I want to keep everything I have off the 95. If I did switch to the 90, how I would keep things about the same. As far as power went.
 

AlpineCadet

Hall of Fame
jasonbourne said:
Rob, I think you can do everything with the 90 you currently can from the 16x18 95 and more. You can expect more stability, variety, feel, and consistency in your arsenal of shots. However, it will require more effort and energy from you each time you swing.

I found it more fun to play tennis with the n90 over either 95s.
Actually, the nCode Tour 90 has a more muted feel than the 95. Along with that, is less power, and a small sweetspot. The feeling I get when I use the two rackets is a difference worth talking about. Both are great rackets, but out of all the top ATP players, about 90% of the Wilson users use the ncode 95, while only 1-5% uses the ncode Tour 90. The rest of the percentages are from other Wilson rackets among those Wilson users. And yet among all the PJ's within the wilson users, there are next to none who use the Tour 90 except federer. There's a reason why only he uses it, and I'm sure it has something to do with what he's actually playing with vs what everyone else can obtain.
 

tennis_hand

Hall of Fame
I think if you can handle a 90inch racket, power is not a big problem by stringing it at a lower tension. You get better power, better spin and better arm comfort. Top pros nowadays mostly string their rackets at lower tension below 55.
 

jasonbourne

Professional
Rob the Tennis Player said:
It was stated earlier that the 90 has less power than the 95. I want to keep everything I have off the 95. If I did switch to the 90, how I would keep things about the same. As far as power went.
Rob, I have no idea what you string your 95 at. If you want similar power, then you would have to string at a much lower tension...perhaps up to 10lbs less.
 

jasonbourne

Professional
AlpineCadet said:
Actually, the nCode Tour 90 has a more muted feel than the 95. Along with that, is less power, and a small sweetspot. The feeling I get when I use the two rackets is a difference worth talking about.
More muted between the 90 and 95 (in the sweetspot) to me means more stability from my experience. Hence, the 90 is more comfortable to hit with.

As for power, the power with the 16x18 95 is more challenging to control versus the 90. I am able to produce more consistent, heavier shots and more pace with the 90 than the 95, and with better depth and spin control. I suspect the smaller headsize helps focus your energy into the shot better.

I feel there is more potential in improving ones game using the 90 than the 95.
 

tarkowski

Professional
jasonbourne said:
Rob, I think you can do everything with the 90 you currently can from the 16x18 95 and more. You can expect more stability, variety, feel, and consistency in your arsenal of shots. However, it will require more effort and energy from you each time you swing.

I found it more fun to play tennis with the n90 over either 95s.
Hi Jason,

It's been a while - looking at your sig it appears you made the switch! I've only hit with the 90 during that one demo and was on the fence with ordering one with a string job I liked. After living with it for a while, how are you liking the 90 compared to the 95 18x20?
 

jasonbourne

Professional
tarkowski said:
Hi Jason,

It's been a while - looking at your sig it appears you made the switch! I've only hit with the 90 during that one demo and was on the fence with ordering one with a string job I liked. After living with it for a while, how are you liking the 90 compared to the 95 18x20?
tarkowski, I did make the the switch! I have over 15hrs experience with the n90 so far.

I like the 90 more than the 18x20 because I have more variety and similar consistency. If you recall, what I enjoyed most from the 18x20 was the consistency and placement control. I was able to stay in points longer than any racquet I tried and essentially force errors from my opponents if I did not produce the occassional down the line winner. This gave me a lot of confidence during the course of a match.

With the 90 I am able to play the same game as with the 18x20 if I wanted to, plus more variety or strategies. Going on the offensive with heavy pace and/or spin or producing acute angle shots from either wing is easier and simpler to do with the 90. It is no wonder how Federer does it routinely for me. Effective transition shots with the 90 is easier to do as well, which makes volleying winners or angles easier.

When I approach with topspin, the shot is accurate and heavy enough to immediately put opponents in a defensive position. Or, if I approach with underspin the ball skids very low or considerably slows down. Opponents have difficulty timing their reply. Again, makes my first volley easy to put away or place.

If I find myself at net after a poor approach shot because I was forced into the net, defensive volleying with the 90 is more of a challenge compared to the 18x20. I have not developed as high of confidence yet in this situation.

Similar to the variety I found in groundstrokes and transition shots, I find with serves using the 90. It is simply a better serving racket to use. I can apply more or less pace, depth and spins when I want.

One characteristic I am also pleasantly surprised to discover is its stability. I sprained my wrist over a month ago. Every racquet I tried to use after a 2wk layoff caused a lot of pain each time I hit the ball. The most comfortable racquets that I own and used after the injury were the n6.1 18x20 and psc6.1. The PSC being slightly more comfortable. However, I wanted to use the most stable racquet I could use during my recovery. Snoflewis recommended the n6.1 90 in addition to the PSC6.1.

When I started to use the 90 I found *no pain* during or after my 2hrs+ matches. I am extremely excited. Hence, not only has my tennis been more fun with more variety, but also more comfortable.

I tested my performance with this racquet against different player styles.

1) Heavy pace, flat hitters (Blake style without the wheels).
2) Excessive topsin hitters (Nadal style without the wheels).
3) Grinder (Courier style with Nadal wheels).
4) All-courter (Henman style with Sampras wheels).

For me the 18x20 could routinely handle (4), (1) via mostly defense and forcing errors, and some trouble getting winners past (3), while having close sets with (2).

With the 90 (1) is more challenging to deal with at first, but once I adjusted my timing 45 minutes into the first two matches with the same opponent I managed to turn the match around. On the other hand, 90 could handle (2) remarkably easier due to the extra pace, heavy underspin, and acute angles. The same strategies apply for (3). Playing against style (4) is simply easy and fun shot making, or a bad matchup.
 

tarkowski

Professional
jasonbourne said:
tarkowski, I did make the the switch! I have over 15hrs experience with the n90 so far.

I like the 90 more than the 18x20 because I have more variety and similar consistency. If you recall, what I enjoyed most from the 18x20 was the consistency and placement control. I was able to stay in points longer than any racquet I tried and essentially force errors from my opponents if I did not produce the occassional down the line winner. This gave me a lot of confidence during the course of a match.

With the 90 I am able to play the same game as with the 18x20 if I wanted to, plus more variety or strategies. Going on the offensive with heavy pace and/or spin or producing acute angle shots from either wing is easier and simpler to do with the 90. It is no wonder how Federer does it routinely for me. Effective transition shots with the 90 is easier to do as well, which makes volleying winners or angles easier.

When I approach with topspin, the shot is accurate and heavy enough to immediately put opponents in a defensive position. Or, if I approach with underspin the ball skids very low or considerably slows down. Opponents have difficulty timing their reply. Again, makes my first volley easy to put away or place.

If I find myself at net after a poor approach shot because I was forced into the net, defensive volleying with the 90 is more of a challenge compared to the 18x20. I have not developed as high of confidence yet in this situation.

Similar to the variety I found in groundstrokes and transition shots, I find with serves using the 90. It is simply a better serving racket to use. I can apply more or less pace, depth and spins when I want.

One characteristic I am also pleasantly surprised to discover is its stability. I sprained my wrist over a month ago. Every racquet I tried to use after a 2wk layoff caused a lot of pain each time I hit the ball. The most comfortable racquets that I own and used after the injury were the n6.1 18x20 and psc6.1. The PSC being slightly more comfortable. However, I wanted to use the most stable racquet I could use during my recovery. Snoflewis recommended the n6.1 90 in addition to the PSC6.1.

When I started to use the 90 I found *no pain* during or after my 2hrs+ matches. I am extremely excited. Hence, not only has my tennis been more fun with more variety, but also more comfortable.

I tested my performance with this racquet against different player styles.

1) Heavy pace, flat hitters (Blake style without the wheels).
2) Excessive topsin hitters (Nadal style without the wheels).
3) Grinder (Courier style with Nadal wheels).
4) All-courter (Henman style with Sampras wheels).

For me the 18x20 could routinely handle (4), (1) via mostly defense and forcing errors, and some trouble getting winners past (3), while having close sets with (2).

With the 90 (1) is more challenging to deal with at first, but once I adjusted my timing 45 minutes into the first two matches with the same opponent I managed to turn the match around. On the other hand, 90 could handle (2) remarkably easier due to the extra pace, heavy underspin, and acute angles. The same strategies apply for (3). Playing against style (4) is simply easy and fun shot making, or a bad matchup.

Hey Jason,

Thanks so much for the extensive feedback. Such a positive review - I'm thinking about just biting the bullet and getting one.

With respect to string - did you go with a similar job to your 18x20, or adjust for guage and racquet power? (ie, go with thicker string and lesser tension).

I have my 18x20 set up with Wilson Natural 17 @57. Was thinking about going 16 guage gut at 55 to start. Would this be a good first attempt?

Thanks much Jason
 

jasonbourne

Professional
tarkowski, you're welcome.

My 18x20 has full syngut. Gosen og-micro sheep 16g at 57lbs is best I found on it. I have not tried poly or natgut. Poly would likely be too stiff for me on the dense patter. Natgut is on the high economic scale for me.

My 90 is in a poly/multi hybrid. Main is topspin cyberflash 17g at 50lbs. Cross is klipper zyex 17g at 54lbs. My other 90 is the reverse setup. The second setup is slightly more comfortable. The reason I chose this setup is two-fold. First, I am recovering from a sprained wrist and wanted to at least use a quality multi for comfort and resilience. Second, I like the spin and durability polys provide. Plus, I need a relatively soft poly.

I suspect your natgut at 55 and thicker guage may be ok. However, if you already have the 17g version, I would suggest you try it first at 52 or 53.
 

jasonbourne

Professional
tarkowski, I busted the multi crosses to one of my 90s tonight. Hence, I switched to the 18x20 with 17g zyex/og-sheep micro hybrid for remainder of the match.

I was quickly able to adapt with the 18x20. However, now that I know what the 90 can do, I don't miss the 18x20 at all.

I immediately missed the preferred ball feel, control and comfort from the 90. The 90's hoop feels more solid and has more heft. I would prefer it over the 18x20 if I had to play defensive against a heavy pace opponent.
 

AlpineCadet

Hall of Fame
Curious.. Jasonbourne, it says in your Location that you are in Stanford.. and I was just wondeirng if you played tennis for Stanford college?
 
Top