Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid Racquet Review

Groundstrokes - Score: 81

From the ground, our playtesters found the Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid to be controlled and maneuverable, allowing them to whip the racquet around confidently. Chris noticed more success in his experience once he started hitting with a fresh mindset. He stated, "The more I played with the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid the more I liked it. I started off the test in the mindset of comparing it to Prestige Mids of old. Then I realized I was missing the point. This Prestige Mid was too different. The head size, the stringbed and the way this racquet came around on a full swing all made it a different experience. With a clear mindset I started to appreciate the plow through and drive I found on my backhand slice. The racquet felt very solid, which seemed to help with targeting, feel and comfort. On my topspin shots I found spin to be decent, but not great. I generated enough spin to get shots to drop inside the lines, and the mass of the racquet helped me drive shots enough to push my opponents back. With my opponent pushed deep behind the baseline I had fun using the touch I found in this racquet to hit some satisfying drop shots."

Our resident power hitter, Michelle, agreed with Chris and enjoyed the plow through and feel of the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid. She commented, "While I couldn't find a defining characteristic with the Prestige Pro, the Prestige Mid was a bit more exciting. I liked that it had some built in control and precision. I could swing it fast and it felt like there was more plow through compared to the Pro, despite the swingweight numbers being similar."

Troy tended to agree with Michelle about the solid and controlled feel of the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid. He elaborated on those points, saying, "As expected from a racquet with a 93 square-inch head size, I found plenty of control when hitting groundies. This racquet excelled on big, aggressive shots with a flatter trajectory, making it easy to understand why this was Michelle's favorite racquet in the Graphene Touch Prestige lineup. On my forehand, I got to the point where I wanted to slap the ball because I wasn't afraid I would hit the ball long. On the backhand slice, this racquet provided me ample plow through on the ball. The precision of this Prestige Mid allowed me to put the ball on a dime when trying to work my opponent from side-to-side. I found a high level of stability when facing heavy-paced incoming shots. The increase in overall mass, compared to the Head Graphene XT Prestige Rev Pro, helped with stability issues. Compared to some of the more classic Prestige Mid racquets with the 18x20 string pattern, this Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid had a noticeable increase in power and spin. That being said, I didn't necessarily feel that this racquet was spin-friendly. I was playtesting the Head Graphene Touch Prestige Pro at the same time as this racquet. With the Prestige Pro it was much easier to brush-up the back of the ball and generate heavy topspin."

Dissenting from the other play testers, Sean was whipping the ball with spin rather than driving through it. He explained, "Not too powerful, yet not necessarily being low-powered, this racquet occupies an interesting niche in the midsize frame world. With its small head I would have expected the natural maneuverability to be accompanied by a reduction in the natural power and liveliness of the stringbed, but that was not the case with the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid. Unfortunately, it meant I couldn't fully trust the racquet on big swings. However, the low stiffness of the Prestige Mid made it feel nice and whippy, which was nicely complemented by the open string pattern. This meant that there was an inherent wealth of spin to be tapped into. That spin helped rein in the aforementioned power and felt great when I was grooving groundies, but I tended to spray the ball when I wanted to pull the trigger or play aggressive baseline tennis."

Volleys - Score: 82

At net, our playtesters generally noticed how rock solid the Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid felt against tough opponents, and a crisp feel and touch were consistent themes. Chris mentioned, "I liked the response, feel and stability of the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid at net." This seemed to carry over to his matchplay. He continued, "I volleyed well with it, and it became a fun racquet to use during doubles. I was able to get some nice touch on my drop volleys, while the solid response allowed me to punch volleys away with depth and pace. I really liked the response of the racquet when I had to dig out tough low volleys. The stringbed offered a higher launch angle than the traditional Prestige Mid 18x20 setup, and that, combined with the solid response, made it easy to drive those tough volleys deep."

Like Chris, Troy seemed to find success with the control of this racquet, but he was missing some of that classic feel. He elaborated, "I felt confident in my ability to place the ball and locate my targets when coming to the net. The command over the ball that this racquet provided allowed me to feel comfortable closing out points at the net. The overall mass and swingweight of this racquet provided good stability when facing hard hit groundstrokes. Compared to other Mid racquets that I have tested over the years, I found an ample sweetspot. Although the precision of this racquet was suitable for a mid-sized racquet, I didn't find the scalpel like response I was hoping for. I was able to execute drop volleys with ease, but the response and feel of this racquet on contact of the ball were rather bland. I wasn't overwhelmed with the buttery plush feel on volleys. When comparing this racquet to the Volkl Power Bridge 10 Mid or the Dunlop Srixon Revo CX 2.0 Tour 18x20, which are very responsive, this racquet lacked the feel I was hoping for. I preferred to drive my volleys deep, using the mass of this racquet to drive my volleys through the court. Finesse was lacking on my volleys with this racquet."

Still feeling a bit underwhelmed, Sean did not get all of the feel he wanted from a mid-sized frame. He said, "I thought the racquet's performance at the net was pretty average. On the one hand, there was a welcome amount of pop and punch when I connected right, but the sweetspot was pretty small and underrepresented. Like groundstrokes, the maneuverability at the net was great for a racquet of this weight, but the Graphene Prestige Touch Mid didn't have as much touch and feel as I wanted, and this resulted in a generally acceptable but lackluster experience at net."

Compared to the other Prestige playtest Michelle was on, she felt that the Prestige Mid was a bit underpowered. She said, "I had to work a bit harder to volley effectively with the Prestige Mid compared to the Prestige Pro. I struggled a bit with a consistent response and a little stability when I hit outside the sweetspot. I was most effective when I had time to aggressively go after the ball with a blend of precision and power. Despite having some stability issues on anything outside the sweetspot, the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid was stable enough blocking back powerful groundies."

Serves - Score: 81

While our playtesters struggled to find consensus as to why they initially struggled on serve, they all eventually found an adjustment that worked for them. The Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid was effective at moving the ball through the court, but our playtesters had a hard time agreeing on their individual misgivings. One of our newer playtesters, Sean, continued to have difficulties finding an area where this racquet really connected with him. He detailed, "I had a difficult time finding my rhythm on serve with the Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid, and this is where I had to make my biggest adjustment in the playtest. I found myself needing to dial back on the pace of my serves to maintain consistency, while often adding spin to my first serve to find the box. I thought the head light balance did make it easy to swing and snap my wrist, which exposed some sharp angles in the service boxes, but the consistency just wasn't all there."

"I liked the precision I got serving with this racquet," continued Michelle. "I could pick and choose my targets and hit them fairly effectively. I was getting good power and OK spin on first and second serves. It did the job. Nothing extreme in terms of lights out power or huge kicking serves jumping off the court, but I found a consistent response, which was enough to be effective."

Chris also had to make an adjustment, but this didn't seem to irk him as much. He recounted, "The Graphene Touch Prestige Mid worked well on serve. Again, I found my best results driving through the ball rather than trying to whip it with spin. My slice serve wide took a little dialing in as I usually hit it shorter in the court with more spin and less pace. I struggled to hit that serve with this Prestige, but I soon found a deeper, more driving serve hit to the corner of the service box worked very well. My T serve felt on point to both service boxes. I also liked hitting a fairly flat serve to the body of the returner, preventing my opponent from getting a good swing at the ball. On second serves I was able to hit with decent pace and add a tad more spin to increase my margin for error."

Elucidating the differences racquets in this Graphene Touch Prestige line have, Troy said, "When I playtested this racquet side by side with the Head Graphene Touch Prestige Pro I found very good command of my serves with both racquets. My ability to place the ball within the service box on a flat first-serve was better with this Graphene Touch Prestige Mid than with the Pro version. The precision I had with this Mid version allowed me to pick my targets very well, even better than the Pro version. I loved hitting heavy spin-oriented slice and kick serves with the Prestige Pro, but with this Prestige Mid those serves were less potent. The relatively small head-size of this racquet made it more difficult to get as much arc and spin action on my topspin second serves. This caused my second serves to land more frequently in my opponent's strike zone. I enjoyed this racquet on first serves for the consistency and placement, but the downside was the lack of free power and spin."

Returns - Score: 82

The Head Graphene Touch Prestige Mid afforded our playtesters a number of options on serve return, and that adaptability seemed to shine through. Troy said, "Stepping in and taking aggressive swings on my returns with this racquet was a guilty pleasure. Anytime I had the chance to take a big rip with my forehand on a return I was able to hit deep and hard back at the server. The amount of mass and plow through made it easy to slice the backhand return and generate easy depth. With the Prestige Pro I was getting easier maneuverability on my returns, but it was lacking the mass to block the ball back deep. This Prestige Mid was much better for returns when I had to shorten up my swing and let the mass of the racquet do the work. With the 93 square-inch head size I had to focus more on my contact point. When I was returning high bouncing kick serves I found the head size of this racquet to be slightly unforgiving. On the other hand, when I was able to line up the strings to the incoming ball I was able to command my returns precisely. While playing doubles I was able to hit an array of returns, from the sharp cross-court angle to the chip-lob deep over the net player's head."

Chris agreed with Troy, adding, "The stability of the Graphene Touch Prestige Mid was the dominant factor on serve returns. Every other performance characteristic seemed to revolve around the solid feel. I was able to drive my slice backhand return very aggressively thanks to the solid response. I could also defend well with the racquet as it provided enough mass for me to retain depth on my shots even when I couldn't get well positioned behind the ball. My touch on lobs and angles felt great, which I once again attributed to the solid response."

Michelle, who likes to play aggressively on returns, said, "I felt pretty dialed in with my returns. I was really focusing on attacking and moving forward, trying to emulate the Swiss Maestro and his SABR strategy. It was effective because I could really pick my target and manipulate my opponent to give myself enough time to close toward the net and put the next ball away. If I had a complaint here, it was that on big serves, where I had to reach and couldn't catching the ball in the sweetspot, I was missing the solid feel and a bit of stability. I wasn't able to block the ball back deep to keep me alive during the point."

Sean was left looking for extra stability on his returns. He recalled, "I really enjoyed being able to step in and hit my returns with confidence or hang back and take a bigger cut. This was especially enjoyable in doubles, where the maneuverability of the head made it easy to locate extreme angles. There was enough mass in the racquet to hold up stability-wise, but I struggled to find the forgiving areas in the stringbed when blocking back first serves. This echoed my concern with volleys "—" the feel was great if I could find the sweetspot, but I just didn't have the hand-eye coordination to compensate for the power distribution on the strings."

Overall - Score: 81