Author(s): COLINO, E., GARCÍA-UNANUE, J., FELIPE, J.L., QUINTANA-GARCÍA-MILLA, I., Institution: UNIVERSIDAD FRANCISCO DE VITORIA, Country: SPAIN, Abstract-ID: 2525

INTRODUCTION:
Tennis is one of the sports in which the surface plays an important role in performance and injury risk. Professional players face an extensive competition calendar in which they must adapt to different types of surfaces. However, unlike other sports, tennis lacks standards that regulate surface properties affecting athlete-surface interaction on each type of surface. The objective of this study was to evaluate shock absorption (SA), vertical deformation (VD), energy restitution (ER) and slip resistance (SR) in different types of tennis surfaces, compare them with each other and look for correlations between variables.
METHODS:
Thirty-six tennis courts (12 hard court, 16 clay, 8 artificial grass) were evaluated. SA, VD and ER were assessed using the apparatus (advanced artificial athlete) and test method described in the FIFA Handbook of Test Methods, and SR was measured using a pendulum device and conducted according to EN 16165:2021.
RESULTS:
All variables differ significantly between surfaces (p<.001). SA (1.1±0.5% to 13.9±3.4%) and VD (0.02±0.04mm to 1.07±0.19mm) were lower on hard court compared to clay and artificial grass; ER (72.5±4.7% to 89.9±1.5%) evolved in the opposite way; and SR (in PTV) was lower on clay (53.6±2.5) compared to grass (61.4±1.3) and hard court (66.6±1.1). No significant correlations between variables were identified in hard court. However, both clay and artificial grass showed a significant positive correlation (p<.001) between SA and VD (0.872 and 0.947, respectively), and a significant negative correlation (p<.001) between SA and ER (-0.807 and -0.981, respectively). Also, significant negative correlations were found between VD and ER both in clay (-0.802; p<.001) and artificial grass surfaces (-0.890; p<0.01). As for the SR, only a significant negative correlation with VD in artificial grass (-0.715; p<0.05) was identified.
CONCLUSION:
These results suggest that more compliant artificial grass surfaces may provide reduced friction in the shoe-surface interface, and that the frictional properties of clay and hard courts may be related to other variables other than SA, VD or ER of the surface (e.g., humidity or particle size of the clay). This study is the first one to describe the mechanical properties of tennis courts as is usually done in other sport surfaces when the athlete-surface interaction is assessed. These data reveal the disparities among surfaces and may contribute to laying out the foundations of future regulations aimed to assess and control the mechanical properties of tennis surfaces. These regulations would allow facility managers and competition organisers to carry out a more systematic and exhaustive control of the surfaces functionality; would give court constructors, suppliers, and end-users a common language to describe different products; and, most importantly, would contribute to reducing the risk of injury due to the state of the surface and to preserve safety and performance of tennis players.