The influence of tennis court surfaces on player perceptions and biomechanical response

Abstract

This study aimed to examine player perceptions and biomechanical responses to tennis surfaces and to evaluate the influence of prior clay court experience. Two groups with different clay experiences (experience group, n = 5 and low-experience group, n = 5) performed a 180°turning movement. Three-dimensional ankle and knee movements (50 Hz), plantar pressure of the turning step (100 Hz) and perception data (visual analogue scale questionnaire) were collected for two tennis courts (acrylic and clay). Greater initial knee flexion (acrylic 20. 8 ± 11.2°and clay 32.5 ± 9.4°) and a more upright position were reported on the clay compared to the acrylic court (P < 0.05). This suggests adaptations to increase player stability on clay. Greater hallux pressures and lower midfoot pressures were observed on the clay court, allowing for sliding whilst providing grip at the forefoot. Players with prior clay court experience exhibited later peak knee flexion compared to those with low experience. All participants perceived the differences in surface properties between courts and thus responded appropriately to these differences. The level of previous clay court experience did not influence players' perceptions of the surfaces; however, those with greater clay court experience may reduce injury risk as a result of reduced loading through later peak knee flexion.

Footwear insoles with higher frictional properties enhance performance by reducing in-shoe sliding during rapid changes of direction

“…Participants perceived that they were able to complete the slalom course faster and had increased in-shoe grip in TI. It is only through detecting this change that players can actively respond and alter their technique to improve their performance (Morio et al, 2017;Starbuck et al, 2016). Although there was no difference in subjective footwear comfort.…”

“…To evaluate subjective perception of running speed and in-shoe grip, 150 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) were marked after each maximal trial. The VAS was anchored with the terms 'very slow' to 'very fast' and 'very low to very high' for running speed and in-shoe grip respectively (adapted from Starbuck et al, 2016). Subjective perception of footwear comfort was also assessed using a 150mm VAS after a further two trials at a self-selected submaximal pace, in each insole, after completing the maximum trials.…”

“…Regardless of the optimal amount of friction, sports players can perceive differences in the level of grip provided by athletic footwear and surfaces, which triggers adaptations to improve their performance (Morio, Bourrelly, Sissler, & Gueguen, 2017;Starbuck et al, 2016). Additionally, traction and/or stability have been rated amongst the most important footwear properties in football players (Hennig & Sterzing, 2010) and basketball players (Brauner, Zwinzscher, & Sterzing, 2012).…”

Critical shoe contact area ratio for sliding on a tennis hard court

“…The authors also hope to incorporate player perceptions into future research. Building on past similar work, 26 the authors would like to determine if professional tennis players notice a difference in a shoe’s sliding ability as the critical area ratio changes through the critical zone uncovered in this work. As players use shoes of various area ratios, the authors will also analyze whether the area ratio affects a shoe’s durability.…”

Effect of simulated tennis steps and slides on tread element friction and wear

“…A normal load of 33 N was selected for step tests, and 25 N for the slide tests. These loads produced nominal contact pressures across the tread elements for the step (604 kPa) and slide tests (456 kPa), equal to those determined by mechanical shoe contact area tests, which used loads from biomechanical tests on hard court steps and slides [12,18,22,23]. For example, a biomechanics study investigating hard court sliding reported normal loads between 300 and 835 N [12].…”