peRFect Tennis UK Tennis Blog
Tennis Court surfaces and their speeds is a topic that often confuses people, there’s a ton of conflicting information and a lot of speculation about whether a surface is playing fast or slow. But is there a way to end all that and simple say for example Indian Wells is played on X and it plays at X speed. In this post I’m going to try and find out.
Why am I writing this? Well for 2 reasons really, my last post asked whether or not Djokovic was unbeatable on Plexicushion, which is the surface used at the Australian Open. A couple of people mentioned that he’s beatable on it because that’s the surface used at the World Tour Finals, it’s not actually so I thought it’d be good to clear up which surface is used at each tournament. And secondly because the slowing of the courts is something that seems to be happening year on year so I want to know if court pace rating is a relevant measurement.
I’m going to look at all the surfaces in use at Grand Slam and Masters 1000 and 500 level, their official speed ratings designated by the ITF and the characteristics that each court has so there’s no confusion about which surfaces are which and how quickly or slowly they should play according to the ITF. Remember that little bit.
What will I cover?
- The types of court surfaces
- How the ITF measures the speed of them
- The speed ratings of all Masters 1000, 500 and Grand Slam tennis courts
- Why I think the system is flawed (as I found out through doing the research)
- How I’d solve the court speed problem
What types of Court Surfaces are used across the world?
Tennis is probably one of the few games in the world that’s played on a variety of surfaces be it grass, clay or hard courts each of those surfaces has smaller subsets made up from different materials like concrete, artificial grass and acrylic. All court surfaces go through a rigorous testing procedure before they can be approved as an official surface by the ITF, the tests takes into consideration friction, energy restitution, topgraphy and consistency.
The types of Tennis Court officially in use across the world are:
- Acrylic
- Artificial Clay
- Artificial Grass
- Asphalt
- Carpet
- Clay
- Concrete
- Grass
- Other e.g. tiles, wood, canvas and modular systems.
Amongst those cateogies there are 104 suppliers listed by the ITF who have been granted ITF status as an approved supplier.
How is the Speed of a Tennis Court Measured?
The most interesting thing about tennis courts are the speed of them and the ITF measure that with a sytem called Court Pace Rating or CPR for short. As we’ll later find out, any court you see on TV or that’s used for an ATP or Grand Slam tournament has it’s own unique Court Pace Rating.
The Court Pace Rating System measures the effect the surface has on the tennis ball which again takes into account friction, which basically looks at how much the balls velocity changes after it has hit the surface and also vertical restitution which factors in the time between successive bounces.
The CPR test needs various apparatus to be carried out including something to fire out a tennis ball at a set speed such as an air cannon and then a piece of equipment known as a Sestée, which you can see in action below.
I won’t go into the complexities of how it works, mainly because I don’t have a clue 
but basically the Sestée uses laser technology in its two boxes that are able to reconstruct the trajectory of the ball and calculate pace. The ball is released from the cannon at 30m/s and at a 16° angle with no spin being imparted on it.
The Sestée is able to measure the following:
- Vix = horizontal inbound velocity (m/s)
- Viy = vertical inbound velocity (m/s)
- Vfx = horizontal outbound velocity (m/s)
- Vfy = vertical outbound velocity (m/s)
- e = coefficient of restitution (COR)
- μ = coefficient of friction (COF)
- T = mean ball temperature for test location/sample (°C)
- c = temperature coefficient (0.003)
- eT= adjusted COR for temperature T
- a = pace perception constant (150)
- b = mean coefficient of restitution for all surface types (0.81)
- CPR = Court Pace Rating
where:
CPR Equation (Click to see full size)
Once the pace of the courts have been measured they are placed into categories:
| Category | Court Pace Rating |
|---|---|
| Category 1: Slow | ≤ 29 |
| Category 2: Medium-slow | 30-34 |
| Category 3: Medium | 35-39 |
| Category 4: Medium-fast | 40-44 |
| Category 5: Fast | ≥ 45 |
If you want to read more about the surfaces and how speed is measusred here’s the technical centre on the the ITF website.
It’s important to note that ITF Classification does not imply any form of ITF approval or endorsement. It’s simply a ratings system of the various surfaces they have approved as suitable for tennis. No weight is placed on different categories for preferred usage.
What are the Official Court Pace Ratings for Masters 1000 & 500 tournaments and Grand Slams?
Masters 1000 Tournaments
| Tournament | Surface | Court Pace Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Indian Wells | Plexipave IW | Category 2: Medium – Slow |
| Miami Masters | Laykold® Cushion Plus System MS | Category 1: Slow |
| Monte Carlo Masters | Clay | Category 1: Slow |
| Madrid Master | Clay | Category 1: Slow |
| Rome Masters | Clay | Category 1: Slow |
| Rogers Cup | Pro DecoTurf II | Category 5: Fast |
| Cincinnati | Pro DecoTurf II | Category 5: Fast |
| Shanghai Masters | DecoColor | Category 4: Medium-fast |
| Paris Masters | Gerflor Masters | Category 4: Medium-fast |
| ATP World Tour Finals | Greenset Grand Prix Cushion | Category 3 – Medium |
Grand Slams
| Grand Slam | Surface | Court Pace Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Open | Plexicushion Prestige | Category 4 – Medium-Fast |
| French Open | Clay | Category 1 – Slow |
| Wimbledon | Grass | Category 3 – Medium |
| US Open | Pro Decoturf II | Category 5 – Fast |
Masters 500 Tournaments
| Tournament | Surface | Court Pace Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Rotterdam | Greenset Grand Prix | Category 3 – Medium |
| Memphis | Plexipave | Category 4: Medium-fast |
| Acapulco | Clay | Category 1 – Slow |
| Dubai | DecoTurf | Category 3 – Medium |
| Barcelona | Clay | Category 1 – Slow |
| Hamburg | Clay | Category 1 – Slow |
| Washington | DecoColor | Category 4: Medium-fast |
| Beijing | DecoTurf | Category 3 – Medium |
| Tokyo | DecoTurf | Category 3 – Medium |
| Basel | Greenset Grand Prix | Category 3 – Medium |
| Valencia | Clay | Category 1 – Slow |
I’ve included the World Tour Finals in the Masters 1000 table, it uses Greenset which is also used in Basel. To complete the data it’d be nice to have the actual Court Pace Rating figure for each tournament, i.e Wimbledon CPR 38. But I’ve not been able to find those and they’re not available by the looks of things.
Why I think Court Pace Rating is Flawed
It’s taken me a good few hours to compile all the information above and in that time I’ve realised that Court Pace Rating is flawed and that’s down to four reasons:
- There’s too much conflicting information from suppliers, tournaments and organisers. I don’t think any of them know the true speed of the courts and have just put together a calculation/equation for the fun of it.
- The ITF aren’t endorsing courts or recommending their usage they are just putting together a guide to aid people when purchasing a surface. So there’s no rule to say for example the US Open must choose a Category 5 surface.
- Just because a court surface falls into a certain category on the day it’s tested, doesn’t mean the company who makes it can’t change the manufacturing process to make it slower or faster at the discretion of the tournament it’s being provided for.
- The balls make a ton of difference because some fly quicker, some fluff up more easily, some are heavier – there are too many variables. There are currently 186 approved tennis balls on the ITF list.
1. Conflicting Information
When putting this post together I’ve read and found a lot of conflicting information that makes me think Court Pace Rating is nothing more than just the dream of someone behind a desk who thought it’d be a good idea to categorise court surfaces to help buyers but I don’t think it really works.
Take for example the Indian Wells tournament, according to the ITF CPR ratings, Plexipave IW is a category 2 – slow/medium surface but on the Plexipave website, the actual manufacturer, it states that Plexipave is a category 1 – slow surface. So which one is it? I don’t think anyone really knows.
2. It’s not an endorsement, just an aid
If you read the full details of court speed on the ITF website you’ll see the quote that says:
A surface product included on the list of ITF Classified surfaces is classified purely on the basis of its Court Pace Rating. ITF Classification does not imply any form of ITF approval or endorsement
If there’s no endorsement and it’s just an aid then what is the point of it? I personally think there’s too many manufacturers listed anyway.
3. It all boils down to the manufacturing process
Court Speed Rating only takes into account the speed measurement on a given day, there’s no governing body or rulings that say the product has to be manufactured at that speed. And I’m not sure all the testing is done in situe. That almost renders them pointless in my eyes.
Let’s say that I run the peRFect Masters 1000 tournament in England, I want to use Plexipave IW which is classed by the ITF as Slow/Medium, but I want it to be fast, not slow. I simply get the manufacturer to change the composition of the product i.e. make the finisher smoother, use more Rounded/Sub Angular particles so there’s less friction and hey presto I have a court that plays like a Category 5. But wait, isn’t Plexipave Category 2 according to the ITF? Let’s not even go into the type of balls that I’m going to use, and how easily they fluff up because that effects things too!
Court Speed to me seems to be solely at the discretion of the tournament owners, the ATP and the sponsors, the CPR rating means very little.
That means that traditionally fast tournaments get slowed down even though they are using the same surface as always because they change the composition of it. If the owners want a Nadal/Djokovic final they make the surface rough and sticky so the ball bounces high and slows down. There’s nothing to stop them doing it either which I find bizarre.
Take for example the US Open, they use Pro Decoturf II which is a category 5 – fast surface, but is it? I’m not sure, this year it was widely reported they used more sand in the top coat to get more friction and slow the ball down. They also made Arthur Ashe slower than Armstrong, intentionally. So the CPR rating is simply a rating that provides no real value.
My advice – judge with what you see with your eyes, not what the ITF, ATP or tournaments tell you about the court surface. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
4. The balls make all the difference
From what I can gather, the court pace tests aren’t carried out with the balls in use at the tournament where the surface maybe used. They’re just tested with whatever balls are available that are on the ITF approved list. Like I said above, there’s 186 types of ball on the list, that can make all the difference.
Remember at the French Open in 2011 where they changed the balls so the flew through the air differently? The court didn’t change but it played faster. Another variable and I think thee are too many balls in use, the number of approved balls should be limited.
If you look at Cricket there’s only a handful of balls in use across the world and usually each ball is specific to each country. E.g. in England they use a Dukes or a Readers and in Australia they use a Kookaburra.
How to Solve the Court Speed Problem
My simple solution is that the speed of the court at any given tournament is pre determined by an outside body and it can’t change year on year or at the discretion of the tournament organisers.
So as an example, the US Open has to play at a set speed every year and it can’t drop below, or exceed an agreed threshold. There’d be no more putting more sand into the DecoTurf mixture to make the surface rougher, it’d be made the exact same each year for all of the courts at Flushing Meadows. And it’d be a fast hard court, as it should be.
By using that approach you’d be able to have a wide variety of court speeds on tour. With the right rules in place and planning it’d be possible to have courts ranging from one end of the spectrum to the other throughout the year. Allowing players to be tested on a variety of surfaces of which some play super quick, some play inbetween, some bounce high, some bounce low and some play slowly. The key is variety and I think you will only get that with some kind of regulation in place.
Not convinced the courts are getting slower?
You’re not going to find anything more significant than that. And that’s on grass, the supposed fastest surface!
Great post and I agree with everything you said. That ITF list is just flawed. It rates Rome as fast yet Paris and Dubai, two of the faster courts on tour as medium-fast and medium. To make it even worse they rate the AO as medium-fast. Are they serious? The AO is almost as slow as the French open, last year Navratilova even commented that it playes like clay. Just ridicilous.
The Rome thing is a mistake on my part! It’s rated as slow, as is all natural clay I believe. Just corrected it now.
But you’re right, I think the ratings don’t add up to what we see and what the players experience.
Jonathan
Nice post…, i think Madrid is fast surface not slow one…, Rome is slow not fast…., Nice explanation…, I would love to see more fast courts which would suit serve and volley player like federer & makes tennis will be interesting .., players will be playing for short duration & will be injury free….,
Madrid is probably due to the altitude, not the court. From what I gather it’s same clay as anywhere else like Paris/Rome.
I’d like to see fast courts and I’d like to see consistency in how quickly or slowly they play. None of this chopping and changing. There should be a mix of speeds at the various tournaments across the world.
What a great post, Jonathan. Thanks for making things clear!
Cheers Asger.
I definitely don’t believe that the AO is medium-fast and Wimbledon is medium. Wimbledon is certainly faster. Definitely no surprise that my favourite tournaments are Cincinnati, Dubai, Halle, the WTF, USO, and Paris Masters.
I know right? That’s ridiculous! Wimbledon should be medium fast and Australian Open should be Medium-Slow.
This is why it’s daft. ITF rates Plexicushion Prestige as Medium/Fast but if you look around you can find info that says the Australian Open has a CPR of 34-37 meaning that’s medium too. Too much conflicting information I think. ITF says one thing, manufacturer says an other and then somewhere else gives a different rating. Needs to be more consistent.
Very useful information, Jonathan you make Science of tennis! Congratulations for this excellent research and explanation, I enjoy reading every post! Christmas greetings!
Thanks Ana. Not sure if I cleared everything up, if anything I’m more confused about court speed than before lol, do ITF ratings mean anything? I’m not sure. It’s just like you can do what you want with the courts if you run the tournament.
Very nice analysis. I like that last part, the speeds at Wimby 2008. A lot of ignorant people think that in 2008, Nadal suddenly became better than Roger and solved him on grass. They have no idea that the surface favored Nadal. And despite that, the match was lost by a couple of key points.
I hope Roger stays in tennis for a couple of year because I ain’t watching this load of bull once he retires.
I can’t believe Wimby is considered slower than AO.
Cheers Sid.
Yeah I read all the info I could find but court speeds are a mystery. They should be set according to a rule back that champions variety.
Wow, you’ve been working too hard instead of having a wild parties? Hope you had a lovely Christmas.
Thanks for the convincing analysis based on a detailed investigation, well done, Jonathan.
I agree Kyle, Cinci, Dubai, Paris, etc, I enjoy faster courts/games, even Madrid, too. I want that light green court back to AO, I miss Jesus Fed 2006/2007 on it, not on the current super slow one!
By the way, how’s the petition for faster courts doing?
Hey,
I started this one before Christmas, just finished it off yesterday
Petition has stalled I think, 144 when I last looked. I wonder if they will take notice of that? haha
Thank You Jonathan for this excellent article! I hope you had a great X-mas? I agree with you that money and greed sadly completely dictates how our wonderful sport of tennis is run. It is a reflection of the nastiness of the world we live in where commercialisation is king and where decency, integrity and fair play is shunned. The FAIREST way of resolving this issue is exactly as you put it Jonathan and to have HONEST and consistent court speed ratings applied by the ITF to all tournaments. This would then preserve the integrity of the game and all players could then compare their abilities honestly across all surfaces. And who really knows, but maybe Roger Federer is even greater than any of us could have ever believed and the ITF realized this early on, and in an elaborate and complex conspiracy upon the arrival of Nadal and Djokovic, devised the most cloak and dagger arrangements to have all courts slowed down over time to the point that we have arrived at today. What a sad and disgraceful shame!
Thanks Paul, Christmas same as ever for me but all good to chill out for a few days.
Agree 100% with you man, everything is far too commercialised. It’s all about which tournaments can make the most money from Sponsors not the ones that provide the best and fairest competition for the players and the fans.
I quite like your conspiracy theory too! haha.
I agree with your statement 100% Paul. The truth in your statement will hurt the people who know what they have done. This is also why they promote people like Djokovic, Nadal ,Murray more than Roger. They are all greedy and corrupt!!!! But what goes round comes round and it will get each one of them 10 folds.
Sorry, but on every surface will win better player. Simple as that. OK, that will not be ever our guy every time.
Wooooooww Jonathan that was just awesome what an incredible post, thank you very much, of course that by slowing the surfaces defensive players like Nadal, Djocovic and Murray are been benefitt, it is a shame players like Roger has to work harder as he is ofrensive and attacking the lines all the time onnthe search of winners, that is another reason why Roger is the dest player in history. Thank you Jonathan and happy new year!!!
Thanks Luis happy new year to you too man.
I know exactly what you’re saying, if you play attacking tennis you should be rewarded, not always the case. I don’t mind some courts being slow, it makes it different after all but they shouldn’t all play similar.
To Johnathon, What a fantastic article, i enjoyed reading this and ur other blogs. Like urself i am also a HUGE Roger Federer fan. I watched the 2008 Wimbledon Final and i saw the analysis of the titatium coatin for lines instead of the chalk based that they used. This therefore made a huge difference in RF serves. It slowed down his serve by around 10 mph.So where RF would Ace Nadal,he would be able to return his serve. The grass they used was differnt than the usual it was combination of diff seeds. Although the match was great the usual winners were more harder for RF. This resulted in Nadal winning. I really wanted Fed to win 6 in a row for the open era record. But i think someone in the elite establishment didnt want Fed to win. N E way!! Please keep up the great blogs on Rf Johnathon.All the best 4 the future!!!!
Thanks Serajul.
Agreed, the courts at Wimbledon have definitely slowed. I guess that video I included is all the proof that’s needed. 10mph difference when it reaches the returner is huge.
6 in a row would have been awesome. But slam 17 kinda made up for it I guess.
Jonathan
Hi jonathan …. 6 would of been nice. But u know how it is myself and millions wanted him to get the open era record. But 17 GS is still amazing, number 18 then 19 then 20 would be even sweeter!!
Really? Didnt you know Nadal came close to beating Fed too in 2007. Not forgetting Fed also won in 2009 and 2012 when the grass was slow! So, the problem wasn’t the grass but Nadal. Nadal didn’t beat Berdych using topspin but more using his low lying slices. Both Berdych and Tsonga also beat Fed there at Wimbledon without using topspin! Can’t you see, it’s not the topspin, but the players skills that won them their matches on Wimbledon grass against Fed! Topspin doesn’t work well on grass. Don’t expect Nadal’s topspin to kick as high as when it’s on clay! On grass his topspin might just end up in the strike zone of Fed unlike on clay when the ball bounced above or almost above Fed’s shoulder. There’s also a graphic showing how the ball bounced on clay vs on grass, when Nadal played vs Fed. Don’t just simplify every loss of Fed to Nadal because of topspin.
Hi cynthia.. Nadal jus didnt win because of heavy topspin. If u watched the match then u would of seen in the wimbledon analysis and the same u tube post by jonathan, that although Nadal is a great player he only won cos of all court/balls/grass seeds/titanium lines etc. The true wimbledon was
changed too much. And thats jus not myself sayin this. The legends of tennis were saying the same thing. So if Navratilova/ J Mac / Willanders were saying that wimbledon was slowed down then i think u should watch the BBC analysis or the u tube post given already. This is why Federer lost to clay specialist Nadal. The centre court was drastically changed in favour of Nadals game and tactics. They have done the same with US/ AO open with the hard. No one is saying Nadal only won cos of his huge topspin, they were playing in wimbledon not Roland Garross sothe high topspin argument is non existence on grass!! Sorry!!
Cynthia, are you making this up as you go along?
Based on your last however many comments you have lead me to believe:
1.) Grass isn’t is slower, it’s the balls they use.
2.) Topspin isn’t effective on grass.
3.) Nadal beat Berdych because of his slice.
4.) Berdych and Tsonga beat Federer without topspin.
5.) Rome is a fast clay court.
6.) Roland Garros needs slowing down.
I don’t want to sound rude but every single one of those statements isn’t even close to being true.
Back to the tennis classroom for you I think.
Good Morning Jonathan, Nice post, really interesting! I’ve just put him on my bookmarks. I’ve got only one question to you, based on my perception because I’ve never been in Wimbledon. It is possible that there is a difference of grass between Court 18 as in example, and Central Court? Reviewing the longest match of all time Isner vs Mahut, I’ve got the impression the ball bounced so faster and deeper in Court 18. Please let me know if my impression is wrong. Thank you very much. Greetings from Salta, Argentina.
Hey Diana,
Hmm good question. I believe they will be the same grass but the speeds could vary for sure. I doubt the outside courts get the same level of care and attention as centre court for example so that’s bound to be a factor. So they may bounce more unevenly or play at a slightly different speed.
Jonathan
Interesting to see the Federer’s service comparison between 2003 and 2008. However, it’s very inconclusive: how does the spin affect the two serves? They are hitting the court at a different angle (though, on an uniform surface without spin, these angles would suggest entirely opposite behaviour). Oh, and I thought someone mentioned balls: are they the same between these? Not to pull anyone’s leg, but perhaps Federer can’t put as much spin on the ball anymore and get a service at the same speed as before. Or maybe he can, and the two samples are simply not representative. Any comparison like this only leads me to have more questions.
Hey Dan,
But he hit the serves at exactly the same speed. I doubt spin is a factor here. They will have picked two serves that are closely similar as possible. The courts have slowed, that’s the only real explanation.
Same balls.
Jonathan