Comments on Tennis Brain | An analytical tennis blog: Is Plexicushion an improved surface from Rebound A...

My comment regarding pace changes are a reference ...

2008-12-18T14:36:00.000+10:00

My comment regarding pace changes are a reference to the understanding I have that TA requested surface pace changes by changing the top coat
Its my understanding that this was done and thus produced major variations from year to year
Some regarded this as a fault with the Rebound Ace product
Also the pace was different from site to site due to completely different specifications, this was also seen as a problem and seen as an inability to be consistent
There was also a view that heat and weather caused a change or inconsistency
I am not clear on this but with in excess of 10mm rubber base and with the courts up to 20 years old that would seem reasonabel to expect
The lesser the cushion I expect the lesser the variation

Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your interesting take on...

2008-12-17T19:42:00.000+10:00

Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your interesting take on the matter.

Now that you mention it, I remember Tony Roche advocating for the new Rebound Ace a while ago, saying that most of the problems that were present in the surface at the AO could have been eliminated with the newer version of the surface. Since personally I don't know much about this proposed surface, I can't say that I can comment much on this matter.

I don't think it's an incorrect reference. It's merely a comparison of both surfaces as they were, in the tournaments.

Can you elaborate more on the surface pace changes being misleading? Aside from the different specifications, it was also known that it didn't deal with changes in weather conditions well?

Interesting discussion
There are a few points t...

2008-12-17T10:26:00.000+10:00

Interesting discussion
There are a few points that may not be completely understood.
The "Rebound Ace" courts at Melbourne Park were first laid in 1988 with 10mm plus rubber cushion.
As the complex expanded, courts were added and the exact specifications of the courts were changed.
Inconsistencies existed due simply to specification differences that TA at the time did not see the need to fix by upgrading old courts.
The courts in Adeilade had 7mm rubber cushion.
The courts in NSW had 4mm rubber cushion.
The state Tennis bodies and TA did not have consistency in surface specification.
There was an inevidable perception of Rebound Ace court inconsistency.
In effect there were no advanages gained with the Plexicushion installation other than the fact that the surfaces were new, consistent in all venues and that the cushion was lower and more consistent to the current tennis game.
A change to current Rebound Ace products would deliver all of these benefits.
Looking at the Plexi web site my reading is the specification for the AO surface provides for a 4mm rubber cushion with a particular ITF rating thus demanding a fundamental change from the older surface, which when looking at the Rebound Ace web site should be noted as consistent.
As an Australian I would have liked to see an Australian product used
Whilst there was a need to achieve all of these changes for the sake of and as part of the significant push to improve the Australian Tennis participation, it was more about the economics of actually doing it.
Its my view that the surface change was very much subsidised by the American owner of the brand thus adding the AO to their stable of high profile installations
You will also find that the owner of the brand sold the business not long after the AO change thus returning the investment many times over.
Lets look at the bigger corporate and economic demands of this rather than assuming the change was simply made based on evaluation of surface performance.
Perception is a powerful thing and I can see that TA moved away from the misundersood history of Rebound Ace surface pace changes, from the ill informed Hewitt comments, changed the colour and created a new start.
As a professional in this area I can assure you there are no gains to playing on the Plexicushion as opposed to current Rebound Ace product, both these are of course far better than the pre-existing 20 year old Melbourne Park courts that seem to be the incorrect reference for much ofthis discussion.

Hi Topspin,

Thanks for your comments.

2008-12-17T07:01:00.000+10:00
Hi Topspin,

Thanks for your comments.

Yeah, at the end of the day, the form of the player is most important which makes it difficult to make any analysis of it. Like I think if you look at all of the surface's characteristics then that would seem to indicate that it would slightly decrease the number of upsets, but in reality there won't be any statistics that back this up because this is such a variable across all Grand Slams. Yet the very best players are generally used to winning their matches comfortably, and their fitness is also good so it probably won't make much of a difference for them.

I think the comments about the balls fluffing up is a very valid one, however, since so many players commented on that.

Hey Krystle...

Thanks for the breakdown!
2008-12-17T06:44:00.000+10:00
Hey Krystle...

Thanks for the breakdown!

I remember parts of the whole discussion from earlier this year.

At first it was agreed that flexi cushion was indeed faster and lower bouncing.

But after a few matches and as you observe, players started saying it was actually slower due mostly to the balls fluffing up.

In the end a happy medium appeared to have been reached when most simply agreed that whatever else you may think, the surface was unlike Rebound Ace, a whole lot more predictable and that at least is a good thing.

I myself must admit to finding all this a little academic at times, especially when you find these comments coming from players struggling with form and consistency.

If you think about it there's so many variables involved when assessing play (fitness, weather conditions, type of court and its condition) and all of these assume very different forms when you try to understand them in the context of how well players square off against one another e.g. fitness might be less of a problem if you're playing against someone whom you can finish most points off early.

To have a meaningful discussion about any of this you must first be putting in a highly consistent performance a-la Federer or Djokovic; else (just like in a scientific experiment) you're just muddying the waters that would otherwise enable you to draw fair and objective inferences.

Comments on Tennis Brain | An analytical tennis blog: Is Plexicushion an improved surface from Rebound A...

My comment regarding pace changes are a reference ...

Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your interesting take on...

Interesting discussionThere are a few points t...

Interesting discussion
There are a few points t...