The performance of a sports surface is quantified for a number of reasons and by a range of methods. Four categories of surface performance testing are proposed: category 1, to determine compliance with minimum standards; category 2, to assess the overall quality of surfaces across different tiers of sport; category 3, to inform management intervention (construction and maintenance); category 4, to inform research into sports surface engineering, equipment development, the biomechanics of sports performance, and sports injury. The majority of testing in the UK falls into category 1, particularly for synthetic surfaces. Performance quality standards (PQSs) are a system for the quantification of natural turf surface performance and are suitable for category 1 testing but in this study the suitability of the PQS approach for category 2 and category 3 testing was considered in the objective statistical analysis of data from football (soccer) and cricket in the UK. Analysis determined that a PQS is suitable for category 2 testing but that a weighting system for individual components should be developed. Development of a system of decision support based upon PQS data will enable PQS systems to be used for category 3 approaches, although a coherent decision support system is not currently available. The limitation of this type of testing for category 4 was also considered.
FIH, Handbook of performance requirements and test procedures for synthetic hockey pitches – outdoor (Lausanne: Fédération Internationale de Hockey1999)
2.
ITF, Court surface classification scheme (London: International Tennis Federation2000)
3.
FIFA, FIFA quality concept: handbook of requirements for football turf (Geneva: Fédération Internationale de Football Association2006)
4.
YoungC.FlemingP. R‘A review of mechanical impact testing devices for sport surfaces’. In Proceedings of the First International Conference of the SportSURF Network: Science, Technology and Research into Sport Surfaces (STARSS 2007), Loughborough University, UK, 17–18 September 2007, CD, ISBN 978-1-897911-30-3.
5.
IRB, Regulation 22. Standard relating to the use of artificial playing surfaces: IRB performance specification for artificial surfaces for rugby (Dublin: International Rugby Board2008)
6.
SevernK.YoungCFlemingPJamesI. T‘The play performance of six water based field hockey pitches: spatial and temporal changes’. In Proceedings of the First International Conference of the SportSURF Network: Science, Technology and Research into Sport Surfaces (STARSS 2007), Loughborough University, UK, 17–18 September 2007, CD, ISBN 978-1-897911-30-3.
7.
BHA, The Horseracing Regulatory Authority general instructions (London: Horseracing regulatory Authority2005)
8.
BakerS. WColeA. RThorntonS. L‘Performance standards and the interpretation of playing quality for soccer in relation to rootzone composition’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.64 (1998): 120–132
9.
ECB Staff, Recommended guidelines for the construction, preparation and maintenance of cricket pitches and outfields at all levels of the game (Lord's Cricket Ground, London: England and Wales Cricket Board2007): 76 pp.
10.
Jennings-TempleMLeeds-HarrisonP. BJamesI. T‘An investigation into the link between soil physical conditions and the playing quality of winter sports pitch rootzones’The engineering of sport 6 (New York: Springer-Verlag2006): pp. 315–320
11.
MumfordC.The optimization of going management on UK racecourses using controlled water applications (2006) EngD Thesis, available from http://hdl.handle.net/1826/1742.
12.
FlemingP. RYoungCRobertsJ. RJonesRDixonN‘Human perceptions of artificial surfaces for field hockey’Sports Engng8 (2005): 121–136
13.
DixonS. JBattM. ECollopA. C‘Artificial playing surfaces research: a review of medical, engineering and biomechanical aspects’Int. J. Sports Medicine20 (1999): 209–218
14.
NiggB. MColeG. KStefanyshynD. J‘Impact forces during exercise and sport activities’Sports Surfaces (Calgary, Alberta: The University of Calgary2003): pp. 13–29
15.
StilesV. HJamesI. TDixonS. JGuisasolaI. N‘Natural turf surfaces: the case for continued research’Int. J. Sports Medicine39 (1) (2009): 1–20
16.
DixonS. JJamesI. T.BlackburnD. W. K.PetticanNLowD‘Influence of footwear and soil density on loading within the shoe and soil surface during running’Proc. IMechE, Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology222 (1) (2008): 1–10
17.
StilesV. HDixonS. JGuisasolaI. NJamesI. T‘Kinematic response to variations in natural turf during running’The engineering of sport 7 (New York: Springer-Verlag2008): pp. 499–508
18.
DuryP. L. K.Grounds maintenance: managing outdoor sport and landscape facilities (London: Thorogood1997)
19.
HolmesG.BellM. J‘A pilot study of the playing quality of football pitches’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.62 (1986): 74–90
20.
CanawayP. MBellM. JHolmesGBakerS. W‘Standards for the playing quality of natural turf for association football’Natural and artificial playing fields: characteristics and safety features (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials1990): pp. 29–47
21.
MurphyJ. PBakerS. W‘The development of performance standards for the quality of surface levels of artificial turf sports pitches’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.65 (1989): 115–133
22.
BakerS. W‘Temporal variation of selected mechanical properties of natural turf football pitches’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.67 (1991): 83–92
23.
FA, Natural grass construction upgrade performance quality standard (London: Football Association2004)
24.
Jennings-TempleM. ALinking soil moisture status of winter sports pitches to measures of playing quality (2006) EngD Thesis, available from http://hdl.handle.net/1826/1419.
25.
IOG, Guidelines for performance quality standards Part one: sports surfaces natural and non turf (Milton Keynes: Institute of Groundsmanship2001)
26.
BS 7370–3:1991, Grounds maintenance. Part 3: recommendations for maintenance of amenity and functional turf (other than sports turf) (London: British Standards Institution1991)
27.
CanawayP. MBellM. J‘Technical note: an apparatus measuring traction and friction on natural and artificial playing surfaces’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.62 (1986): 211–214
28.
CleggB.‘An impact testing device for in situ base course evaluation’Aust. Road Res. Bur. Proc.8 (1976): 1–6
29.
LushW. M‘Objective assessment of turf cricket pitches using an impact hammer’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.61 (1985): 71–79
30.
IOG, Cricket performance quality standards (Milton Keynes: Institute of Groundsmanship2004)
31.
JamesD. MCarréM. JHaakeS. J‘Predicting the playing character of cricket pitches’Sports Engng8 (4) (2005): 193–208
32.
GreenacreM.Correspondence analysis in practice (London: Chapman & Hall2007)
33.
RichardsC. WBakerS. W‘The effect of sward height on ball roll properties for association football’J. Sports Turf Res. Inst.68 (1992): 124–127
34.
WilliamsR. BHarkinL. SHammondC. J.WoodJ. L. N.‘Predominance of tendon injuries on British racecourses (flat racing and National hunt racing)’ (Newmarket: R and W Publications 2000, 2001): pp. 274–277
35.
AdamsW. AYoungR. JBakerS. W‘Some soil and turf factors affecting playing characteristics of premier cricket pitches in the UK’Int. Turfgrass Res. Soc. J.9 (2001): 451–457
36.
BakerS. W.HammondL. K. F.OwenA.AdamsW. A., ‘Soil physical properties of first class cricket pitches in England and Wales. II. Influence of soil type and pitch preparation on playing quality’J. Turfgrass Sports Surf. Sci.79 (2003): 13–20
