• Kevin Ball and Con Hrysomallis.
• Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, School of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
• J Sci Med Sport. 2012 May 1; 15 (3): 272-6.

UnlabelledThe use of synthetic grass cricket pitches is becoming more common at club and sub-elite levels which constitute the majority of cricket participants but there is sparse data on ball bounce characteristics on these surfaces.ObjectivesTo compare the speed, angle and consistency of ball bounce on two types of synthetic cricket surfaces, the Traditional and the All-Seasons, and compare these ball bounce characteristics with published data for natural turf pitches.DesignGroup-based comparison.MethodsHigh speed motion analysis was used to capture data from balls projected onto the cricket pitches from a bowling machine at three speeds: slow (47 km h(-1)), medium (72 km h(-1)) and fast (104 km h(-1)). Both ends of the cricket pitches were assessed and two types of balls were used: 2-piece and 4-piece leather cricket balls. Digitisation was used to determine the ball speed and angle pre and post bounce and then to calculate the ratios of ball speed and angle. Consistency was determined by the coefficient of variation.ResultsThe All-Seasons synthetic surface generated a lower speed ratio and a higher angle ratio than the Traditional synthetic surface. The speed ratio for the Traditional surface fell within the range reported for natural turf, whilst the value for the All-Seasons surface was outside the range. Both synthetic surfaces produced angle ratios greater than those for natural turf surfaces.ConclusionsDifferences were detected between the different synthetic cricket surfaces and also when compared to natural turf. This variability may have implications for skill development as well as safety.Copyright © 2011 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

7 keywords...

hide…