Start Project Brief
Decision Centre
The main difference is the playing programme the field must serve. Water strategy, use intensity, maintenance and formal evidence requirements should be defined before the exact surface is selected.
Typical fitCompetition-oriented venues with defined performance and potentially formal field-testing requirements.
Clear playing-performance brief
Can be structured around current governing-body requirements
Suitable for projects with formal consultant or tender controls
—Exact product and installed-field evidence may be required
—Water strategy must be defined
—Higher technical and maintenance discipline may apply
Typical fitClubs, academies and training facilities seeking a strong hockey-first surface without assuming a top-tier competition route.
Balances hockey response and repeat use
Suitable for training and club match programmes
Can be configured around practical maintenance
—Still requires exact system review
—Water / dry strategy matters
—Club use can still be intensive
Typical fitSchools and community projects where hockey shares the field with secondary sports.
Supports broader facility use
Can improve utilisation of one field asset
Useful where one surface serves several programmes
—Primary and secondary sports must be declared
—No single surface optimises every sport equally
—Line marking and changeover need planning
Project decision inputs
Continue planning
Important
The exact construction, product evidence, installation requirements and any certification or testing pathway are confirmed against the actual project.