These surface families create different playing and maintenance environments. The choice should follow the intended users, desired court response, existing base and operating model rather than a generic idea of which surface is better.
Tennis Turf
Typical fitClubs, schools, resorts and recreation projects seeking a synthetic turf playing surface.
What it offers
Distinctive turf playing feel
Can suit selected conversion and recreation projects
Available in multiple project pathways
What to review
—Infill and maintenance vary by exact product
—Court response must be matched to the intended programme
—Base and drainage still matter
Hard Acrylic
Typical fitProjects seeking a traditional hard-court pathway on a suitable rigid base.
What it offers
Direct hard-court response
Clear line marking and colour zoning
Common pathway for dedicated tennis courts
What to review
—Base cracking and movement can telegraph through
—Surface preparation is critical
—Hardness and heat exposure may influence user preference
Cushioned Acrylic
Typical fitProjects wanting a hard-court style surface with a resilient cushion build-up.
What it offers
Retains a hard-court playing character
Adds a resilient layer within the coating system
Can suit premium club and commercial projects
What to review
—Requires suitable prepared base
—Cushion construction and coating system must be treated as one package
—Repairs and resurfacing follow a different maintenance route from turf
Project decision inputs
Use these factors before choosing a pathway.
01Desired playing feel and pace02Existing base / slab condition03Drainage / falls04Player group05Climate and heat exposure06Maintenance model07Tender / court-performance requirement
Essential site functions work without analytics. With your permission, Apollo uses analytics to understand which products, guides and project pathways are useful. Analytics stays off until you allow it.