Reebok Nano Court review

Here is the profile of a player who, in our opinion, will get the most out of the Reebok Nano Court:

• a non-professional racquet sports player who occasionally enjoys a game of tennis, pickleball, padel, racquetball, or badminton
• someone who primarily plays indoors
• a person with narrow-to-medium feet
• an all-court player who doesn't need a high stable shoe

We found a few valid reasons why the Nano Court may not be a great tennis shoe for some players.

Here are the reasons as well as the alternative shoes to consider:

• you have wide and/or flat feet: K-Swiss Hypercourt Express 2 (also more durable)
• you are a baseline player: ASICS Gel Challenger 14 or ASICS Gel Resolution 9 (MUCH more durable)

All of these shoes also have a moderate heel-to-toe drop that won't push your feet forward as much as the 14.7 mm drop of the Nano Court!

Loaded with a good amount of midsole foam, this Reebok shoe returned a stack height of 30.8 mm.

It is on the cushier side of our tennis shoe range offering plenty of impact protection in the heel.

But this is where it gets tricky...

The forefoot of the Nano Court showed a mere 16.1 mm of stack height! That's the lowest we've ever recorded among the tennis shoes in our lab!

Obviously, the court feel is very pronounced in this setup but why go so low? The balls of our feet certainly felt the impact of pounding on the court after a longer session.

We believe that a few extra millimetres of foam would provide the necessary cushioning without compromising the ground feedback.

The brand's choice of such a drastic heel-to-toe drop in the Reebok Nano Court left us puzzled.

Sure, it is common for tennis shoes to have a higher drop to support the forward-leaning motion involved in the sport. But it typically hovers around 10 mm... And the Nano Court raised it to 14 mm!

In our opinion, this could do more harm than good as most players are used to having 8-10 mm of heel elevation, and 14.7 mm can definitely feel like too much.

We think that a more moderate drop would accommodate more athletes and would minimise the chance of toe jamming and heel slippage, among other inconveniences.

On the other hand, we were elated by the use of the Floatride cushioning in the Reebok Nano Court. This TPU-based foam is far from plush but it offers a very lively bounce instead.

According to our Shore A durometer, the Floatride is actually not much firmer than the average. At 29.9 HA, it sits right in the middle of the tennis shoe foams.

We thoroughly enjoyed bouncing back from the shots with this responsive setup. But unfortunately, our take-offs didn't feel as charged because the shoe's really thin forefoot stack and flexible forefoot didn't let the Flotride reveal its full potential.

A generously padded insole plays a major role in the Nano Court's underfoot cushioning. At 7.1 mm, it takes up nearly a third of the shoe's heel stack!

The insole has a moulded shape with a raised arch which adds support in the midfoot.

On the flip side, this is a WARNING sign for people with wide and flat feet. The arch can feel bumpy and take up space in the already snug-fitting bootie of the Nano Court.

Unfortunately, our toebox measurements are slightly distorted by the shoe's external overlays and show as much as 102.3 mm in the widest part of the forefoot.

Please take this number with a grain of salt as our medium-width feet felt borderline snug in the Reebok Nano Court.

We are sure that a wide-footed athlete would feel constricted in this Reebok shoe. So, we would highly recommend the K-Swiss Hypercourt Express 2 to these folks instead.

Even though the toebox width at the big toe showed an average measurement of 77.2 mm, it didn't seem to make the Nano Court a more accommodating shoe.

Having tested the side-to-side stability of the Reebok Nano Court, we would describe it as solid. It's not on the same level as the Adidas Barricade or the ASICS Gel Resolution but it is just right for most players whose playing style involves moving around the entire court.

Reebok added a whole bunch of stabilising components throughout the shoe:

• the Rubber Aid flanges (blue and grey rubber protruding upwards)
• the non-stretch yarn (the checkerboard pattern in the forefoot)
• the thick synthetic saddle (with the Reebok logo)
• the TPU heel clip (yellow, around the heel), etc.

And we are happy to report that they all deliver as promised!

If only Reebok broadened the midsole of the Nano Court, it would've boosted the shoe's stability greatly but more on that below.

We can clearly see how all of the shoe's components come into play together as we attempt to twist the Nano Court sideways.

There is hardly any give to the shoe and there is no movement in the heel and midfoot portion of the shoe. On the court, this means that your foot will not be rolling anywhere during forceful lateral shifts.

Thus, we confidently rated the torsional rigidity of this Reebok shoe with a high score of 4 out of 5.

The heel hold of the Nano Court proved to be pretty strong too.

A stiff TPU heel clip around the base of the foot did an awesome job of preventing our heels from shifting and sliding during the playtest.

But the rest of the heel counter has some good structure to it as well! It earned a high stiffness score of 4 out of 5 in our manual test.

Flipping the Nano Court upside down, we immediately noticed its narrower midsole dimensions, especially in the midfoot.

Being used to wide lateral flanges on tennis shoes, we had to get used to the fact that there were no walls to fall back on in this Reebok shoe. In the widest part of the forefoot, our calliper showed 107.1 mm which is a few millimetres narrower than average.

We wouldn't say that it is catastrophically narrow but players with wide feet and those who dominate the baseline are very to lack the width.

The shoe's midsole also proved to be narrower than average in the widest part of the heel. Our calliper returned 86.1 mm in this area.

The Reebok Nano Court turned out to be one of the most flexible tennis shoes in our catalogue.

Our force gauge test showed that it needed 47% less force than average to bend to a 90-degree angle.

The shoe offered a rather natural and grounded underfoot experience during the playtest but, on the other hand, we lacked the snap needed for explosive takeoffs.

On foot, the weight of the Reebok Nano Court felt just right and never dragged our feet down. That's why we were surprised to see an above-average weight of 13.6 oz (385g) in a men's US 9.

The Flexweave upper of the Reebok Nano Court showed absolute class in breathability! It effortlessly expelled all the smoke we pumped into the shoe in our breathability test below.

Examining the Flexweave more closely through a microscope, we could see how large its pores actually are!

It features very thin but strong strings to wrap around the thicker weaves to form wide spaces between the threads.

And as our transparency test shows, it's not just the shoe's toebox that boasts fantastic ventilation. The tongue and the vamp are also made of a very porous and airy fabric.

With all these findings, we can confidently state that the Reebok Nano Court can keep the feet very well aerated no matter how hot and sweaty your court session gets!

We happily give it the highest breathability score of 5.

To protect the integrity of the Nano Court during aggressive toe drags, Reebok added ToeTection rubber and a translucent TPU overlay on the lateral side of the shoe's toebox.

Applying sandpaper to the blue ToeTection rubber for 22 seconds at 10K RPM Dremel speed resulted in very moderate damage. Its incredible abrasion resistance made us feel confident when sliding during the playtest.

But here is the bad news - if you touch the court with the Flexweave part (even though it's covered in TPU), it won't be long before it gives up. You can see how brutal the damage is in this area compared to the ToeTection rubber.

That's why we are lowering the Reebok Nano Court's toe guard durability score to 3 out of 5. It's nowhere near the protection offered by other tennis shoes in the same price range.

As you can see, the Flexweave does not bode well with aggressive brushes against rough surfaces like hard courts.

As our Dremel test shows, this woven textile simply lacks the necessary abrasion resistance to sustain that kind of damage in the long run.

We are surprised that our 12-second sandpaper drill did not result in a see-through hole but based on the damage, it won't be long before that happens.

But because the material put up a fight, we didn't give it the lowest durability score. The Nano Court earned 3 out of 5 for toebox durability.

On the bright side, we have no concerns about the inner lining of this Reebok shoe.

This neoprene-ish material stood strong against our sandpaper test showing nothing but a minor scuff.

Confident in its ability to resist intensive friction, we rated its heel padding durability with a high score of 4 out of 5.

We were very excited to see what kind of outsole Reebok had come up with for its first tennis shoe release in years. But to our dismay, it fell awfully short of durability...

First of all, we found that its rubber compound was a bit softer than what we normally see on tennis shoes. Our Shore C durometer returned 80.0 HC which is some of the lowest/softest readings we got in tennis shoes.

On the bright side, this softer rubber offered incredible grip but more on that later.

The moment our Dremel touched the rubber, we knew... It's going to drill the heck out of that outsole.

After 22 seconds of drilling, we saw that the tread pattern had completely smoothed out in that area! According to the tread gauge, the damage was as deep as 2.1 mm and that's the worst result we ever got in this durability test...

Yet another reason to NOT recommend the Reebok Nano Court for hard outdoor courts... If you want this shoe to last, we recommend limiting its use to indoor courts.

Even though we measured the shoe's outsole thickness at 4.0 mm which is on par with the average tennis shoe, we don't think its lifespan is going to be the same. The abrasion resistance is just not strong enough.

Having poured a great deal of critique on the Reebok Nano Court, we are happy to finally talk about its positive highlight. And that would be the outsole grip.

The shoe's Griptonite outsole happens to be softer than average and has a very pronounced texture in addition to the herringbone pattern.

This combo resulted in a super tacky bite which allowed us to effortlessly stop on a sixpence and push off with maximum force.

If only Reebok found a way to improve this rubber's durability, we are sure that it would become great success on the tennis shoe market.

We agree that the below-average price is fair for this experimental tennis shoe from Reebok. But it is also fair that the shoe is not in the budget category considering the advanced materials used in it (Flexweave, Floatride, etc.).

But if you hope to draw the best value for money from the Reebok Nano Court, you have to make sure that none of its flaws turn become a deal-breaker for you (see Who should NOT buy).

The Reebok Nano Court is very lightly padded inside. Its tongue doesn't pack much foam showing only 6.0 mm of tongue thickness in our measurement.

Because of that, this shoe doesn't feel very cosy but it does feel one-to-one with the foot.

The shoe's locked-in bootie design is another problem for wide feet and high arches/insteps.

Its shoe mouth can only open this much and some folks would need to struggle their way inside the boot every time.

Sure, it's nice snug once it's on but the on-and-off process can be a deal-breaker for some people.

A large finger loop is there to help you get the Nano Court on a bit faster.

If you are not a fan of the shoe's moulded insole or you prefer a custom pair of orthotics, the insole of this Reebok shoe is not glued and it's easy to remove.