You Don’t Have to Be Amazing to Play Competitive Darts

 

How good do you actually need to be to play competitive darts?

It's something I've thought about quite a lot.

If most of your darts viewing comes from the PDC, it would be very easy to think you need to average 80 or 90 before you should even consider entering a tournament.

An 85 average can look ordinary on television. Players average 90 and lose comfortably. Occasionally somebody can average close to 100 and still find themselves going home.

But professional darts isn't normal darts.

So I decided to use the Q4QS database to look at the players who are actually going out and competing.

And the numbers tell a very different story.

You don't have to be amazing to play competitive darts.

More than 5,500 competitive players

For this analysis I've concentrated on players who have played enough events to establish a Q4QS Average.

That leaves 5,590 players.

At one end we have some of the very best players in the world.

At the other we have ordinary grassroots players entering local competitions.

And there is pretty much everything in between.

Importantly, these aren't somebody's best five legs on a practice board. They are averages built from actual competitive darts.

So what does a competitive darts player really look like?

The answer isn't 80 or 90

The biggest concentration of players isn't around 80.

It isn't even around 70.

The largest five-point group is in the 56–60 range.

There is another huge group between 61 and 65.

The median Q4QS Average across the entire sample is 64.67.

The mean is 66.35.

The most common exact Q4QS Average is 56.80, although with averages recorded to two decimal places I wouldn't read too much into one exact figure. Rounded to a whole number, the biggest concentration is around 60.

Whichever measure we use, the conclusion is much the same.

The centre of competitive darts is nowhere near the averages we regularly see on television.

What about an 80 average?

I've scored at several Q Schools and I've always had 80.00 in my head as an important benchmark.

That's my own opinion. It isn't an official PDC minimum and averaging 80 certainly doesn't guarantee success at Q School.

But from what I've seen, it's around the minimum level where I personally start thinking seriously about Q School standard.

So how many of these 5,590 players actually average 80 or more?

539.

That's just 9.6%.

In other words, more than 90% of the qualifying competitive players in this sample average below 80.

Go higher and the numbers fall rapidly.

Only 214 players — 3.8% — average 85 or better.

Only 69 — 1.2% — average 90 or better.

Only 14 players — 0.25% — average 95 or better.

And there is just one player in the database with a Q4QS Average above 100.

Suddenly an 80 average doesn't look very ordinary.

Television gives us a strange idea of a good average

That's probably inevitable.

We spend hours watching some of the best darts players on the planet.

Someone averages 89, loses 6–2 and we hear that they've had a poor game.

Perhaps they have by their standards.

But an 89 average isn't poor darts.

Across this population, it's exceptional.

An 80 average puts you roughly in the top 10%.

Get into the 83–84 area and you're around the top 5%.

Reach the low 90s and you're getting towards top 1% territory.

That's quite a different perspective.

Where does your average put you?

With thousands of players, we can start putting averages into context.

Very approximately:

Q4QS Average	Where it puts you
59	Top 75%
65	Around the top 50%
73	Around the top 25%
80	Around the top 10%
83–84	Around the top 5%
92	Around the top 1%

That makes a 70-something average look rather different from how it might appear on television.

If you're averaging around 73 consistently in competitive darts, you're roughly in the upper quarter of this population.

That's decent darts.

The Q4QS colours give us another way of looking at it

I then wondered whether the Q4QS colour rankings would show the same pattern.

They do.

I calculated the average Q4QS Average of the players in each current colour band.

Q4QS Colour	Ranking	Average Q4QS Average
Gold	1–200	88.53
Silver	201–500	82.43
Bronze	501–1,000	78.75
Black	1,001–2,000	74.14
Brown	2,001–3,000	69.51
Blue	3,001–4,000	66.51
Green	4,001–5,000	63.96
Red	5,001–6,000	61.86
Purple	6,001–7,000	59.96
Pink	7,001–8,000	58.19
Orange	8,001–9,000	56.78
Yellow	9,001–10,000	54.86

I really like this table.

It gives players a completely different set of targets.

The average Yellow-ranked player is around 55.

Orange is around 57.

Purple is almost exactly 60.

Red is around 62.

Green is around 64.

Blue moves into the 66–67 territory.

Brown is getting close to 70.

Black is around 74.

Bronze is nearly 79.

Silver is above 82.

Gold averages almost 89.

These aren't qualification marks. Averaging 74 doesn't automatically make you a Black-ranked player because Q4QS ranking isn't based solely on average.

But they are useful benchmarks.

If you're Purple, perhaps your immediate target isn't an 80 average.

Maybe it's the typical Red level.

Then Green.

Then Blue.

That's a much more achievable way of looking at improvement.

And then there's me

I'm useful at the other end of this argument.

I'm roughly a 50-average player.

I've averaged 70.

I've also averaged 40.

Consistency is very much a work in progress.

But I play competitive darts.

I'm not entering tournaments expecting to become the next world champion. I'm playing because I enjoy competing and because I want to improve.

There is a tendency in darts to think you have to reach some imaginary standard before you're allowed to enter.

You don't.

There will always be somebody better than you.

That's true if you average 50.

It's true if you average 70.

And unless your name happens to be Luke Littler or Luke Humphries, it's probably true if you average 100.

Half a point matters

This might be my favourite result from the whole exercise.

When we talk about getting better at darts, we usually think in big numbers.

"I'm averaging 55 and want to average 65."

Or:

"I'm at 60 and want to reach 70."

But ten average points is an enormous improvement.

So I looked at something much smaller.

Half a point.

Around a 60 average, there are approximately 134 players within the next half-point of the Q4QS average distribution.

At 65, it's around 105.

At 70, around 76.

At 75, around 72.

At 80, around 48.

At 85, only around 19.

At 90, just seven.

That doesn't mean adding half a point automatically moves your Q4QS ranking by that many places. The ranking takes much more into account.

But it shows just how densely packed the playing population is around grassroots levels.

Don't find ten points — find half a point

I think that's a much better way of approaching improvement.

If I'm averaging 50 and decide I need to get to 80, I've given myself a 30-point target.

That sounds ridiculous.

What if I try to get to 50.5?

Then 51.

Then 51.5.

Then 52.

Suddenly the target isn't quite so ridiculous.

And around the busiest areas of the average distribution, those little improvements can move you past a surprisingly large number of players on the average curve.

Half a point matters.

A point matters.

Consistency matters.

It gets harder the higher you go

The numbers demonstrate something else as well.

The player population becomes thinner as the averages rise.

At grassroots levels, there can be more than 100 players squeezed into half an average point.

At 90, there are only a handful.

And finding an extra half-point when you're already averaging 90 is considerably harder than finding one when you're averaging 55.

That's part of what makes elite darts so impressive.

The margins become tiny.

Average isn't everything

There's one other important caveat.

Q4QS ranking isn't simply an average table.

Actually entering tournaments matters.

Winning matches matters.

Who you play matters.

Consistency matters.

That's why somebody with a relatively modest average can still have a respectable ranking.

Darts matches aren't awarded to whoever has the best season average.

You still have to win the legs.

So don't become obsessed with one number.

Use it as a measure of improvement rather than a definition of how good you are.

Stop comparing yourself with the PDC

Professional darts is brilliant.

It's also a terrible benchmark for deciding whether you're good enough to enter your local tournament.

Those players are at the extreme end of the curve.

That's why they're professionals.

An average that looks disappointing on television can represent an exceptional standard across the wider competitive game.

And an average that looks poor compared with the PDC might actually be completely normal at grassroots level.

So if you're sitting at home averaging 50, 55 or 60 and thinking you aren't good enough to enter a tournament, perhaps think again.

Will you win it?

Probably not.

Could you lose your first match?

Absolutely.

So could everybody else who enters.

Could you compete?

Yes.

You might already be good enough

That's ultimately what I took from looking at these numbers.

There isn't a magic average where somebody suddenly becomes entitled to call themselves a competitive darts player.

You don't need to average 80.

You don't need to average 70.

You don't even need to average 60.

If you want to play competitive darts, enter something.

Find out where you are.

Then try to improve.

And rather than looking 10 or 20 points further up the average table, start with half a point.

Then another half.

Then another.

Because when you stop comparing yourself with the handful of extraordinary players we watch on television and start comparing yourself with thousands of people who actually play competitive darts, things look very different.

You don't have to be amazing to play competitive darts.

You just have to play.

Is There a Great Darts Player Hidden Inside Me?

 

Every so often, I throw a leg of darts that makes absolutely no sense.

Not because it's bad.

Because it's far better than the player I normally am.

I've hit 15-dart legs. I've had individual legs where I've averaged over 100. They certainly don't happen every week, and I don't want to pretend I'm regularly producing darts of that standard.

I'm not.

But they have happened.

And that has left me with a question I've been fascinated by for years.

If I can play darts that well occasionally, what is stopping me from getting closer to that level more often?

Or, to put it another way:

Is there a much better darts player hidden inside me?

The 10,000-Hour Question

I've always been fascinated by the argument popularised by books such as Matt Syed's Bounce: the idea that elite performance is built through thousands of hours of purposeful practice rather than simply being something you're born with.

The famous figure is 10,000 hours, although the original research is considerably more nuanced than simply doing something for that length of time.

The important part is deliberate practice.

There's an enormous difference between throwing darts for an hour and spending an hour deliberately working on specific weaknesses.

And that raises an interesting question in darts.

How much of the difference between an average pub player and an elite player is practice?

And how much is natural ability?

Surely Natural Talent Exists?

It's difficult to watch somebody such as Luke Littler throw darts and believe we're all starting with exactly the same raw materials.

The same could be said of Adrian Lewis at his best, or the apparently effortless action of Michael Smith.

They have obviously spent thousands upon thousands of hours playing darts.

But there appears to be something else there as well.

Call it talent, coordination, temperament, hand-eye coordination or simply an unusually high natural ceiling.

Whatever we call it, I find it difficult to believe that every person on Earth could practise for 10,000 hours and become Luke Littler.

I certainly don't expect to.

But that's not really the question I'm interested in.

I'm far more interested in finding out how good I could become.

Which One Is the Real Me?

I'm 52.

I've played a lot of darts over the years and I practise reasonably seriously for an amateur player. I enter tournaments, track statistics and probably think about my game considerably more than is healthy.

But my improvement has never followed a nice straight line.

Sometimes I play well.

Sometimes I wonder whether I've ever held a dart before.

And very occasionally everything clicks.

A 15-dart leg appears.

A leg with a 100-plus average appears.

Three darts suddenly seem to follow one another towards the treble rather than conducting independent experiments into different areas of the board.

Those exceptional legs are rare.

But they're fascinating to me because I threw them.

So which player represents my actual ability?

Is it the player represented by my average over hundreds of legs?

Almost certainly.

But what does that occasional brilliant leg represent?

Luck?

Variance?

Or a glimpse of a level that better practice could make slightly less unusual?

Maybe I'm Asking the Wrong Question

For years, I've thought about improvement in the obvious way:

How do I become a better darts player?

I'm starting to think there's another way of looking at it.

How do I make the difference between my best darts and my normal darts smaller?

That doesn't mean turning an occasional 15-darter into 15-dart legs every night.

That would be ridiculous.

But suppose the things that occasionally combine during one of those legs could be understood.

Better grouping.

Fewer darts in the 1 and 5.

More controlled finishing.

Better concentration.

More confidence.

Perhaps improvement isn't about discovering some magical new ability.

Perhaps it's about gradually removing the mistakes that prevent the ability I already possess from appearing more frequently.

Where Am I Actually Losing Darts?

My instinct has always been to blame scoring.

Those visits of 41 and 45 are incredibly frustrating because they often don't feel like terrible visits.

The darts aren't miles away.

But they're expensive.

Put two darts in the 1 instead of the 20 and you've effectively thrown away 38 points.

Do that repeatedly during a leg and suddenly the difference is enormous.

It doesn't necessarily require more 180s to become a considerably better player.

Sometimes it just requires fewer 26s.

But looking at my own statistics has made me wonder whether scoring is actually my biggest problem.

My first-nine average is often somewhere around 55–60 and rarely falls below 50.

Nobody on the PDC Tour needs to start worrying.

But for the standard I'm playing at, it suggests I'm at least getting myself through the first part of legs reasonably well.

What happens afterwards may be more important.

The Doubles Problem

This is an area where I think there may be considerable improvement available.

If I'm taking four darts, on average, to convert a finishing opportunity, I'm effectively operating at around 25%.

Get that closer to one in three and suddenly I'm winning legs earlier without improving my scoring at all.

That's what I find particularly interesting.

I've spent years thinking becoming a better darts player means scoring more heavily.

Maybe it doesn't.

Perhaps I don't need another 180.

Perhaps I need fewer wasted darts.

A 60 average achieved through better finishing wins exactly the same legs as a 60 average produced through heavier scoring.

And in match situations, better finishing may be considerably more valuable.

Why Do Young Players Seem to Improve So Quickly?

Age is another part of this experiment.

At 52, I'm obviously not approaching darts in the same circumstances as an emerging 18-year-old.

A young player may be playing several nights every week. They may have fewer family commitments and considerably more time available for practice and competition.

There may be physical advantages too. Motor learning, recovery, eyesight and reaction can all change with age.

But there's another factor.

Going from a 40 average to 50 is not necessarily the same challenge as going from 55 to 65.

Improvement becomes progressively harder.

The better you become, the more difficult each additional percentage point is to find.

So perhaps comparing improvement rates isn't particularly useful.

The more interesting question is what improvement is still realistically available to me.

Have I Actually Been Practising Properly?

This may be the uncomfortable part.

I practise.

But I'm not convinced I've always practised particularly well.

Throwing at treble 20 for a while, playing some 501 and then deciding I've completed a practice session isn't necessarily deliberate practice.

It's playing darts.

There's a difference.

So I'm going to try something different.

Rather than simply practising more, I want to practise with a purpose.

A session might include:

- 15 minutes concentrating purely on grouping and reducing darts into the 1 and 5.

- 15 minutes working through finishing combinations.

- 15 minutes of dedicated doubles practice.

- 15 minutes of competitive 501 or match simulation, with the statistics recorded.

And, crucially, I want to measure what happens.

Not after three days.

Over months.

An Experiment at 52

That's perhaps where this article changes from a philosophical question into something more interesting.

I want to find out.

I'm not trying to become a professional darts player.

I'm certainly not announcing a late assault on Luke Littler's world ranking.

I simply want to discover how much better a 52-year-old amateur darts player can become through genuinely structured practice.

I'll track things such as my overall average, first-nine average, checkout percentage, darts required at doubles and perhaps the frequency of particularly poor scoring visits.

Then I can see where the improvement actually comes from.

Maybe my scoring will rise.

Maybe my doubles will improve.

Maybe very little will happen at all.

That's part of the experiment.

So Can Anyone Become Elite?

I suspect the answer is no.

Natural ability matters.

Different people almost certainly have different ceilings, just as they do in virtually every other sport.

But I also suspect most amateur darts players have absolutely no idea where their ceiling is.

Because reaching it would require years of genuinely purposeful practice rather than simply playing darts.

Perhaps talent determines roughly where your ceiling might be.

Practice determines how close you ever get to it.

Most of us probably stop climbing long before we actually reach it.

The Player I've Occasionally Met

I don't regularly throw 15-dart legs.

That's precisely why they fascinate me.

Somewhere amongst thousands of completely ordinary legs of darts are a handful where everything has worked.

I've experienced what it feels like.

And I'm curious about whether I can make the gap between those rare moments and my normal game just a little smaller.

I'm not searching for a perfect throwing action.

I'm not looking for a secret aiming technique.

And I'm definitely not expecting to suddenly average 90.

I'm searching for consistency.

At 52, perhaps my ultimate ceiling isn't dramatically higher than my current level.

Or perhaps I've spent years practising inefficiently and there's considerably more improvement available than I realise.

There's only really one way to find out.

Practise properly.

Measure it.

And see what happens.

Maybe there isn't a great darts player hidden inside me.

But I'd quite like to meet the best one that's in there.

Bristol & South West's Most Improved Players - A Very Important Ranking

 

Winning tournaments will always grab the headlines, but it isn't the only way to measure progress.

One of my favourite features in the Q4QS rankings is the Improvement Report, which compares a player's last 50 recorded legs against their previous 50 legs. Rather than rewarding a single great night or one tournament victory, it highlights players who are genuinely raising their level over time.

In many ways, I think this tells a bigger story than a simple league table.

Every darts player goes through peaks and troughs. We all have evenings where nothing seems to go right, followed by weeks where everything suddenly clicks. That's completely normal. What matters is how you respond after those difficult spells.

Take Ethan Williams, who currently tops the latest Bristol & South West Improvement Rankings.

His numbers are remarkable. Ethan has increased his average from 47.12 over his previous 50 legs to 65.91 across his latest 50 legs – an improvement of 18.79 points, or almost 40%.

That doesn't necessarily mean Ethan has suddenly become a completely different player overnight. It may simply show someone who has worked through a difficult period, found confidence again, and is now producing the level he is capable of.

That is exactly why I enjoy this report so much.

Behind Ethan are several players who continue to move in the right direction, including Christopher Willcocks, Christopher Staples, Joshua Rees, George Freeman, Natalie Baxter, Benny Watkins and Jamie Davey. Each has shown significant improvement over their most recent performances, proving that consistent development often matters more than one-off results.

Improvement isn't always a straight line

It's important to remember that this isn't a permanent ranking.

Players who appear near the top this month may naturally drop back next month once those improved performances become part of their longer-term average. Equally, players who are currently outside the Top 50 may suddenly climb the list after putting together a few strong tournaments.

That's exactly how improvement works.

Nobody keeps getting better every single week forever. Even the best players experience dips in form. The difference is that they recover.

The players to watch

Rank	Player	Previous 50	Last 50	Improvement	Improve %
1	Ethan Williams	47.12	65.91	+18.79	39.88%
2	Christopher Willcocks	51.47	60.40	+8.93	17.35%
3	Christopher Staples	52.34	61.39	+9.05	17.29%
4	Joshua Rees	43.65	50.64	+6.99	16.01%
5	George Freeman	36.24	41.98	+5.74	15.84%
6	Natalie Baxter	48.57	56.19	+7.62	15.69%
7	Benny Watkins	55.22	63.70	+8.48	15.36%
8	Jamie Davey	52.52	60.20	+7.68	14.62%
9	Brooklyn Anthony	57.62	65.63	+8.01	13.90%
10	Cruz Morse	38.20	43.51	+5.31	13.90%
11	Beau Murton	48.88	55.38	+6.50	13.30%
12	Jenson Swift	43.95	49.77	+5.82	13.24%
13	Markk Valentino	48.13	54.39	+6.26	13.01%
14	Gavyn Griffiths	46.95	53.03	+6.08	12.95%
15	Jac Thomas	53.84	60.50	+6.66	12.37%
16	Kieran Thomas	52.83	59.23	+6.40	12.11%
17	Alfie Milroy	28.89	32.35	+3.46	11.98%
18	Logun Godbeer	59.58	66.42	+6.84	11.48%
19	James Pryer	50.15	55.79	+5.64	11.25%
20	Phil Bisset	53.23	59.21	+5.98	11.23%
21	Arnold Szasz	43.18	47.96	+4.78	11.07%
22	Steven Rees	69.26	76.67	+7.41	10.70%
23	Todd Marfell	55.88	61.80	+5.92	10.59%
24	Pec Parkinson	58.33	64.49	+6.16	10.56%
25	James Taviner	55.44	61.08	+5.64	10.17%
26	Kian Baker	41.01	45.08	+4.07	9.92%
27	Reece Harding	53.69	58.90	+5.21	9.70%
28	Harley Hunt	39.30	43.10	+3.80	9.67%
29	Joel Farrell-Humphreys	52.79	57.87	+5.08	9.62%
30	Edward Manley	70.18	76.91	+6.73	9.59%

For me, one of the most encouraging signs is seeing the same names appear in the Improvement Rankings again and again.

If a player can consistently remain inside the Top 50 Improvers, it usually suggests they are steadily developing their game rather than relying on occasional good nights. Those are often the players who quietly climb the Q4QS rankings over the course of a season.

This report isn't designed to replace the main rankings.

Instead, it complements them by answering a different question:

Who's getting better?

Whether you're chasing your first tournament win or trying to break into the top tier of South West darts, improvement is ultimately what matters.

Keep improving, and the results usually follow.

I'll continue updating the Q4QS Improvement Rankings throughout the season, and it'll be fascinating to see who keeps moving upwards as 2026 progresses.

Time for a Reset

Tonight was one of those nights.

I didn't win a single leg.

The strange thing is that my average wasn't completely terrible, but the results certainly were. Walking away without a leg win is never enjoyable, and it has forced me to take a long, hard look at where my game currently stands.

The truth is that I know I'm capable of better. I've shown flashes of it. I've had good legs, good spells, and good tournaments. The problem isn't a lack of ability. The problem is that I'm not currently doing anything focused enough to solve the issues that keep appearing.

If I'm honest, this isn't just a darts problem.

It's something I do in life generally.

I overwhelm myself with ideas, projects, plans and possibilities. Instead of focusing on one thing and improving it, I end up trying to tackle everything at once. The result is that progress becomes slower than it should be.

So it's time for a rethink.

Not a dramatic one. Not because I'm angry or depressed about tonight. Quite the opposite. I'm actually feeling quite positive about it.

I think I need to strip everything right back to basics.

Physically, that means rebuilding my throw from the ground up. Looking at stance, alignment, grouping and consistency. No shortcuts. No miracle fixes. Just simple, deliberate practice.

Mentally, it means getting my head in the right place again. Finding focus. Removing noise. Concentrating on the things that actually matter instead of worrying about everything at once.

I've even started thinking about whether Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) might be useful. Not specifically for darts, but for helping me organise my thinking, improve focus and gain better perspective. The lessons could easily transfer onto the oche.

This isn't a blog post about giving up.

It's a blog post about starting again.

The good news is that I know I'm not alone. Every darts player seems to hit these periods where they know there's more in the tank but can't quite unlock it. Every player has moments where the game feels harder than it should.

So over the next few weeks I'm going back to basics. I'll document what I'm doing, what works, what doesn't work, and whether the changes make a difference.

And if I manage to find something that genuinely helps, I'll make sure I share it.

Because I suspect there are plenty of players out there standing exactly where I am right now.

Wednesday Night Under 55 Average Tournament – Browns Bar, Bristol

 Last night (Wednesday) I played in the Under 55 Average Comp at Browns Bar, Bristol. It was a bit up and down overall, but I’m happy with my scoring. The big takeaway? My head was in a much better place than it’s been for the past few weeks.No overthinking, just enjoying the game.

I definitely need to practice my doubles more, but mentally I felt solid. Lost focus a little in the Last 16, but I’m fine with that. Tonight is an open tournament, so the goal is to keep this upturn in form and mindset going.

Stats from Wednesday

Result: Last 16

Match Average: 45.74

First 9 Average: 53.79

100+ scores: 7

Legs Won: 7

Legs Lost: 6

Breaks: 4

Reflection

Scoring was decent, but finishing let me down. Still, the mental side felt strong, which is a big win for me right now.