Which Is the Toughest Night of the Week to Play Darts?

 

If somebody had asked me this before I started looking at the numbers, I think I'd have said Saturday.

It seems logical.

Saturday is when you tend to get the bigger opens. Players can travel further, tournaments can run for longer and organisers don't have to worry quite as much about everybody getting up for work the following morning.

But nearly 9,000 tournament records in the Q4QS database suggest there's rather more to it than that.

Because while Saturday certainly produces some of the biggest and strongest competitions, the average grassroots tournament during the week can be every bit as tough – and sometimes tougher.

The rise of regular ADC Vaults and other weekday competitions appears to have changed the landscape considerably.

How I've Worked It Out

I wanted to avoid simply adding every Tournament Strength score together and dividing by the number of events.

There's a problem with doing that.

Imagine a Saturday containing loads of ordinary tournaments but also several enormous opens, qualifiers and elite events. Those huge tournaments can pull Saturday's overall average upwards and make it look as though the typical Saturday competition is stronger than it really is.

So I've looked at each day in three different ways:

Mean – the conventional average of all the Tournament Strength scores.

Median – put all the tournaments in order and take the one in the middle.

Mode – the most commonly occurring Tournament Strength, with the scores rounded to the nearest whole number.

I then take the middle result from those three measures to produce what I'll call the Q4QS Typical Strength.

You don't really need to worry about the maths beyond that.

The idea is simply:

Don't let a handful of unusually strong or unusually weak tournaments decide the answer.

And, as always, Tournament Strength is not a three-dart average. It's the Q4QS measure of the overall strength of a tournament field.

So Which Day Comes Out Strongest?

Here's what happened.

Day	Mean	Median	Most Common	Q4QS Typical Strength
Friday	59.15	58.79	61	59.15
Monday	57.67	58.88	61	58.88
Thursday	58.38	58.86	61	58.86
Tuesday	57.47	58.56	62	58.56
Saturday	60.27	58.43	57	58.43
Wednesday	56.83	57.79	60	57.79
Sunday	56.62	56.60	59	56.62

And I don't think the most interesting part is that Friday wins.

It's what happens to Saturday.

Saturday Has The Biggest Average

Look at Saturday's first number.

60.27.

That's comfortably the highest mean of the week.

So my original assumption wasn't completely wrong.

There are some seriously strong tournaments played on Saturdays, and the bigger events help push the overall number upwards.

But now look at the other two figures.

The median drops to 58.43.

And the most common rounded Tournament Strength is only 57.

That's quite a difference.

If Saturday were simply packed with stronger tournaments from top to bottom, I'd expect all three figures to be towards the top of the table.

They aren't.

Instead, the figures suggest something slightly different:

Saturday has a very high ceiling.

The biggest Saturday competitions can be extremely strong, and those tournaments pull the conventional average upwards.

But walk into a randomly selected Saturday tournament and it isn't necessarily going to be tougher than the competition taking place on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday evening.

That surprised me.

Then We Get To Friday

Friday is almost the opposite.

Its mean is 59.15.

Its median is 58.79.

And its most common rounded Tournament Strength is 61.

There isn't the same enormous gap between the different measurements.

In simple terms, Friday doesn't appear to rely quite as heavily on a handful of monster tournaments to look strong.

Regular Friday darts itself is strong.

That's why Friday eventually comes out on top using my combined measure.

Its Q4QS Typical Strength is 59.15.

Monday Isn't Exactly An Easy Night Either

Monday might be an even bigger surprise.

Its conventional average is only 57.67, which wouldn't immediately attract much attention.

But the middle tournament scores 58.88, and the most common rounded score is 61.

Once those measures are combined, Monday reaches a Q4QS Typical Strength of 58.88 – narrowly ahead of Thursday.

That's enough for second place.

So much for easing yourself gently into the darting week.

And Look At Tuesday

Tuesday has another fascinating number.

Its most common Tournament Strength is:

62.

That's the highest mode of any day of the week.

It doesn't mean Tuesday is automatically the toughest day. Its mean and median are lower, which is why it finishes fourth on my combined measurement.

But it does show just how regularly decent-strength tournaments are occurring during the working week.

And I think there's a fairly obvious candidate for why.

The Weekday Vault Effect

The ADC Vault system – together with the increasing number of other regular local competitions – has created a huge weekday tournament scene.

You don't necessarily need a giant open containing 100 players to create a strong field.

Put 16, 20, 24 or 32 competitive players into the same venue every week and you can create a difficult tournament.

Then do it again the following week.

And again.

That's quite different from the traditional image of tournament darts where the biggest competitions happen at the weekend and weekday darts is predominantly local league darts.

There is now a substantial competitive tournament circuit taking place on ordinary evenings.

The numbers appear to be picking that up.

Saturday Versus The Working Week

I think this is probably the best way of describing what I've found.

Saturday is the big-event day.

If you're looking for some of the strongest individual competitions, Saturday is exactly where you'd expect to find plenty of them.

That's why its mean climbs all the way to 60.27.

But the working week has something different.

Consistency of competition.

There are Vaults, money-in-money-out competitions, round robins and established weekly series taking place night after night.

They might not have the scale of a major Saturday open.

They don't need it.

A relatively small room containing plenty of good regular tournament players can be an extremely difficult place to win.

Sunday Is Different Again

Sunday produced the lowest Q4QS Typical Strength at 56.62.

That doesn't mean there aren't strong Sunday tournaments – of course there are.

But across the database, the typical Sunday field comes out noticeably below Friday, Monday, Thursday and Tuesday.

That's another reason I think using more than the ordinary average was worthwhile.

Different days aren't just producing different standards.

They're producing different types of tournament calendars.

So What Is The Toughest Night?

If you're asking:

Which day produces the biggest tournaments?

I'd still have a very strong case for Saturday.

Its mean Tournament Strength of 60.27 is comfortably the highest.

But if you're asking:

On which day is the typical tournament toughest?

The answer from the Q4QS data is:

Friday.

And the margins behind it are tiny.

Friday – 59.15
Monday – 58.88
Thursday – 58.86
Tuesday – 58.56
Saturday – 58.43

There's less than three-quarters of a Tournament Strength point separating the top five.

So I certainly wouldn't claim that Friday night darts exists on another level.

The more interesting conclusion is that weekday tournament darts is every bit as competitive as the weekend.

Perhaps Grassroots Darts Has Changed

That's probably the biggest thing I take from this.

A few years ago, I suspect most of us would instinctively have associated the strongest grassroots tournament fields with the weekend.

And the big weekend open certainly hasn't disappeared.

But competitive darts is becoming increasingly available throughout the week.

The Vault system has been a major part of that, alongside independent competitions and venues building their own regular tournament calendars.

That creates something different from one huge Saturday field.

It creates depth.

Monday night can be tough.

Tuesday night can be tough.

Thursday night can be tough.

Friday night can be particularly tough.

And then Saturday arrives and produces some of the biggest individual competitions of the lot.

So perhaps the answer to the question isn't really that Friday has beaten Saturday.

It's that there isn't an easy night anymore.

If you turn up at a competitive grassroots tournament on almost any night of the week, there's a pretty good chance somebody in the room is capable of ruining your evening.

And looking at the Q4QS database, that now seems to be happening all week long.

Q4QS Most Improved Players – September 2026

 

One of the things I want Q4QS to do is recognise improvement, not just concentrate on the players at the top of the rankings.

So this is the first Q4QS Facebook Group Most Improved Players table.

The idea is fairly simple. I have compared each qualifying player's Q4QS Average at 31 August 2026 with their Q4QS Average at 30 September 2026. The players are then ranked by how much that figure has increased.

This is worth explaining because it isn't simply a list of who averaged highest during September. The Q4QS Average is based on a player's wider tournament record, so moving it upwards becomes increasingly difficult as more results are accumulated.

This particular feature is also exclusively for players who are members of the Quest For Q School – Grassroots Darts Facebook group. The main Q4QS rankings remain open to everybody in the database, but this monthly feature is a little extra for the people who have joined the group.

If you're in the Q4QS database and want the chance to appear in future editions, join the Facebook group.

September 2026 Top 50 Most Improved

Pos	Player	31 Aug Avg	30 Sep Avg	Improvement
1	Arran Cundick	53.83	55.12	+1.29
2	Luke Yates	62.84	63.92	+1.08
3	George Nurdin	58.48	59.36	+0.87
4	Kai Carter	63.02	63.81	+0.79
5	Henry Povey	69.46	70.22	+0.76
6	Will Parker	56.64	57.39	+0.75
7	Joe Quiney	76.88	77.61	+0.73
8	Owen Smith	66.55	67.26	+0.71
9	David Farmer	74.65	75.35	+0.70
10	Andrew Smith	54.47	55.12	+0.65
11	Tom Pearce	60.11	60.67	+0.56
12	Alfie Palmer	64.65	65.20	+0.55
13	Jamie Kay	82.65	83.19	+0.54
14	Liam Glister	69.21	69.76	+0.54
15	Martyn Freeman	69.60	70.12	+0.52
16	Jack Kempster	53.22	53.74	+0.52
17	Dale Mills	65.07	65.57	+0.50
18	Daryl Beaven	64.77	65.24	+0.47
19	Shane Reidy	58.40	58.87	+0.47
20	Ant Pratley	57.49	57.94	+0.44
21	Charlie Shears	52.17	52.58	+0.41
22	Jamie Rhodes	53.21	53.62	+0.41
23	Matt Yarrow	75.90	76.30	+0.40
24	Ashton Brown	80.68	81.04	+0.36
25	Adam Lea	67.89	68.24	+0.35
26	Joe Bagguley	74.22	74.54	+0.32
27	David Moule	75.88	76.16	+0.28
28	Claire Spencer	48.54	48.82	+0.28
29	Lewis Richards	57.07	57.34	+0.27
30	Stuart Melbourne	52.40	52.67	+0.26
31	Wayne Barrett	64.77	65.02	+0.26
32	Zac Rendell	62.08	62.33	+0.25
33	Jeff Saunders	56.83	57.07	+0.24
34	Mark Wilson	57.61	57.84	+0.23
35	Dexter Cornes	48.91	49.09	+0.18
36	Scott Mc	80.77	80.94	+0.17
37	Steve Boundy	71.68	71.84	+0.16
38	Dan Sperring	41.32	41.48	+0.16
39	Liam Moore	65.70	65.85	+0.15
40	Thomas Goodrich	48.23	48.37	+0.14
41	Mason Beaven	64.44	64.58	+0.14
42	Steve Wynn	60.63	60.75	+0.12
43	Jamie Treacher	51.11	51.22	+0.10
44	Jay Anderson	69.86	69.95	+0.08
45	Jamie Shovelton	65.78	65.86	+0.08
46	Cameron Oram	60.99	61.06	+0.08
47	Pete Evans	41.96	42.03	+0.08
48	Dan Cornes	59.66	59.73	+0.07
49	Martin Haines	63.69	63.75	+0.06
50	Paul Philpot	46.71	46.77	+0.06

Arran leads the first table

The biggest mover during September was Arran Cundick, whose Q4QS Average rose from 53.83 to 55.12.

That's an increase of 1.29 points, and it was achieved while his qualifying event count increased from seven to 13. That gives him a fairly clear lead in the first monthly table.

Luke Yates was the other player to gain more than a full point, climbing from 62.84 to 63.92 for an improvement of 1.08.

George Nurdin completes the top three after moving from 58.48 to 59.36, a rise of 0.87.

Kai Carter and Henry Povey round out the top five.

Improvement at every level

This is probably the part of the table I like most.

There isn't one standard of player dominating it.

Joe Quiney was already averaging 76.88 and still managed to push that up to 77.61.

Jamie Kay started September at an already excellent 82.65 and finished it at 83.19. Ashton Brown moved beyond the 81 mark, while Scott Mc also managed to improve an average that was already above 80.

At the other end of the scale, there are players improving from averages in the 40s and 50s.

That's exactly what I hoped this feature would show.

Improvement doesn't have to mean suddenly becoming an 80-average player. If somebody moves from 48.54 to 48.82, or from 53.83 to 55.12, they have moved forward relative to where they were a month ago.

Some impressive workloads as well

A few names further down the table are worth highlighting because of the amount of darts behind their numbers.

Henry Povey added 17 events during the period and still increased his Q4QS Average by 0.76.

Steve Boundy's average moved from 71.68 to 71.84 despite his recorded event total increasing from 139 to 154.

Cameron Oram now has 163 events in the figures and still managed to edge his average upwards.

The more established a player's figures become, the harder it can be to shift the overall number noticeably, so smaller gains can still represent worthwhile progress.

And, yes, I've even sneaked into the bottom of the first Top 50 myself — 46.71 to 46.77. Improvement is improvement!

A new monthly Q4QS feature

I'll run this again at the end of October.

The aim isn't to turn it into another ranking of who the best players are. We already have plenty of rankings for that.

This one is about who is moving forward.

The full Top 50 will be published here each month, while I'll put the Top 10 into the Q4QS Facebook group.

If you're already in the database but aren't in the group, joining gives you the chance to feature in a future Most Improved list.

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.

50,000 Simulations: Who Will Win the 2026 Challenge Tour Tour Cards?

 

Just four events remain in the 2026 PDC Challenge Tour, and the race for the two Tour Cards is approaching its conclusion.

Derek Coulson leads the Order of Merit on £15,150, Joe Hunt sits second on £13,050 and Daniel Klose is chasing on £10,800.

But with £3,000 available to the winner of each of the final four events, how secure are those positions really?

I decided to run the final Challenge Tour weekend 50,000 times.

How the simulation works

This isn't simply a case of randomly selecting winners.

I used the current Q4QS data for the 166 players in the final-weekend entry field, including playing strength, averages and recent form.

Each of the four remaining tournaments was then played out as a knockout event, with fresh draws and match results generated each time.

The actual 2026 Challenge Tour prize structure was applied:

Winner – £3,000
Runner-up – £2,000
Semi-final – £1,000
Quarter-final – £750
Last 16 – £350
Last 32 – £250
Last 64 – £100

That whole four-event finish was repeated 50,000 times.

These are simulation estimates rather than predictions of exactly what will happen. Darts is far too volatile for that. What they do show is how the current money advantage and the relative strength of the field combine.

The Tour Card probabilities

Player	Current Prize Money	Finish 1st	Finish Top 2
Derek Coulson	£15,150	86.09%	99.59%
Joe Hunt	£13,050	11.46%	81.45%
Daniel Klose	£10,800	2.34%	16.98%
Tommy Morris	£9,100	0.05%	0.79%
Tommy Lishman	£8,350	0.03%	0.59%
Daniel Ayres	£7,300	0.03%	0.46%
Henry Coates	£6,900	less than 0.01%	0.05%
Aden Kirk	£6,350	less than 0.01%	0.03%

Below that point, the simulation produced only extremely occasional Tour Card finishes.

Derek Coulson is almost there

The numbers underline just how powerful Coulson's £15,150 starting position is.

He finished inside the Top 2 in 99.59% of the 50,000 simulations.

More remarkably, he finished the season at number one in 86.09% of them.

Coulson does not need to dominate the final weekend. His previous results have already given him enough of a cushion that it requires a fairly unusual combination of results to remove him from the top two.

His average finishing position across all 50,000 runs was just 1.14.

In simple terms, the first Tour Card is very close to being decided.

Joe Hunt still has work to do

Hunt's position is very strong, but considerably less secure than Coulson's.

He took a Tour Card in 81.45% of simulations.

That means there was still roughly a one-in-five chance that somebody displaced him from the Top 2.

Hunt also topped the final Order of Merit in 11.46% of runs.

His average finishing position was 2.08, which is almost exactly where he currently sits.

The most important question for Hunt is therefore probably not whether he can catch Coulson.

It is whether he can keep Klose behind him.

Daniel Klose is the genuine danger

This is where the simulation gets particularly interesting.

Klose currently trails Hunt by £2,250, but his performances make him a serious threat during a four-event weekend.

Klose claimed a Tour Card in 16.98% of simulations.

That is approximately one in six.

He also finished top of the entire Challenge Tour Order of Merit in 2.34% of runs.

His average projected finishing position was 3.03.

So while the current table puts Klose third, the Q4QS model doesn't regard second place as remotely impossible.

One big tournament from Klose combined with an early Hunt exit could change the situation very quickly.

And with four separate tournaments available, there are several opportunities for that swing to happen.

Then comes the big gap

The chances fall dramatically after the leading three.

Tommy Morris started the weekend fourth on £9,100 but reached the Top 2 in only 0.79% of simulations.

Tommy Lishman was at 0.59%, with Daniel Ayres at 0.46%.

Those aren't zero.

Four tournaments can produce extraordinary sequences of results.

But players in this group essentially require both a huge weekend of their own and serious problems for the players above them.

Henry Coates fell to approximately 0.05%, while Aden Kirk was around 0.03%.

Beyond that, Tour Card finishes became exceptionally rare.

Projected finishing positions

The average finishing position across the 50,000 simulations was:

1. Derek Coulson – 1.14

2. Joe Hunt – 2.08

3. Daniel Klose – 3.03

4. Tommy Morris – 4.75

5. Tommy Lishman – 5.65

6. Daniel Ayres – 6.91

7. Henry Coates – 8.48

8. Aden Kirk – 10.11

That is perhaps the clearest way of looking at the race.

The model sees three fairly distinct groups.

Coulson is overwhelmingly likely to take a Tour Card.

Hunt is strongly placed but still vulnerable.

Klose is the one player with a substantial chance of breaking the current top two.

After those three, somebody probably needs an exceptional weekend.

Four tournaments can still change everything

An 81% probability is not the same thing as certainty.

Nor is 17% a long-shot number that can simply be ignored.

A single Challenge Tour title is worth £3,000.

If Klose were to win an event while Hunt went out before the Last 64, the £2,250 gap between them would immediately disappear.

That is why this final weekend should be fascinating.

Coulson has done the hard work.

Hunt has a very strong hand.

Klose has a genuine opportunity.

And everyone below them knows that, with £12,000 theoretically available across four events, the door is not completely closed until the darts are thrown.

I will update the simulation as the final Challenge Tour events are completed.

Famous Darts Surnames: Which Name Comes Out on Top in the Q4QS Rankings?

 

Darts has produced some legendary surnames.

Taylor immediately brings to mind the greatest player of all time, Price represents one of the leading players of the modern era, while Wilson recalls the unforgettable Scottish world champion Jocky Wilson.

But how well do these famous names hold up across the wider Q4QS rankings?

For the first edition of this series, I looked at five surnames: Taylor, Smith, Jones, Wilson and Price.

I took the ten highest-ranked players with each surname and compared their overall Q4QS positions, points, playing averages and win percentages.

Only exact surnames were counted. Players with double-barrelled or combined surnames were excluded, so names such as Taylor James-Harding, Jake B-Smith, Jaymie Hilton-Jones and Pierce Speechley-Price do not count.

Taylor

It seemed right to begin with perhaps the most famous surname in darts.

Phil Taylor dominated the sport for decades, but how do the current Taylors compare across the Q4QS database?

Pos| Player| Overall Rank| Points| Average| Win Rate

1| Dom Taylor| #435| 559.80| 79.52| 80.5%

2| Michael Taylor| #852| 498.20| 78.02| 82.5%

3| Leon Taylor| #1,169| 467.82| 69.55| 68.7%

4| Kevin Taylor| #1,186| 466.52| 70.73| 70.3%

5| Scott Taylor| #1,372| 452.41| 71.91| 51.2%

6| Elliott Taylor| #1,436| 446.95| 70.47| 72.6%

7| Leigh Taylor| #1,558| 437.59| 66.05| 77.4%

8| Sean Taylor| #1,862| 416.26| 69.99| 73.0%

9| Dean Taylor| #1,940| 411.66| 66.61| 71.2%

10| Josh Taylor| #2,114| 403.23| 63.32| 63.0%

Dom Taylor leads the group at #435 and also has the best playing average at 79.52. Michael Taylor follows at #852 and records the group's highest win rate at an impressive 82.5%.

There are no Taylors challenging at the very top of the rankings, but the surname has reasonable depth. Seven of the ten are inside the top 1,600, while the collective win rate remains strong.

Top-ten average rank: #1,392

Top-ten playing average: 70.62

Top-ten win rate: 71.1%

Smith

The Smiths — and I am not talking about Morrissey and Johnny Marr — were always likely to be serious contenders.

Smith is an extremely common surname, so there was plenty of competition for a place in its top ten. More importantly, the quality at the top is exceptional.

Pos| Player| Overall Rank| Points| Average| Win Rate

1| Ross Smith| #9| 740.68| 95.75| 66.7%

2| Raymond Smith| #64| 674.69| 89.07| 86.1%

3| Michael Smith| #85| 662.12| 89.59| 56.7%

4| Jeff Smith| #234| 600.22| 85.36| 72.0%

5| Cayden Smith| #302| 583.81| 77.76| 66.5%

6| Daniel James Smith| #535| 542.43| 77.78| 45.5%

7| Benjamin Smith| #567| 536.96| 74.68| 71.0%

8| Danny Smith| #643| 527.14| 74.90| 77.0%

9| Kieran Smith| #691| 518.84| 77.98| 83.3%

10| Ky Smith| #709| 516.21| 76.15| 63.5%

Ross Smith leads the way at #9 overall with a 95.75 average. Raymond Smith and Michael Smith are also inside the top 100, while Jeff Smith makes it four Smiths inside the top 250.

All ten are ranked inside the top 709. That level of depth is unmatched by any of the other surnames in this comparison.

Raymond Smith has the best win rate at 86.1%, with Kieran Smith also recording an excellent 83.3%.

Top-ten average rank: #384

Top-ten playing average: 81.90

Top-ten win rate: 68.8%

Jones

If we include Smith, we must also look at Jones.

The Joneses do not possess the same elite top end as the Smiths, but they produce one of the most consistent groups in the comparison.

Pos| Player| Overall Rank| Points| Average| Win Rate

1| Howard Jones| #273| 588.72| 78.69| 67.3%

2| Louis Jones| #333| 576.55| 77.15| 75.4%

3| Kacey Jones| #724| 513.22| 79.28| 91.9%

4| Lyn Jones| #795| 504.12| 69.27| 62.0%

5| Wayne Jones| #830| 500.52| 82.80| 54.0%

6| Josh Jones| #914| 491.47| 74.13| 79.0%

7| Jayden Jones| #924| 490.25| 70.96| 74.1%

8| Timothy Jones| #980| 484.40| 76.03| 80.8%

9| Damian Jones| #1,260| 460.91| 71.02| 80.3%

10| Jimmie Jones| #1,314| 455.81| 74.05| 58.1%

Howard Jones is the highest-ranked at #273, followed by Louis Jones at #333. Wayne Jones records the highest playing average at 82.80, but the standout statistic belongs to Kacey Jones.

Kacey has won 91.9% of his matches, the highest win percentage among all 50 players included in this first surname comparison.

Eight of the ten Joneses are inside the top 1,000, and their collective win rate of 72.3% is the highest of the five surnames.

Top-ten average rank: #835

Top-ten playing average: 75.34

Top-ten win rate: 72.3%

Wilson

There were not enough Lowes or Bristows in the rankings to produce meaningful top tens, so Wilson was next in line.

It is a surname with a firm place in darts history through Jocky Wilson, but how does the current group fare?

Pos| Player| Overall Rank| Points| Average| Win Rate

1| Carl Wilson| #359| 572.99| 85.89| 69.9%

2| Callum Wilson| #638| 527.62| 80.55| 48.8%

3| Jason Wilson| #720| 513.61| 78.09| 50.0%

4| Stu Wilson| #1,337| 454.94| 77.03| 42.1%

5| Dave Ian Wilson| #1,582| 435.42| 75.42| 29.0%

6| Freddie Wilson| #1,739| 423.55| 66.36| 67.1%

7| Mackenzie Wilson| #2,153| 401.35| 67.76| 62.2%

8| Kevin Wilson| #2,758| 370.48| 70.34| 61.3%

9| Noah Wilson| #2,761| 370.41| 65.05| 49.0%

10| Benjamin Wilson| #3,039| 357.56| 65.10| 68.7%

Carl Wilson is the clear leader, sitting at #359 with an excellent 85.89 average. Callum and Jason Wilson also make the top 720, giving the group a respectable leading three.

The rankings fall away after that. Only three Wilsons make the top 1,000, while three members of the top ten sit outside the top 2,700.

Freddie Wilson is the group's workhorse, having played 132 events and 711 matches, but Carl remains the only Wilson in this top ten with a win rate approaching 70%.

Top-ten average rank: #1,709

Top-ten playing average: 73.16

Top-ten win rate: 54.8%

Price

The final surname in this first edition is Price, and it contains the highest-ranked individual player in the entire comparison.

Pos| Player| Overall Rank| Points| Average| Win Rate

1| Gerwyn Price| #3| 775.41| 98.91| 69.6%

2| Samuel Price| #450| 557.52| 85.32| 58.9%

3| Eddie Price| #719| 513.63| 79.72| 74.4%

4| Steve Price| #889| 493.73| 77.41| 72.1%

5| Martin Price| #1,762| 422.33| 72.59| 70.4%

6| Lewis Price| #1,985| 409.15| 65.01| 64.2%

7| Darryl Price| #2,348| 390.67| 63.46| 67.6%

8| Jack Price| #2,551| 380.41| 61.76| 68.4%

9| Paul Price| #2,665| 374.96| 66.88| 71.4%

10| Ciaran Price| #2,753| 370.60| 63.59| 66.7%

Gerwyn Price is ranked #3 overall, with 775.41 points and a 98.91 average. All three figures are the best achieved by anyone included in this article.

Samuel Price provides strong support at #450 with an 85.32 average, while Eddie and Steve Price both make the top 900.

The weakness is the gap between the leading four and the remainder of the group. Martin Price is next at #1,762, while four of the top ten Prices are ranked outside the top 2,300.

Top-ten average rank: #1,613

Top-ten playing average: 73.47

Top-ten win rate: 68.4%

Final Standings

Position| Surname| Leading Player| Best Rank| Average Top-Ten Rank| Average Top-Ten Performance

1| Smith| Ross Smith| #9| #384| 81.90

2| Jones| Howard Jones| #273| #835| 75.34

3| Taylor| Dom Taylor| #435| #1,392| 70.62

4| Price| Gerwyn Price| #3| #1,613| 73.47

5| Wilson| Carl Wilson| #359| #1,709| 73.16

Conclusion

The Smiths take the first Q4QS surname title, and they do so comfortably.

Ross, Raymond and Michael Smith all sit inside the top 100, while every member of the Smith top ten is ranked inside the top 709. No other surname comes close to matching that combination of elite players and strength in depth.

The Joneses finish second after placing eight players inside the top 1,000. They also record the highest collective win rate, helped considerably by Kacey Jones's remarkable 91.9%.

The battle for third is more complicated. Taylor has the better depth and average ranking, while Price has comfortably the strongest individual representative. Gerwyn Price is ranked #3 and averages 98.91, but the Price rankings drop away significantly after the leading four.

On the basis of the complete top ten, Taylor narrowly takes third place. However, anyone valuing elite star quality more heavily could easily place Price ahead of them.

Wilson has a strong leading player in Carl Wilson and a respectable top three, but the surname cannot match the depth of the other four.

Taylor may remain the most famous surname in darts, and Price may supply the best current individual in this contest, but this first edition belongs to the Smiths.

For once, the most common name is also the strongest.

10 MODUS Super Series Facts From the Q4QS Database

 

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been building a separate Q4QS database for the MODUS Super Series.

Rather than simply looking at the latest results, the idea is to bring together the Portsmouth-era MODUS history and see what the numbers can tell us about the players who have competed there.

There is a lot in it.

Thousands of matches, hundreds of players, head-to-head records, averages, 180s, checkouts, Finals Night appearances and weekly victories all give me plenty to explore. In fact, there is far too much for one article.

So I’m starting relatively simply.

Here are 10 facts from the Q4QS MODUS database, covering results through Series 15, Week 195. Week 196 has begun appearing in my data, but isn't complete, so I've left it out of the record-book cutoff.

1. Neil Duff is the MODUS marathon man

If there is one player who dominates the longevity records, it is Neil Duff.

Duff has appeared across 24 MODUS weeks and has played 466 recorded matches.

He has won 292 of them.

That means Duff currently leads my database for weeks played, matches played and matches won.

It is difficult to find a better illustration of just how much darts some players have played on the MODUS stage.

2. Duff has also won nine weekly titles

Those appearances haven't simply been about turning up.

Duff has collected nine weekly titles from his 24 weeks in the database, as well as reaching 11 finals and making 19 Finals Night appearances.

So while several players have produced spectacular shorter bursts at MODUS, Duff's record combines longevity with sustained success.

3. Darryl Pilgrim owns the biggest average in the database

The highest individual match average I have recorded belongs to Darryl Pilgrim.

Pilgrim averaged an extraordinary 122.69 against Dennie Olde Kalter during Week 49.

For context, only a tiny number of performances in the entire database even get close.

Connor Scutt and David Evans are among those next in line, both having recorded 120.24.

There is another rather remarkable Pilgrim average hidden in the database too — but I'm saving that one for another article.

4. Nobody has recorded more 100+ averages than Derek Coulson

One huge average can happen on one exceptional day.

Repeatedly averaging over 100 is something different.

Derek Coulson has recorded 45 match averages of 100 or more, the highest total in the Q4QS MODUS data.

Tom Sykes and Scott Taylor are next on 32 each, followed by Andreas Harrysson on 30.

Coulson's overall numbers are impressive too: across 272 recorded matches he has won 195, a win rate of 71.69%.

5. Steve West leads the 180 race

When it comes to maximums, Steve West sits at the top.

West has hit 561 recorded 180s across 371 matches.

That works out at just over 1.5 maximums per match.

There are players with even higher rates over smaller samples, something I'll look at separately, but nobody in the database has accumulated more maximums than West.

6. Luke Littler's MODUS numbers are ridiculous

Long before some of the biggest moments of his subsequent career, Luke Littler was producing some extraordinary numbers at MODUS.

Littler played in just five recorded weeks.

He reached Finals Night in all five and won four weekly titles.

Across his 110 recorded matches, Littler won 84 — 76.36% — and averaged 94.39 overall.

Among players with at least 100 matches in the database, both figures are currently the best.

He also averaged 100+ on 21 occasions and hit 208 maximums.

That's 1.89 180s per match.

7. Neil Duff has checked out 100+ on 147 occasions

Duff returns for another record, but this time it is finishing rather than appearances.

He has recorded 147 checkouts of 100 or more.

Scott Taylor is next with 134, while Steve West has 121.

The highest possible checkout of 170 has been achieved by numerous MODUS players, but accumulating three-figure finishes over several years is another measure of consistency.

8. Two match-ups share the rivalry record

One of the things I particularly wanted the database to uncover was how often the same players have crossed paths.

At the moment, two pairings share the lead with 13 meetings.

Andreas Harrysson v Mike Warburton has happened 13 times, with Harrysson leading the series 9-4.

Conan Whitehead v Darryl Pilgrim has also happened 13 times — and remarkably, Whitehead also leads that rivalry 9-4.

There are some wonderfully close rivalries sitting just below those two as well.

I'll definitely be returning to those.

9. Beau Greaves has recorded a 114.56 average

I also want this database to allow me to look properly at the performances of women who have competed at MODUS.

One number immediately stands out.

Beau Greaves has a best recorded match average of 114.56.

Across the matches currently captured for Greaves, she has won 31 of 40, giving her a 77.5% win rate.

Her overall recorded average is 93.75, she has produced six 100+ averages and hit 76 180s.

There is much more to investigate here, particularly because the dedicated Women's Weeks need to be treated separately from the normal mixed competition.

I think the women's MODUS record book deserves an article of its own.

10. MODUS has produced far more than a handful of familiar names

Perhaps the biggest thing I've noticed while building the database isn't one individual record.

It's the scale of MODUS.

There are around 600 different players represented in the database.

Some have become household names. Others have been MODUS regulars for years. Some appeared briefly and produced a performance that still sits remarkably high in the record books.

There is also a substantial international element.

I'm currently matching the MODUS player database against my Q4QS country data so I can establish exactly how many nations and home nations have been represented rather than guessing at the number.

Once that's complete, MODUS Around the World will be another article in this series.

This is only the beginning

These are deliberately some of the more straightforward records.

I've already found plenty of stranger ones.

There are remarkable losing averages, long winning streaks, incredibly even rivalries, whitewash records, deciding-leg records and players who seem to have spent half their MODUS careers playing one another.

There are women's records to explore properly, country records, the players with the greatest title strike rates and plenty more.

That's what I want to do with this database.

Rather than simply telling you what happened at MODUS last night, I want to use the history to find the stories sitting underneath the results.

This is Part One of the Q4QS MODUS Record Book. There is plenty more to come.

How Tough Are the Toughest Under-55 Darts Tournaments?

 

At first glance, it sounds like a bit of an oxymoron.

How can an Under-55 average darts tournament be particularly tough?

Surely the whole point is that everybody entering averages below 55?

I've been looking through the Q4QS Tournament Strength database, and these competitions are actually a really interesting part of grassroots darts.

Because Under-55 doesn't necessarily mean somebody can't average 60, 65 or even 70.

It means they don't do it consistently.

And I know that because I'm one of them.

I'm Probably A Good Example

I regularly play in Under-55 competitions myself.

I've hit a 70 average.

I've also hit a 40 average.

That's my problem.

On a good day, I can produce darts well above the level you might expect from somebody playing in an Under-55 competition. On another day, it can disappear completely.

If I could average around 70 every time I played, I quite obviously wouldn't be playing Under-55 darts.

But I can't.

And I'm far from unusual.

There are plenty of players at this level capable of producing a really good match, a really good run or even an excellent tournament. What they haven't necessarily developed is the consistency to reproduce it week after week.

That's one reason these tournaments can be considerably tougher than the name suggests.

What Counts As An Under-55 Tournament?

I've been deliberately cautious with the data for this article.

There are lots of different formats listed in the Q4QS database.

Some open competitions, for example, offer a prize for the furthest-performing Under-55 player. I've excluded those because the tournament itself isn't restricted to Under-55 players.

I've also left out junior competitions, plate competitions and anything where I couldn't establish with reasonable confidence that the main event itself was an average-restricted competition.

That means this isn't necessarily every Under-55 tournament in the database.

It's a selection of the ones I can identify most reliably.

There is another complication: not every organiser determines eligibility in exactly the same way.

Some use a player's recent recorded average. Others use a specified number of previous competitions or performances.

So seeing somebody average 60+ in an Under-55 tournament doesn't automatically mean anything is wrong.

In fact, that's partly the point of this article.

Some Of These Tournaments Are Strong

Once I removed the more ambiguous records, there were still some fascinating Tournament Strength scores.

Remember, Tournament Strength is not a three-dart average. It's the Q4QS measure I use to assess the overall strength of a tournament field using the players and performance information in the database.

Here are some examples from clearly identifiable average-restricted events:

Event	Venue	Q4QS Tournament Strength
ADC Midlands Level Up Core Regional Final	Bagley Sports & Social Club	57.24
ADC South East & London Level Up Core Regional Final	Hotshots Sports Bar	54.69
Under-55 Average Series	The Bullseye Bar, Lichfield	53.62
ADC South East & London Level Up Core Regional Final	The Phoenix Club	53.53
Wobbly's Under-55	49 Club	53.52
ADC South East & London Level Up Core Regional Final	Fareham Social Club	53.41
ADC South Wales Level Up Core Final	Brynmawr Social Club	53.33
ADC South Wales Level Up Core Final	Briton Ferry Workingmen's Club	53.14
Oliver's & Castell Howell U55 Series	Oliver's Sports Bar	52.60

I've deliberately not produced a definitive 'Top 10' here.

Average-restricted events aren't always labelled consistently in the source data, so I'd rather show a collection of examples I'm comfortable with than manufacture a ranking by including events I'm less certain about.

57.24 Is A Serious Field

The one that really caught my attention was the ADC Midlands Level Up Core Regional Final at Bagley Sports & Social Club.

It recorded a Q4QS Tournament Strength of 57.24.

The ADC Level Up format is specifically designed for players at this level. For this event, eligibility was based around a running average of 55 or below, with qualification requirements attached to performances in the Vault system.

Yet the eventual tournament winner averaged 64.61 across the competition.

That, for me, sums this entire subject up.

An eligible Under-55 player produced a tournament performance nearly ten points higher than 55.

There's no contradiction there.

It's simply a player producing a very good day of darts.

The Same Thing Happens At Regular U55 Events

It isn't only the bigger regional finals either.

The Bullseye Bar in Lichfield has run its Under-55 Average Series, with one event in my database reaching a Tournament Strength of 53.62.

Wobbly's Under-55 at the 49 Club reaches 53.52.

The Oliver's & Castell Howell U55 Series also breaks 52.

Those aren't enormous numbers when compared with professional darts, and nobody is pretending they are.

But that's not the comparison I'm interested in.

These are competitions specifically designed for players below a particular established standard, yet they can still assemble surprisingly competitive fields.

A 52-Average Player Isn't Necessarily A 52-Average Player

This is where averages can sometimes be misleading.

Imagine somebody's recent performances look something like this:

48 – 51 – 63 – 46 – 59 – 50

There's some decent darts in there.

There's also enough inconsistency to keep the overall figure down.

Put a room full of players with that sort of profile together and you've got an interesting tournament.

Several of them might produce their best darts on the same evening.

Suddenly the standard of the competition bears little resemblance to what somebody might imagine when they see the words Under 55.

That's certainly how I see my own game.

The fact I've averaged 70 tells you something about what I'm capable of.

The fact I've also averaged 40 tells you rather more about why I'm still eligible for these competitions.

It's About Consistency, Not Ceiling

I think that's probably the biggest thing I've taken from looking at the data.

There is a difference between a player's ceiling and their normal level.

A developing amateur player might have a considerably higher ceiling than their overall average suggests.

The better players simply reach that ceiling more often.

Move further up the darting ladder and the really noticeable difference isn't always one spectacular performance. It's seeing somebody produce the same standard again and again.

A 65 average isn't particularly remarkable if somebody normally averages 65.

It's extremely good if somebody normally averages 50.

And That's Why Under-55 Darts Works

I actually think this is one of the attractions of average-restricted competition.

Turn up at a completely unrestricted open and you could be drawn against somebody operating at an entirely different level.

There's nothing wrong with that — that's open darts.

But restricted competitions give developing players the opportunity to play meaningful matches against people who are broadly around their level.

That doesn't make them easy.

Far from it.

You're potentially facing somebody who normally averages 52 but is perfectly capable of throwing 65 against you.

And if you're unlucky, that's the version that turns up.

Don't Mistake Under-55 For Easy Darts

That's really the conclusion.

Under-55 isn't a ceiling on how well somebody can play.

It's a way of grouping players according to a longer-term measure of their standard.

Within those tournaments there are players capable of producing some very good darts indeed.

The Q4QS Tournament Strength figures illustrate that. An ADC Level Up field has reached 57.24, while a number of other U55 competitions are above 53.

More importantly, we've seen players eligible for these competitions produce tournament performances well beyond the 55 mark.

I know from my own darts how that happens.

Give me the right night and I've shown I can average 70.

Give me another night and I can average 40.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet worked out how to make sure the first player turns up rather than the second.

And I suspect quite a few Under-55 players reading this will know exactly what I mean.

Q4QS Rankings Centre Has Had a Big Upgrade

 

I’ve given the Q4QS Rankings Centre a major revamp, and there’s now a lot more to explore than simply seeing where a player sits in the overall rankings.

Alongside the Overall Q4QS Rankings and Colour Grades, you can now explore rankings by city, county and Q4QS region, giving a much better picture of who is performing well in different parts of the country. There are also dedicated Women’s and JDC rankings, including the option to look at performances across all Q4QS events or specifically within recognised Women’s and JDC competitions.

You can search for individual players, compare averages, win percentages, events played and Q4QS Points, and move between the different ranking views from one place.

The geographic side is something I’m particularly excited about. The areas available will continue to grow as more venues and tournaments are added to the Q4QS database, so this is very much the beginning rather than the finished map. More cities, counties and regions will gradually appear as the coverage expands.

There’s plenty more planned for Q4QS, but for now you can head over to the Q4QS Rankings Centre and have a look around.

Where Is the Toughest Area to Play Darts? Q4QS Area Strength Rankings 2026

 

Over the last few editions of my Tournament Strength series, I've gradually moved closer to the grassroots game.

I've compared tours, individual tournaments and, most recently, the toughest regular venues south of Birmingham. That venue analysis showed Cefn Hengoed narrowly ahead of Sartan and North Star, but it also raised another question.

Does having one exceptionally tough venue mean you live in a particularly strong darts area?

Or is the real test the strength and depth of tournaments available across the whole local scene?

This time, I've gone back into the Q4QS database to find out.

What Do I Mean By An 'Area'?

This is important.

I'm not attempting to produce a definitive county championship or rank every part of Britain.

The Q4QS database is still expanding geographically. My existing rankings already cover the Midlands south of Birmingham, Wales and Southern England, with particularly detailed coverage around the South and South West.

So I've grouped tournaments into recognisable darts areas currently represented sufficiently in the database.

Think of this as the first Q4QS Area Strength table.

As the database expands, more areas will be able to join it.

Tournament Strength Is NOT A Three-Dart Average

One familiar warning before we get to the numbers.

If an area records a Tournament Strength of 62, it does not mean players in that area average 62.

Tournament Strength is the Q4QS field-strength measure. It looks at the quality of the players actually competing rather than simply how well somebody threw on a particular night. That's the same principle I've used throughout this series.

For this article, I've grouped those tournament scores geographically.

That allows us to ask:

If I regularly entered tournaments in this area, what sort of strength would I encounter?

The Early Q4QS Area Strength Picture

Here are some of the best-represented areas in the current database:

Area	Recorded Events	Typical Strength	Median	Peak
Dorset	51	61.49	62.60	68.87
Wiltshire	40	61.01	63.70	67.86
Oxfordshire	162	60.75	61.22	69.51
Buckinghamshire	255	60.70	62.53	89.02
Hampshire	162	59.74	60.38	73.80
Worcestershire	236	59.39	61.68	83.40
Gloucestershire	88	59.35	59.68	68.02
Devon	112	58.62	59.08	75.08
South Wales	505	56.73	58.74	73.57
Somerset	218	56.01	57.39	68.75
Bristol area	293	55.89	56.36	73.33

Figures are based on tournaments I can currently identify confidently within each geographical grouping. Different areas have different levels and types of Q4QS coverage, so these should be viewed as evolving 2026 benchmarks rather than definitive national rankings.

Dorset Takes The Early Lead

This wasn't necessarily the result I expected.

Dorset currently leads the areas I've analysed with a typical Tournament Strength of 61.49.

Its median is even higher at 62.60, suggesting the result isn't simply being inflated by one or two particularly strong tournaments.

That's exactly what this analysis is supposed to uncover.

Dorset doesn't need to contain the single strongest tournament in the database.

Instead, the tournaments currently represented there are producing a consistently strong overall level.

But Wiltshire May Have The Most Interesting Number

Wiltshire is second on mean Tournament Strength at 61.01.

Look at the median, though.

63.70.

That's the highest in this initial group.

North Star in Calne was already third in my individual venue rankings, with a typical Tournament Strength of 64.77.

The area analysis suggests that strength isn't disappearing when we move beyond one individual tournament.

The sample is smaller than some of the other areas, so I wouldn't declare Wiltshire the capital of grassroots darts just yet.

But 63.70 for the median tournament is a serious number.

Oxfordshire Has Depth

Then we reach an area with considerably more data.

Oxfordshire records 162 tournaments and a typical strength of 60.75.

Its peak reaches 69.51.

Faringdon had already caught my attention in the venue analysis because it maintained strong figures across a large number of competitions. Now the wider area is appearing towards the top as well.

That's more significant to me than one enormous tournament.

It's beginning to show depth.

Buckinghamshire Is Fascinating

Buckinghamshire is only fractionally behind Oxfordshire at 60.70, and its median is an impressive 62.53.

But then there's the peak:

89.02.

That comes from the ADC Winmau Championship South level of competition at Bradmoor Farm, Aylesbury – an event that already featured prominently in my toughest individual tournaments analysis. The 89.02 score is considerably beyond normal weekly grassroots territory.

And this demonstrates exactly why I've included both Typical Strength and Peak.

Buckinghamshire can stage an exceptionally strong tournament.

But I'm not allowing that one competition to turn the whole area into an 89-rated darts region.

The typical figure tells us what happens regularly.

The peak tells us how strong it can become.

Worcestershire Has The Same Story

Worcestershire produces another huge peak at 83.40, but its wider typical figure is 59.39.

Again, that's useful.

We already knew from previous Q4QS analysis that Worcestershire could produce extremely strong grassroots environments, with Bengeworth and Redditch both appearing prominently in earlier venue comparisons.

Area Strength adds another layer.

A brilliant venue doesn't necessarily make every tournament in the surrounding area equally difficult.

Bristol Produces The Biggest Surprise

Now for the result I suspect will interest many of my regular readers.

Bristol is bottom of this particular group at 55.89.

Do I therefore think Bristol has the weakest darts scene here?

Absolutely not.

In fact, this may be the most useful result in the entire article.

My Bristol data contains 293 tournaments, and Q4QS coverage around Bristol is particularly extensive. Previous local analysis alone has included thousands of matches and hundreds of different players.

More importantly, Bristol offers an enormous range of competitions.

There are strong open tournaments.

There are ADC Vaults.

There are Under-55 events.

There are Sub-70 competitions.

There are junior events.

There are tournaments specifically designed to give developing and lower-average players competitive darts.

DartAsylum is perhaps the perfect example. Its programme covers a huge range of standards, even though its strongest recorded field has reached 73.33.

So Bristol's lower overall number is partly telling us something positive:

there is competitive darts available for almost everybody.

That's Why Mean And Median Both Matter

This exercise has convinced me that future Area Strength rankings shouldn't rely on one number alone.

Look at Wiltshire.

Mean: 61.01
Median: 63.70

Now Bristol.

Mean: 55.89
Median: 56.36

And Buckinghamshire:

Mean: 60.70
Median: 62.53

We're beginning to see different types of darts ecosystems.

Some areas have predominantly strong open competition.

Some have enormous tournament schedules covering every standard.

Some have a fairly ordinary weekly level but occasionally host fields of almost professional-tour strength.

None of those is necessarily "better".

They're different.

South Wales Is Another Great Example

South Wales currently has a typical figure of 56.73, which might initially look surprising after Cefn Hengoed finished number one in the individual venue ranking.

But look at the sample:

505 tournaments.

That's vastly more than Dorset or Wiltshire.

Cefn Hengoed can produce exceptionally strong regular fields. Cardiff and Brynmawr have also featured prominently in the venue analysis.

But once hundreds of competitions of different standards are included, the overall area figure naturally changes.

And that gives us perhaps the most important lesson from this article.

One Tough Venue Doesn't Make A Tough Area

That was the question I started with.

I think the database is already beginning to answer it.

Venue Strength and Area Strength aren't the same thing.

An area can contain one brutal weekly tournament but relatively little strength elsewhere.

Another can have ten venues consistently producing good fields without ever recording one spectacular score.

And another can have hundreds of competitions deliberately catering for players throughout the ability spectrum.

That's why I don't want Area Strength to become simply another league table where number one is "good" and number ten is "bad".

The numbers are telling us far more than that.

These Rankings Will Change

Perhaps more than any previous article in this series, this one needs to be viewed as a starting point.

Q4QS coverage isn't geographically equal yet.

Some areas have hundreds of tournaments in the database.

Others have dozens.

And there are large parts of Britain I haven't yet incorporated sufficiently to include at all.

That's changing.

As Q4QS expands, new areas will enter the comparison and existing areas will gain more tournaments and venues.

That means today's leader might not remain there.

In fact, I'll be disappointed if this table doesn't change considerably.

That's part of the fun of building it.

Final Thoughts

So, where is the toughest area to play darts?

Among the areas sufficiently represented in this first Q4QS analysis, Dorset currently takes the lead on mean Tournament Strength at 61.49.

But I'd hesitate before simply crowning Dorset and walking away.

Wiltshire has the strongest median at 63.70.

Buckinghamshire has produced a staggering 89.02 peak.

Worcestershire has reached 83.40.

South Wales combines some outstanding venues with an enormous 505-event sample.

And Bristol's comparatively low 55.89 arguably tells us as much about the breadth and accessibility of its darts scene as it does its strength.

That's what I'm increasingly enjoying about Tournament Strength.

Sometimes the most interesting number isn't the biggest one.

It's the number that makes you ask:

Why?

And as more areas join the Q4QS database, I suspect we're going to be asking that question quite a lot.