Showing posts with label Darts Statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darts Statistics. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Is Darts Becoming a Young Man's Game? 19 Years of PDC Rankings Reveal a Generational Shift

 


Quest For Q School | Q4QS Statistical Research

Luke Littler has changed the way people think about age in professional darts. Here is a player who reached the very top of the sport before most people have even worked out what they want to do for a living.

And he isn't alone. Players such as Josh Rock and Gian van Veen have emerged through the professional ranks, while younger talents like Mitchell Lawrie suggest there could be plenty more to come.

But it got me thinking.

Is professional darts genuinely getting younger, or have a handful of exceptional young players simply made it look that way?

I decided to investigate using 19 years of PDC world rankings, examining the top 20 players in every year from 2007 through to 2025.

That's 380 ranking positions across 19 annual snapshots. I matched the players with their dates of birth and examined how the average age and the balance between different age groups have changed.

The results were quite revealing.

The PDC top 20 is getting younger

In 2007, the average age of a player in the world's top 20 was 38.70 years.

By 2025, that figure had fallen to 35.15 years.

That's a reduction of 3.55 years.

However, the really interesting part is what happened between those dates.

YearAverage agePlayers aged 40+
200738.7011
201039.6511
201539.8011
202040.5011
202137.207
202237.106
202336.905
202436.555
202535.155

For much of the period, the average age fluctuated around 39 or 40.

Indeed, as recently as 2020, the world's top 20 averaged 40.5 years old.

Then something changed.

The average has fallen in each of the five subsequent annual snapshots. By 2025, the top 20 was more than five years younger on average than it had been in 2020.

So this doesn't look like a steady decline spanning the whole 19 years. It looks more like a relatively stable period followed by a substantial recent change.

It's not just about the teenagers

Perhaps my favourite finding concerns players in their thirties.

When discussing younger players, it's tempting to concentrate entirely on teenagers and those in their early twenties. But they are only part of the story.

Look at how the top 20 was divided into age groups in 2007, 2020 and 2025.

Age group200720202025
Under 25203
25–29022
30–397710
40 and over11115
Total202020

Back in 2007, more than half of the top 20 were aged 40 or older.

Even in 2020, the same was true.

By 2025, there were only five.

Meanwhile, players aged 30–39 now account for half the world's top 20.

That suggests something more significant than a few teenage prodigies suddenly appearing.

The age profile of professional darts is changing across an entire generation.

Players in their thirties are increasingly occupying places that, historically, were more commonly held by players in their forties and fifties.

And at the same time, more players under 30 are appearing alongside them.

Are players breaking through at younger ages?

I also looked at players entering the top 20 between successive annual ranking snapshots.

The findings support the wider age trend.

PeriodTop-20 arrivalsAverage arrival age
2008–20142639.65
2015–20202236.82
2021–20251732.76

The average age of an arriving player has dropped by almost seven years between the earliest and latest periods.

In 2008–2014, only three of the 26 arrivals were under 30.

In 2021–2025, seven of the 17 arrivals were under 30.

There is an important qualification here: these figures include players returning to the top 20, not just players making their first-ever appearance. They also use annual snapshots, so a player who briefly entered and left between snapshots would not be captured.

Nevertheless, the direction is striking.

The changing age of players entering the elite appears to be one of the main reasons the overall top 20 is getting younger.

Is the Development Tour making a difference?

This is where the investigation becomes particularly interesting.

The PDC Youth Tour began in 2011, developing into the Development Tour we know today. The Junior Darts Corporation also helped create a more structured competitive environment for younger players.

Could these developments be contributing to the changes we are now seeing?

There are certainly some compelling examples.

Michael van Gerwen won a PDC Youth Tour event in 2011 and appeared in our 2012 top-20 snapshot.

Luke Humphries won Development Tour events in 2017 and appeared in our top 20 in 2021.

Josh Rock enjoyed Development Tour success in 2022 and was in the top 20 by 2024.

Luke Littler won Development Tour events in 2023 before entering the top 20 in 2024, aged just 17.

Gian van Veen is another example of a player progressing through the youth system into the world's elite.

However, not everyone follows the same path.

Martin Schindler and Mike De Decker both had Development Tour success several years before reaching the top 20.

This tells us that the route from promising youngster to established professional is far from identical for everyone.

It also suggests that the development system may be helping to produce a larger pool of potential elite players, rather than simply making every player progress faster.

Our research has established a connection between some top-20 players and the Development Tour. It has not established that the Tour caused the overall decline in age.

That is an important distinction.

What do the Development Tour rankings tell us?

I've also started collecting the final Development Tour rankings for 2020–2025.

They contain plenty of familiar names.

Ryan Meikle topped the 2020 rankings, Nathan Rafferty headed the 2022 list, Gian van Veen led in 2023 and Wessel Nijman finished first in 2024.

Luke Littler was second in the 2023 standings, while Josh Rock was second in 2022.

But here's the question I find particularly interesting.

How many Development Tour players actually go on to become established members of the world's top 20, 32 or 64?

And is that percentage increasing?

We shouldn't judge the 2024 or 2025 Development Tour players too quickly. Many have barely begun their professional careers, while the earlier generations have had years to establish themselves.

A future Q4QS study will compare different Development Tour generations over equivalent periods, looking at how many reach the professional elite and how long it takes.

That should help us understand whether the youth development system is genuinely improving the progression rate.

Will the PDC top 20 continue getting younger?

The obvious next question is whether this trend will continue.

I think there are reasonable grounds to suspect it might, although I wouldn't expect the average age to keep falling at the extraordinary rate seen since 2020.

After all, today's young stars will eventually get older themselves.

Luke Littler will be 28 in 2035. A player can spend more than a decade near the top of professional darts and still be relatively young compared with some of the established stars of previous generations.

But maintaining a younger top 20 requires a continuing supply of talented newcomers.

If the Development Tour, JDC and wider junior darts structure continue producing players capable of competing at the highest level, the balance could shift further.

A cautious illustrative scenario would put the average top-20 age somewhere around 34–36 by 2030, with a similar or slightly younger profile by 2035.

That isn't a formal prediction. We would need a more detailed model of player progression, retirement and ranking turnover to produce one.

For now, the historical evidence is strong enough to say that the PDC top 20 has undergone a substantial change in its age profile.

It is not strong enough to guarantee that the same rate of change will continue.

Has darts entered a new era?

I began this investigation wondering whether Luke Littler was simply an extraordinary exception.

And, of course, he is an extraordinary talent.

But the figures suggest that something much broader is happening.

For much of the period between 2007 and 2020, the world's top 20 remained dominated by players approaching or beyond 40.

Since then, the balance has changed considerably.

Players in their thirties now make up half the top 20. There are fewer players aged 40 and over, and the players arriving in the rankings are generally younger.

Perhaps the biggest change isn't that darts has suddenly become a sport for teenagers.

It's that players no longer appear to need quite as many years of professional experience before they can establish themselves among the world's best.

Whether this represents a permanent structural change or an exceptional generation is something the next decade should help reveal.

And that is why I'll be following the Development Tour generations particularly closely.

The players who could shape the PDC rankings of 2030 and 2035 may already be playing in those competitions today.


Research notes and sources

This article uses 380 PDC top-20 ranking positions from 19 annual snapshots between 2007 and 2025. Player ages were calculated at the dates of those snapshots, generally in November, rather than on 31 December.

Birth dates were cross-referenced against historical player records and Wikipedia. Annual arrivals were identified by comparing consecutive top-20 snapshots. All age comparisons are descriptive; they do not establish causation.

Research and analysis were undertaken for Quest For Q School (Q4QS), with AI assistance in data processing and drafting.

Sources:

Sunday, November 1, 2026

Q4QS October 2026 Darts Rankings: Top 30 Match Winners, Tournament Champions and Highest Averages

 


October has been another busy month in the Q4QS Database, and I've decided to introduce a monthly review looking at some of the standout performances across the darts scene.

There are plenty of ways to measure success in darts. Some players compete regularly and accumulate an impressive number of victories. Others might not play quite as often but have a habit of winning tournaments. Then there are those individual performances where everything seems to click and the average tells its own story.

For this first monthly review, I'm looking at three categories: most match wins, most tournament victories and highest individual match averages.

All three tables cover results recorded in the Q4QS Database between 1 and 31 October 2026.

October's Most Match Wins

Johnny Haines heads the October table with an impressive 135 recorded match victories, just ahead of Lee Evans with 132 and George Whyte with 130.

The leading three were separated by only five wins, while Jake B-Smith and Harvey-Lee Nelson-Harris also passed the 110-win mark.

Of course, the number of matches won is partly influenced by how many tournaments somebody enters. Nevertheless, consistently winning matches across a busy calendar is an achievement worth recognising.

Top 30 – October Match Wins

RankPlayerWins
1Johnny Haines135
2Lee Evans132
3George Whyte130
4Jake B-Smith116
5Harvey-Lee Nelson-Harris114
6Cody Hughes112
7Jack Jones110
8Edward Manley108
9Kelson Hughes107
10Louis Melville101
11George Cressey100
12Pete Hughes100
13Charlie Lowin98
14James Welding97
15Ryan Davies96
16Baz Tym95
17Bobby Short95
18Mat Caste91
19Martin Tonks90
20Jamie Chaplin84
21Joey Cole84
22Paul Rowley84
23Cody Sheppard83
24Kaya Baysal83
25John Nelson81
26Liam Cook81
27Hayden Dunlavey80
28Curtis Hammond79
29Jenson Macey79
30Joshua Russell79

October's Tournament Winners

Winning matches is one thing, but winning an entire tournament is another.

You can play brilliantly throughout a competition, only to lose in the final. The players in this next table have managed to go that extra step and collect titles.

Lee Evans leads the recorded October figures with 15 tournament victories, followed by Johnny Haines with 13. Cody Hughes and George Whyte are next, both recording 11 titles.

It's interesting that several players feature prominently in both the match wins and tournament victories tables. That suggests their success hasn't simply been about entering plenty of competitions; they've also been turning those opportunities into trophies.

Top 30 – October Tournament Wins

RankPlayerTitles
1Lee Evans15
2Johnny Haines13
3Cody Hughes11
4George Whyte11
5Charlie Lowin9
6Dan Nicholls9
7David Evans9
8George Cressey9
9Lloyd Walker9
10John Nelson8
11Mat Caste8
12Pete Hughes8
13Steve Haggerty8
14Baz Tym7
15Ben Flanagan-McClelland7
16Henry Cooper7
17Jason Collins7
18Kaya Baysal7
19Kevin Edwards7
20Oscar Monkton7
21Tyler Garrett7
22Andy Smith6
23Bobby Short6
24Carl Wilson6
25Daniel Astbury6
26Danny Goddard6
27Edward Manley6
28Harvey-Lee Nelson-Harris6
29Kelly Stevens6
30Kevin Leadenham6

These totals are based on identifiable tournament victories within the available data. As with any database covering numerous competitions, occasional duplicate or incomplete tournament records may affect individual totals.

October's Highest Individual Match Averages

For this category, I've taken a slightly different approach.

Rather than simply listing the 30 highest averages, which could result in the same player appearing several times, I've selected each player's single highest recorded match average during October.

That means 30 different players get recognition.

It's also important to remember that a single-match average is different from an overall tournament average. A player can produce something exceptional over a short match without necessarily maintaining that standard throughout an entire competition.

Martyn Exall tops our filtered list with 127.79, followed closely by Joel Walton on 127.50. Connor Hopkins is third with 125.25.

Top 30 – October's Highest Match Averages

RankPlayerAverage
1Martyn Exall127.79
2Joel Walton127.50
3Connor Hopkins125.25
4David Hitchman122.57
5Ash McKeever120.24
6Gian van Veen120.24
7Josh Sinkovits120.24
8Liam Parish120.24
9Paul Rowley120.24
10Tayab Ali120.17
11Ben Flanagan-McClelland118.66
12Carl Batchelor118.66
13Ciaran Forde118.66
14Johnny Haines117.08
15Michael Bean116.24
16Alec Small115.62
17Asa Cansdale115.62
18Ashton Brown115.62
19Callum Page115.62
20Clive Langford115.62
21Jack Johnson115.62
22Jake B-Smith115.62
23Jayden Walker115.62
24Joshua Russell115.62
25Kaya Baysal115.62
26Keegan Brown115.62
27Kelson Hughes115.62
28Kirk Shepherd115.62
29Maxwell Payne115.62
30Ryan Davies115.62

For this first review, I've excluded known test competitions and obviously corrupted averages, and held back exceptionally high figures requiring further verification.

The table therefore represents the highest qualifying recorded performances after those checks, rather than a definitive list of every match played anywhere during the month.

Three Different Ways to Succeed

What I like about putting these tables together is that they tell different stories.

Johnny Haines has been incredibly consistent in accumulating match victories, while Lee Evans has converted his opportunities into an impressive number of tournament titles.

Meanwhile, the highest averages table allows players who might not appear in either of the other categories to receive some recognition.

I think that's important. Darts statistics shouldn't always be about the same handful of players, and there are plenty of achievements worth celebrating throughout the game.

Looking Ahead to November

My intention is to make these rankings a regular monthly feature.

Over time, it'll be interesting to see whether the same players continue to dominate, whether new names emerge and whether some of October's busiest competitors can maintain their level of success.

As the Q4QS Database continues to develop, I hope these reviews will become another useful way of following what's happening across competitive darts.

About the data: Figures are taken from matches and tournaments recorded in the Q4QS Database for 1–31 October 2026. Coverage varies between competitions and platforms. These are statistical leaderboards from the available records rather than official national rankings, and minor discrepancies may arise from missing results, naming variations or tournament duplication.

Friday, October 30, 2026

Beat Luke Littler: Can the World Champion Survive 20 Legs? Meet the 24 Challengers

 


Friday 30 October 2026 | Q4QS Preview

Twenty-four hopefuls, up to twenty legs of darts, one world champion and £501,000 waiting for the first person who can beat him.

Netflix's Beat Luke Littler promises to be a rather unusual evening of darts. And while Luke Littler will be the overwhelming favourite every time he steps up to the oche, I'm not at all convinced he will get through the night unbeaten.

Not because I doubt his ability. Far from it. But because of the format.

Each challenger only has to win one leg of 501. There is no opportunity for Littler to recover from a poor leg, no best-of-11 to allow his superior ability to take over, and no second chance if an opponent happens to produce the leg of their life.

And he could have to do it twenty times.

Is Littler actually likely to lose?

This is where things become interesting.

Let's imagine, purely for illustration, that Littler has a 90% chance of winning an individual leg against each challenger.

That sounds pretty comfortable. But his chance of winning twenty consecutive legs would be approximately 12%.

Put another way, there would be around an 88% chance of somebody beating him.

Of course, the challengers aren't all of equal ability, so we can't simply give every contest the same probability. And the calculations assume that the individual outcomes behave independently, which is another simplification.

For comparison:

Challenger's chance per legChance someone wins at least one of 20
5%64%
10%88%
15%96%

These are mathematical examples, not Q4QS predictions.

Richard Osman, who will be providing statistical analysis during the programme, has also suggested that Littler is more likely to lose at least once than survive the entire challenge.

My own early Q4QS analysis points towards several challengers being capable of causing an upset, although the individual probabilities still need further testing.

And there's another important factor: who throws first? In a single leg, that could make an enormous difference.

Meet the 24 challengers

The field is an interesting mixture. Some are familiar names from the competitive darts circuit, while others have far less publicly recorded tournament experience.

Using the Q4QS Database, I've been looking at their recorded performances, recent form and competition histories.

The established competitors

Mitchell Lawrie, 15 – Scotland

One of the outstanding young players in darts and a genuine challenger in a single-leg contest.

Lawrie has a Q4QS average of 90.32 across 31 recorded events, with a highest match average of 109.98.

His 2026 records include victories in JDC, Welsh Open/Masters/Classic and WDF competition. He also produced a 99.82 event average in the JDC Nations Cup.

His experience and scoring ability make him one of the most interesting names in the field.

Fallon Sherrock, 32 – England

The most recognisable challenger and, of course, the woman who made history at Alexandra Palace in 2019.

Sherrock's Q4QS average is 79.68, with a recorded best match average of 102.12.

She's continued competing on the PDC Women's Series, and her 2026 records include a Welsh tournament final, strong Women's Series performances and victories over established international opponents.

If she gets a chance at a double, she certainly won't be unfamiliar with the television cameras.

Ashley Coleman, 29 – England

Another contestant whose competitive experience shouldn't be overlooked.

Coleman has competed on the PDC Challenge Tour and in other high-level competitions.

His Q4QS average stands at 86.35, and his recent records include a 92.88 event average in a World Championship qualifier.

That kind of form makes him a potentially dangerous opponent.

Jacob Gwynne, 27 – England

Gwynne has considerable grassroots tournament experience alongside appearances in PDC qualifying and Challenge Tour competitions.

His Q4QS average is 83.35, and the database shows ten wins from his last ten recorded matches.

Several of his recent results have come from ADC Vault tournaments, where he has demonstrated an ability to win repeatedly.

Jarod Becker, 23 – Germany

Becker brings Development Tour and World Youth Championship experience.

His Q4QS average is 80.38, and his recorded performances include an 88.41 average in a 4–0 victory over Kyen van Strijdonck.

He's accustomed to competitive darts and could take advantage of any hesitation from Littler.

Jayden Walker, 14 – England

Another remarkable young talent, and one with plenty of recorded tournament experience despite his age.

Walker has played 527 matches across 89 events in the Q4QS export, with an average of 79.16 and a highest recorded match average of 121.86.

His achievements include victories in junior competitions and strong performances in grassroots adult tournaments.

The database also records a victory over fellow contestant Bhav Patel.

Jasper Scarrott, 54 – England

Scarrott has experience of the Challenge Tour, ADC competition and MODUS Super Series.

His Q4QS average is 79.27, and he has produced a recorded 91.09 match average in ADC competition.

He also has the distinction of having hit a nine-darter on his MODUS Super Series debut.

David Wawrzewski, 50 – England

A familiar participant in PDC Challenge Tour and Q-School competitions.

Wawrzewski's Q4QS average is 79.46, with several strong performances recorded during the 2026 season.

He also brings considerable competitive experience, something that could be important in a televised one-leg challenge.

Experienced challengers and developing players

Zac Griffiths, 25 – England

Griffiths has competed on the PDC Development Tour and has previously faced Littler.

His Q4QS average is 76.25, and his database record includes several ADC Vault knockout-stage appearances.

Pearse Mackle, 21 – Ireland

Mackle has played on the PDC Development Tour, with recorded victories over players including Henry Coates and Angelo Balsamo.

His database coverage is currently insufficient for an established Q4QS average, but the recorded matches show useful competitive experience.

Bhav Patel, 36 – England

Patel appeared at the 2024 PDC World Championship and has since competed in Challenge Tour and other tournaments.

His Q4QS average is 73.31. His recent results also include a defeat to fellow contestant Jayden Walker.

Katie Sheldon, 22 – Ireland

An established Irish international with PDC Women's Series and WDF experience.

She has a Q4QS average of 66.38 and recorded victories against Kirsty Hutchinson and Phonsawan Whillis.

Sheldon is no stranger to competitive tournament darts.

Lauren Bloomfield, 30 – England

Bloomfield competes on the PDC Women's Series and in other women's events.

Her Q4QS average is 66.13, and she reached the semi-finals of the WADC Red Dragon National Singles Finals in October.

Her tournament experience could prove valuable.

The less familiar names

Zac Spain, 30 – Australia

A professional jockey from Melbourne who has travelled halfway around the world for the opportunity.

Q4QS contains records under his name, including Australian competition and ADC Vault results, although these require identity confirmation before they can be attributed confidently to him.

Tony Cole, 39 – Wales

A bank business adviser whose background makes him one of the more unusual contestants.

Public reports suggest his darts experience has largely been confined to playing at home. With such limited verified competitive information, he's difficult to assess statistically.

Kasey Smith, 16 – England

A young Manchester player relatively new to darts.

There are some Q4QS results under her name, including WADC Vault and junior competition records, although the data is too limited to establish a reliable overall average.

Makinley Cooper-Johnson, 14 – Wales

The Wrexham teenager known as Mighty Mak.

He is among the youngest challengers and an example of the new generation hoping to make a name for themselves.

Q4QS doesn't currently have sufficient verified performance data to rate him.

Taylon Forrester, 18 – England

Known as The Trash Man, Forrester is a Bedford youngster whose story is rather different from the established tournament competitors.

We don't currently have enough verified Q4QS records for a meaningful statistical assessment.

Pwyll ap LlÅ·r Edwards, 34 – Wales

A Welsh player from Bala who has been playing darts since childhood.

Although there isn't sufficient verified Q4QS data to calculate his form, he has spoken publicly about producing some excellent individual legs.

Théodore Wallich, 23 – France

The French student known as The Moustache Kid.

Having taken up darts comparatively recently, Wallich is another contestant for whom reliable competitive statistics are limited.

Mark Pooke, 57 – England

One of the oldest challengers, but not somebody entirely unfamiliar with professional darts.

Pooke previously competed at the UK Open in 2007 and has a county darts background.

There aren't enough recent verified Q4QS results to judge his current level.

Will Kemp, 30 – England

The Harrogate recruitment consultant known as Tempo Kempo.

Kemp is a relatively recent arrival to competitive darts, and there isn't sufficient verified Q4QS data to produce a reliable performance profile.

Sonny Johal, 29 – England

A former amateur boxer and current driving instructor who has also competed in PDC Challenge Tour events.

His competitive background is worth noting, although we don't currently have a sufficiently reliable Q4QS profile.

Brett Todd, 25 – England

A British Army helicopter technician from Ipswich.

Todd is one of the less documented darts competitors in the field, and we haven't established enough verified match data to estimate his playing standard.

So, will somebody beat Luke Littler?

If Littler were facing these players over longer matches, I'd expect him to win the overwhelming majority.

But this is different.

He only needs to miss a few doubles at the wrong moment. One challenger only needs to produce an exceptional leg. And with the possibility of twenty separate opportunities, that's not something I'd dismiss.

The strength of the field varies enormously, and we don't yet know exactly which twenty players will make the final selection.

But there's enough competitive experience among the challengers to make the prospect of an upset quite realistic.

My feeling is that Littler will probably get beaten at some point during the evening.

Not because he isn't comfortably the best player involved, but because even the best player in the world cannot win every leg of darts.

And that's what makes Friday's programme so interesting.

Who would you back to take one leg off Luke Littler?


About the Q4QS statistics

Q4QS averages are calculated using the database's middle-third methodology, reducing the influence of unusually high or low tournament performances. They are not necessarily identical to conventional season-long three-dart averages.

The statistics quoted are drawn from recorded competition data and may not cover every match played. Player identities and records with incomplete coverage have been treated cautiously.

The previously published Q4QS individual one-leg probabilities remain experimental and have therefore not been presented as validated forecasts.


Tuesday, October 27, 2026

ADC Vault 19 in Numbers: The Winners, the Records and the Strength of the Competition

 


With Vault 19 completed, we've already looked at the venues that produced the strongest competition. But what about the players themselves, and what do the numbers tell us about the series as a whole?

One of the attractions of Vault darts is the sheer range of players involved. You can have someone taking their first steps into competitive darts, somebody who has played for years, and a player capable of producing a professional-standard average, all competing within the same series.

Using the Q4QS Database, we've taken a closer look at Vault 19 to find some of the standout numbers, performances and players.

Over 100,000 Matches

Let's start with the scale of the competition.

Across the main Vault 19 tournament records, the Q4QS Database contains:

  • 101,382 match records

  • 8,841 distinct player names

  • 1,827 tournament records

  • 1,815 recorded finals

The player figure is based on distinct names rather than a fully audited count of individuals, so it may include occasional spelling or identity variations.

Nevertheless, these are substantial numbers, and they demonstrate just how much competitive darts takes place throughout a single Vault series.

The Players Who Kept Winning

Winning one match is satisfying enough, but accumulating victories throughout an entire series requires both consistency and plenty of tournament appearances.

Lee Evans leads the Vault 19 match-win standings in the Q4QS Database with 202 victories, ahead of George Whyte on 190.

The leading ten were:

PlayerMatch wins
Lee Evans202
George Whyte190
Louis Melville160
Edward Manley157
Jake B-Smith150
Tony Chapman147
Curtis Hammond146
Pete Hughes145
Bobby Short141
George Cressey140

Of course, the number of tournaments entered makes a difference. A player attending regularly has more opportunities to collect wins than somebody who plays occasionally.

Even so, passing 200 victories across one series is an achievement worth recognising.

And Who Won the Tournaments?

Lee Evans also heads the recorded final-victory figures, with 24 wins in tournament finals.

George Cressey, Michael Wiles and Steve Haggerty each recorded 14, while Kevin Leadenham, Johnny Haines and Mark Stafford each had 13.

These figures are based on recorded final-round victories, rather than an independently audited list of tournament champions.

What is interesting is that the players collecting the most match victories aren't necessarily the same players winning the most tournaments. Playing consistently well is one thing; getting over the line in a final is another.

From Under 30 to Over 130 — The Winning Averages

This is perhaps my favourite set of numbers from Vault 19.

We talk a great deal about averages in darts, but an average doesn't always tell you whether somebody has won a match.

In Vault 19, there were 231 match victories with a winning average below 30.

At the opposite end, there were 818 match victories with a winning average of 100 or more.

Here is how the figures break down:

Winning averageNumber of victories
Under 30231
Under 402,709
Under 5014,617
80 or more12,267
90 or more3,575
100 or more818
110 or more104
120 or more11
130 or more2

These are cumulative categories. For example, the 104 victories at 110+ are included in the 818 at 100+.

I don't think we need to name the players at the bottom end. Everybody has difficult matches, and a win is still a win.

But those figures tell us something important about Vault darts. There is room for players of very different abilities to compete, enjoy themselves and experience the satisfaction of winning.

And when you consider that there were more than 800 winning performances of 100-plus, there was certainly no shortage of quality either.

Some Exceptional Performances

At the very top end, the highest recorded winning average was 136.64 by Shaun Fox, in a 2–0 victory over Martin Steward at United Services Club in Harwich.

Kurt Parry also recorded a remarkable 130.70, while Connor Hopkins and Jack Johnson each produced winning averages of 125.25.

These are extraordinary figures, although individual match averages should always be viewed in the context of match length. A short format can produce spectacular numbers.

Nevertheless, they demonstrate the level of scoring that can appear at Vault events.

Where Was the Competition Strongest?

In our previous Vault 19 tournament-strength analysis, we looked beyond the number of entrants or the reputation of a venue to examine the strength of the competition.

The five leading venues in that analysis were:

VenueTournament strength
Pinches Cue Club, Norwich1.350
Faringdon Football Club1.329
Clive Arms, Cardiff1.325
Cressex Social Club, High Wycombe1.317
Hethersett Social Club1.298

The tournament-strength figures are Q4QS measures of competitive strength, not player averages.

What I find interesting about these rankings is that the strongest competition isn't necessarily concentrated in the places people might automatically expect.

There is quality throughout the country, and the Vault gives that quality an opportunity to show itself.

What Does It All Tell Us?

Perhaps the biggest takeaway is the variety.

We have players winning more than 200 matches, others collecting tournament titles on a regular basis, and winning averages ranging from below 30 to well beyond 100.

But the numbers don't tell every story.

For some players, Vault 19 will have been about winning tournaments or improving their rankings. For others, it might have been about winning a first match, reaching a first knockout stage or simply gaining more experience.

And that, to me, is part of what makes the Vault worthwhile.

There are plenty of ways to measure success in darts. Not all of them involve being top of a table.

Next up: WADC Vault 3.0. Tomorrow we'll turn our attention to the women's series, looking at the players, performances and numbers that stood out.

Sunday, October 25, 2026

MODUS Champions Week 2026: What Do the Q4QS Statistics Tell Us?

 


Twelve players, one title, and a rather interesting set of statistics.

With MODUS Super Series Champions Week about to begin, I've been looking through my separate Q4QS MODUS database to see whether the numbers tell us anything that might not be obvious from the names involved.

And there are a few surprises.

Rather than relying on reputation or general darts rankings, I've compared the players' recorded MODUS performances, including their overall averages, recent form and previous meetings.

There is one important qualification: my database currently contains ten of the twelve qualifying weeks from Series 15, so this is not a complete statistical record of the current series. However, it does give us plenty of historical MODUS performances to examine.

The twelve finalists compared

Averages are three-dart match averages from the database's calculated player statistics. Last 20 is each player's latest recorded MODUS matches, not necessarily their latest matches in all competitions.

Player

MODUS matches

Overall avg

Last 20 avg

Last 20 wins

Darren Beveridge

19

95.73

95.73*

16/19

Derek Coulson

286

93.66

94.80

16/20

Andy Baetens

61

92.19

94.18

15/20

Danny Ayres

56

89.65

92.68

13/20

Archie Self

109

89.33

95.65

13/20

Ted Evetts

133

88.90

88.55

13/20

Scott Robertson

75

89.74

88.60

16/20

Neil Duff

466

87.30

86.44

15/20

Scott Campbell

156

86.83

88.53

14/20

Michael Wiles

27

86.53

86.46

12/20

David Davies

210

85.86

90.11

13/20

Benito van de Pas

29

83.86

85.64

15/20

Beveridge has only 19 matches recorded, so his last-20 figure covers those 19.

The biggest takeaway is that the recent-form picture is quite different from the overall rankings. Archie Self's 95.65 over his latest 20 matches is particularly impressive compared with his longer-term 89.33.

Beveridge sets the average benchmark

Darren Beveridge tops the overall average comparison with 95.73.

That's an impressive figure, although his sample of 19 matches is considerably smaller than that of several other finalists.

He has won 16 of those 19 matches, an 84.2% success rate.

If he maintains that combination of scoring and winning, he will be difficult to stop.

Coulson has the experience and the numbers

Derek Coulson is perhaps the most convincing contender when we combine average and sample size.

Across 286 recorded MODUS matches, he has averaged 93.66 and won 207.

His last 20 matches are even more encouraging: 16 victories and a 94.80 average.

Maintaining those figures across so many appearances is no small achievement.

Coulson also has previous experience against several of the other finalists, something which could become important as the week develops.

Archie Self's recent scoring deserves attention

One of the most interesting figures belongs to Archie Self.

His overall MODUS average is 89.33 across 109 matches, but that rises to 95.65 over his latest 20 recorded matches.

That's a substantial difference.

It suggests that judging Self solely on his longer-term average could underestimate his current scoring ability.

He has won 13 of those last 20 matches, so his recent scoring hasn't translated into quite as high a win percentage as Coulson or Beveridge.

Nevertheless, that scoring level makes him a serious contender.

Baetens is another strong challenger

Andy Baetens has recorded 61 MODUS matches, winning 44 and averaging 92.19.

His latest 20 matches show an improvement to 94.18, alongside 15 victories.

That puts him among the strongest players when we look at both recent scoring and results.

If he brings that level into Champions Week, he has every reason to be confident.

Don't overlook the others

Danny Ayres has a 92.68 average across his latest 20 recorded MODUS matches, which puts him firmly in the conversation.

Scott Robertson has won 16 of his latest 20, matching Coulson's recent win total, although his average of 88.60 is lower.

Neil Duff has an extraordinary amount of MODUS experience in this comparison, with 466 recorded matches. His recent 15 wins from 20 show that he remains competitive.

David Davies is another interesting case. His overall average is 85.86, but his latest 20 matches average 90.11.

That is precisely the sort of difference I wanted this analysis to identify.

And Michael Wiles, Scott Campbell, Ted Evetts and Benito van de Pas all have records suggesting they shouldn't be dismissed simply because others have stronger headline figures.

What about previous meetings?

This is where the database becomes particularly useful.

Coulson and Scott Robertson have met seven times in the recorded MODUS data, with Coulson leading 4–3.

Coulson and Neil Duff have met six times, with their record level at three wins apiece.

Archie Self leads Scott Campbell 3–2 across five meetings, while Coulson leads Self 2–1.

Those results don't guarantee anything this week, but they do remind us that some of the players have already demonstrated an ability to beat one another.

And with several days of competition ahead, those familiar match-ups could become significant.

My statistical shortlist

Based on the available MODUS evidence, four players particularly interest me.

Derek Coulson has the strongest combination of long-term scoring, substantial match history and recent results.

Darren Beveridge has the highest average and best recorded win percentage, although his sample is much smaller.

Andy Baetens combines a strong overall record with excellent recent form.

Archie Self is the player whose recent scoring stands out most sharply against his longer-term numbers.

If I had to choose one player whose statistics might surprise people, it would be Self.

But this isn't a prediction that the title is his. It's an observation that his recent MODUS scoring deserves serious attention.

The real test begins now

Statistics can tell us who has performed well, but they cannot guarantee what happens next.

Champions Week brings different opponents, different pressures and a different challenge from winning an individual qualifying week.

That's what makes it worth following.

I'll be watching how these twelve players perform against their historical numbers, whether the leading scorers maintain their standards, and whether somebody further down the averages produces the performances of their life.

The Q4QS numbers point towards Coulson, Beveridge, Baetens and Self. But will the darts follow the statistics?

Thursday, October 22, 2026

European Championship 2026 Preview: Humphries Withdraws – Who Can Take Advantage in Dortmund?


Luke Humphries' withdrawal has changed the complexion of the European Championship before a dart has been thrown. With the world number two absent, can Luke Littler add another major title, or will one of the chasing pack take advantage? I've been examining the Q4QS Database to see who arrives in form.

Well, that's thrown something of a spanner in the works.

I'd been looking through the Q4QS Database ahead of this weekend's European Championship, analysing recent performances, averages, winning percentages and results to see which players might be arriving in Dortmund in the best form.

And one of the strongest candidates was Luke Humphries.

Unfortunately, Humphries has now withdrawn from the tournament after suffering from gastroenteritis.

The world number two was due to face Ryan Searle in the opening round, but his place has been taken by Kim Huybrechts, the highest-ranked player on the European Tour Order of Merit who hadn't qualified.

It's a significant change to the tournament, and one that could have consequences for several players.

Humphries was the top-ranked player in the Q4QS Database, with a rating of 794.12 and an average of 99.61.

He was also arriving in outstanding form, having won the World Grand Prix and reached the final of the Swiss Darts Trophy.

His absence removes one of the strongest contenders and potentially opens up opportunities elsewhere in the draw.

But who is best placed to take advantage?

Littler now the man to beat?

It would have been difficult to look beyond Luke Littler as one of the favourites anyway, but the absence of Humphries makes his prospects even more interesting.

Littler sits third in the Q4QS rankings, with a rating of 770.42 and a Q4QS average of 99.40.

More importantly, he's won nine of his last ten matches recorded in the database.

His World Matchplay triumph remains one of the outstanding performances of the season.

Across five matches, Littler produced a remarkable tournament average of 111.04.

That included a 111.53 average against Gerwyn Price in the final, a 110.88 against Dirk van Duijvenbode and a 109.57 against Josh Rock.

Those are extraordinary numbers, even by Littler's standards.

Of course, darts doesn't always work quite as simply as that.

Littler suffered an early exit at the World Grand Prix, and even the best players can have an off-night.

But looking at his overall performances and recent results, he is certainly the player everyone else will be looking to stop.

His first-round opponent is William O'Connor, with Nathan Aspinall or Cristo Reyes waiting in the second round if Littler progresses.

Gerwyn Price – perhaps the strongest challenger

If there's one player who might particularly fancy his chances following Humphries' withdrawal, it could be Gerwyn Price.

Price is second in the Q4QS rankings, with a rating of 772.06 and an average of 98.79.

What stands out is his consistency in reaching the latter stages of major tournaments.

The database records him reaching the finals of the World Matchplay, World Series Finals and World Grand Prix.

He averaged 100.42 during his run to the World Series Finals final, including a 104.07 performance in a victory over Jonny Clayton.

He might not have converted every final appearance into a title, but consistently getting that far against the strongest opposition is an achievement in itself.

Price opens against Rob Cross.

Cross has plenty of major tournament experience, and his recent Swiss Darts Trophy performances suggest he is capable of providing a serious challenge.

The winner will face either Niels Zonneveld or Cameron Menzies.

There are no guarantees, but Price certainly looks capable of going a long way.

Chris Dobey – the statistical outsider?

One player who keeps appearing whenever I look at recent Q4QS performances is Chris Dobey.

He's fifth in the overall Q4QS rankings, with a rating of 756.63 and an average of 97.25.

But it's his recent individual performances that really catch my attention.

At Players Championship 29, Dobey reached the quarter-finals with a tournament average of 105.88.

That run included a 106.62 average against Josh Rock, 106.09 against Maik Kuivenhoven and an outstanding 112.73 against Wesley Plaisier.

And here's the interesting part.

Dobey faces Josh Rock in the first round in Dortmund.

Having recently beaten Rock with a 106-plus average, Dobey will surely approach that match with some confidence.

Rock remains a dangerous opponent, but the recent statistical evidence certainly suggests Dobey has a realistic chance of progressing.

He's one of the players I'll be watching particularly closely.

Ross Smith – top seed and a genuine contender

Ross Smith heads the European Championship seedings, and his recent results suggest he has every reason to be confident.

He sits ninth in the Q4QS rankings, with an average of 95.98.

His most significant recent achievement was winning the World Series Finals.

Smith averaged 99.10 across the tournament, including a 103.89 performance in an 11-5 victory over Gerwyn Price.

He also defeated Gian van Veen and Josh Rock during that successful run.

Those results demonstrate his ability to beat the very best players over longer formats.

Smith begins against Karel Sedlacek, with James Wade or Damon Heta potentially waiting in the second round.

Given his seeding, recent performances and tournament experience, he belongs firmly among the leading contenders.

Wessel Nijman – the numbers remain impressive

Wessel Nijman has been one of the more interesting players to follow statistically.

He is fourth in the Q4QS rankings, with a rating of 762.55 and an average of 97.30.

His results haven't always matched the quality of his scoring, with five wins and five defeats across his last ten recorded matches.

However, his performances at Players Championship 29 included a tournament average of 103.79.

That sort of scoring power makes him dangerous against almost anybody.

Nijman begins against Martin Schindler, another player capable of producing excellent averages.

Schindler's recent results haven't been particularly consistent, but he has shown signs of improvement in his scoring.

This is one of those matches where I wouldn't be surprised by either result.

The players arriving with momentum

There are a few players who deserve particular attention because of their most recent tournament performances.

Niels Zonneveld

Zonneveld arrives following his Dutch Darts Championship victory, having won six consecutive matches and averaged 96.35 across the tournament.

His run included victories over Danny Noppert, Stephen Bunting, Wessel Nijman and Gerwyn Price.

That's an impressive list of opponents.

His Q4QS ranking of 46 doesn't necessarily reflect just how dangerous he could be when producing those performances.

He begins against Cameron Menzies and could potentially meet Price or Cross in the second round.

Danny Noppert

Noppert was beaten by Zonneveld in that final, but his own performances deserve recognition.

He averaged 99.40 across the tournament and recorded a remarkable 113.42 against Luke Woodhouse.

He also defeated Gian van Veen and Jermaine Wattimena during the event.

Noppert has won seven of his last ten recorded matches, and his recent form suggests he could be particularly dangerous.

He faces Stephen Bunting in the opening round.

Gian van Veen

The defending champion arrives with another impressive run of results behind him.

Van Veen has won seven of his last ten recorded matches and recently reached the final of Players Championship 29.

He followed that by reaching the semi-finals of the Dutch Darts Championship, where he averaged 101.92 across his matches.

He'll begin his title defence against Andrew Gilding.

With Humphries absent, Van Veen must fancy his chances of another deep run.

Jonny Clayton

Clayton's victory at the Swiss Darts Trophy was another performance worth highlighting.

He averaged 102.95 across the event and defeated Luke Humphries in the final.

His route also included victories over Gian van Veen and Rob Cross.

Those results suggest Clayton is approaching this tournament with plenty of confidence.

He opens against Niko Springer, with the winner facing either Josh Rock or Chris Dobey.

That section of the draw could produce some excellent matches.

Kevin Doets – another potential surprise

Kevin Doets is seventh in the Q4QS rankings, with an average of 96.11.

He has won seven of his last ten recorded matches and has enjoyed some impressive Players Championship results.

He reached the final of Players Championship 27 and followed that with a semi-final appearance at Players Championship 29, averaging 100.29 during the latter event.

His problem is the draw.

Doets faces Michael van Gerwen in the first round.

Van Gerwen's recent results have been somewhat inconsistent, but his experience and ability to produce his best darts on the big stage cannot be underestimated.

Nevertheless, Doets has the scoring and recent results to make this a particularly interesting encounter.

I certainly wouldn't regard it as a straightforward opening match for Van Gerwen.

What does Humphries' withdrawal change?

The obvious consequence is that one of the tournament's strongest players is no longer in the field.

But the more interesting question is what it means for the draw.

Kim Huybrechts comes in to face Ryan Searle, with the winner meeting Danny Noppert or Stephen Bunting in the second round.

Searle will understandably see an opportunity, although Huybrechts is experienced enough to make life difficult.

Further down the tournament, players in that section of the draw may also view Humphries' absence as a significant opportunity.

It doesn't mean their path to the final is suddenly easy.

Far from it.

But a player who was performing exceptionally well, and who had recently won the World Grand Prix, is no longer there to stop them.

And that undoubtedly changes the tournament.

The opening matches I'll be watching

Several first-round ties stand out.

Gerwyn Price v Rob Cross: Two established major winners, both capable of going deep into this tournament.

Josh Rock v Chris Dobey: One of the most interesting matches statistically, particularly given Dobey's recent scoring performances.

Kevin Doets v Michael van Gerwen: An opportunity for Doets to demonstrate that his strong Q4QS ranking reflects his ability against the biggest names.

Wessel Nijman v Martin Schindler: Nijman's impressive overall numbers against a player capable of producing strong individual performances.

Danny Noppert v Stephen Bunting: Noppert arrives following a final appearance, while Bunting reached the semi-finals of the same tournament.

Kim Huybrechts v Ryan Searle: A late change to the draw and an unexpected opportunity for both players.

And I'll also be keeping an eye on Cristo Reyes against Nathan Aspinall.

Reyes has shown some excellent recent form, including a quarter-final appearance at the Swiss Darts Trophy and a tournament average of 101.17 at Players Championship 29.

He could be one of the more dangerous outsiders in the field.

So who wins the European Championship?

Before Humphries' withdrawal, I would have placed him alongside Littler as one of the two strongest contenders.

His absence changes that assessment.

Luke Littler is now my leading candidate, based on the Q4QS statistics and his ability to produce extraordinary performances over several matches.

Gerwyn Price would be my next choice.

His consistent appearances in major finals suggest he's rarely far away from challenging for titles.

Ross Smith, Wessel Nijman and Chris Dobey also deserve serious consideration.

And I certainly wouldn't dismiss Gian van Veen, particularly given his recent results and status as defending champion.

If we're looking for players who could surprise people, Kevin Doets, Niels Zonneveld and Cristo Reyes are all interesting candidates based on their recent performances.

But one of the things I've learned from looking through the Q4QS data is that statistics don't always tell us everything.

A player might be averaging 98 or 99 over several tournaments and still lose to somebody who produces one exceptional match.

That's darts.

What the figures can do is identify players performing well consistently, those whose form is improving and those who perhaps deserve more attention than they're receiving.

And with one of the strongest players in the world now missing from the tournament, the European Championship looks even more intriguing.

My leading contender: Luke Littler.

Main challengers: Gerwyn Price, Ross Smith, Wessel Nijman and Gian van Veen.

Player to watch: Chris Dobey.

Potential surprises: Kevin Doets, Niels Zonneveld and Cristo Reyes.

We'll see how well the Q4QS figures stand up over the next four days.

Q4QS analysis uses recorded match results and player rankings supplied on 22 October 2026. Rankings and averages refer to the Q4QS Database, not the official PDC Order of Merit. Match coverage may be incomplete, and predictions are statistical assessments rather than guarantees.


Friday, October 16, 2026

National Finals Doubles 2026: Who Looks Strongest on Paper?

 


245 partnerships, nearly 500 players and plenty of potential contenders. But which teams look strongest when we examine the numbers?

With the National Finals Doubles approaching, I've been having a look through the provisional entry list and comparing it against the Q4QS database.

At the time of writing, there are 245 partnerships entered, with the possibility of a few late additions. That's a substantial field, and one which should produce some fascinating matches.

Rather than simply pick out the familiar names, I wanted to see which partnerships stood out statistically.

There is, of course, one rather important consideration.

Doubles is a different game.

Two outstanding singles players don't necessarily make an outstanding doubles partnership. Players need to complement one another, cope with the different rhythm of throwing every other visit, and perhaps most importantly, trust their partner.

None of that can easily be measured using singles statistics.

What I can do, however, is examine the individual records of both players and establish which partnerships look particularly strong on paper.

And the results are quite interesting.

The Statistical Favourites

Of the 245 partnerships, I was able to match both players reliably to the Q4QS database in 207 cases.

For the main rankings, I've concentrated on the 139 partnerships where both players have competed in at least six recorded tournaments. That gives us a more meaningful comparison and avoids putting too much emphasis on players who have only appeared once or twice.

The leading ten partnerships, based on their combined Q4QS ratings, are:

PosPartnershipCombined Q4QS rating
1Graham Usher / Sam Spivey647.59
2Darren Brown / Jack Main612.26
3Sean McKeon / Dylan Slevin607.26
4Mike Huntley / Archie Self605.51
5Daryl Hunt / Joe Hunt601.93
6Carl Wilson / Jack Johnson600.02
7Harrison Leigh / Joseph Heywood591.84
8Jamie Kelling / Chas Barstow587.95
9Stuart Dutton / Danny Lauby585.25
10Kevin Edwards / Michael Wiles581.05

Combined rating is the mean of the two individual Q4QS ratings, rather than an official doubles ranking.

There are some familiar names in there, but perhaps the most interesting thing is the difference in how the partnerships arrive at their positions.

Usher and Spivey Set the Standard

On the figures available, Graham Usher and Sam Spivey are the strongest partnership in the competition.

Usher has a recorded average of 85.35, while Spivey is remarkably close at 85.02.

Their combined figure of 85.19 is the highest of the partnerships with sufficient tournament history.

Usher also arrives in excellent form, winning nine of his last ten recorded matches. His recent British Open & Classic success, where he averaged 86.00 across the event, is further evidence of his quality.

Spivey's recent results are less impressive, with four wins in his last ten, but his overall scoring figures remain strong.

If both reproduce their usual standard, they should be extremely difficult opponents.

Could Brown and Main Be the Most Balanced Pair?

Darren Brown and Jack Main sit second in the combined Q4QS ratings, but another figure caught my attention.

Brown's recorded average is 82.84.

Main's is 82.88.

Just 0.04 separates them.

Of course, virtually identical averages don't guarantee a successful partnership. But it does suggest two players capable of contributing at almost exactly the same scoring level.

Main has won nine of his last ten recorded matches, while Brown has won seven.

There is also plenty of recent tournament success between them.

They look like a very solid pairing, and one that wouldn't surprise me at all if they went deep into the competition.

Huntley and Self: Two Players in Form

Mike Huntley and Archie Self are fourth in the combined ratings, but they might be one of the most interesting partnerships in the field.

Self has been producing some outstanding results.

His recorded average is 86.17, and he has won all ten of his most recent database matches.

He also won an England Masters & Classic event with a 92.49 tournament average.

Huntley, meanwhile, has an average of 82.25 and has won nine of his last ten matches.

Between them, that's 19 victories from their last 20 recorded matches.

Both also have substantial tournament histories in the database, with more than 100 events apiece.

If we're looking for a partnership arriving with a combination of experience, scoring power and current form, they certainly qualify.

Wilson and Johnson: Another Serious Threat

Carl Wilson and Jack Johnson are sixth in the combined Q4QS ratings, but second when ranking partnerships purely by their combined scoring averages.

Wilson averages 86.50 and Johnson 82.98, giving them a combined figure of 84.74.

Those numbers are impressive enough, but their recent form makes them even more interesting.

Wilson has won his last ten recorded matches, with Johnson winning eight of his last ten.

Wilson's recent Rusthall Club victory included a tournament average of 90.06, while Johnson has also produced tournament-winning performances above 90.

There is plenty of evidence that both are capable of performing at a high level.

They are certainly among the teams I'd be watching closely.

The Most Balanced High-Scoring Partnerships

One question I wanted to explore was whether having two similarly strong players might be more valuable than having one outstanding player alongside somebody averaging considerably less.

We cannot answer that definitively using singles data, but we can identify the partnerships with the smallest differences in scoring averages.

Among the stronger partnerships, these caught my eye:

PartnershipPlayer averagesDifference
Brown / Main82.84 / 82.880.04
Edwards / Wiles84.39 / 84.190.20
Usher / Spivey85.35 / 85.020.33
Evans / Hall84.05 / 84.830.78
Kay / Meneer83.25 / 82.181.07

Kevin Edwards and Michael Wiles are particularly interesting.

Their averages are almost identical, and both have won nine of their last ten recorded matches.

Lee Evans and Graham Hall also have an impressive combined scoring record, supported by considerable tournament experience.

These partnerships might not necessarily attract the most attention, but statistically there is very little weakness in either player's scoring figures.

What About the Partnerships With One Outstanding Player?

There is another side to the argument.

A player capable of producing exceptionally high averages might be able to transform a partnership, even if the other player's usual scoring level is lower.

Daryl Hunt and Joe Hunt are an interesting example.

Joe has a recorded average of 89.02, one of the strongest individual figures in the field. His recent Challenge Tour results include an event victory with a 95.71 average.

Daryl averages 75.25, leaving a considerable difference between the two players.

That doesn't necessarily make them a weaker doubles partnership. It simply means that their individual scoring records are quite different.

Sean McKeon and Dylan Slevin provide another example.

Slevin averages 85.98 and has recent Development Tour semi-final experience. McKeon's recorded average is 75.34.

Could the higher-scoring player make enough of an impact to carry the team through difficult matches?

Or would a partnership containing two consistently strong scorers have the advantage?

That's one of the questions I'll be interested in seeing answered on the day.

The Dangerous Outsiders

Looking beyond the leading ten, several partnerships deserve attention.

Jamie Kay and Neil Meneer

Their averages of 83.25 and 82.18 place them among the stronger scoring combinations in the field. Both have won seven of their last ten recorded matches, suggesting a reasonable level of consistency.

James Richardson and Steve Haggerty

Richardson averages 80.35 and Haggerty 85.00. More interestingly, their combined recent record is 19 wins from their last 20 recorded matches.

They sit outside the leading ten by combined Q4QS rating, but their scoring and form suggest they could be underestimated.

Henry Cooper and Ricky King

Another pairing with strong overall scoring figures, averaging 83.26 and 81.97 respectively.

Between them, they have won 19 of their last 20 recorded matches.

Curtis Hammond and Brett Claydon

Hammond averages 80.67 and Claydon 84.22, giving them a combined figure of 82.45.

Both have won their last ten recorded matches.

That's 20 wins from 20 across the two players' latest database records. It doesn't guarantee anything in doubles, of course, but it's difficult to ignore.

Experience Could Matter Too

With such a large field, there will inevitably be difficult periods during matches.

A missed opportunity at doubles, a poor scoring leg or a sudden burst of brilliance from an opponent can change everything.

For that reason, I also think tournament experience is worth considering.

Stuart Dutton and Danny Lauby have 316 recorded tournament appearances between them.

Lee Evans and Graham Hall have 212, while Mike Huntley and Archie Self have 241.

These figures don't measure experience of playing together, but they do demonstrate plenty of exposure to competitive darts.

In a long tournament, that could be useful.

My Statistical Shortlist

If I had to narrow the field to six partnerships purely from the information available, I'd go with:

  1. Graham Usher / Sam Spivey — The strongest combined Q4QS rating and highest combined scoring average.

  2. Carl Wilson / Jack Johnson — Excellent scoring figures supported by very strong recent form.

  3. Mike Huntley / Archie Self — Two experienced players, both producing excellent recent results.

  4. Darren Brown / Jack Main — Almost identical scoring averages and a strong combined rating.

  5. Jamie Kelling / Chas Barstow — One of the strongest scoring combinations, with both players in excellent recent form.

  6. Kevin Edwards / Michael Wiles — Balanced scoring, with both players arriving on nine wins from their last ten.

And if I were looking slightly further down for a partnership that could upset the predictions, Curtis Hammond and Brett Claydon would certainly be on my list.

A Final Thought

I enjoy looking at darts statistically because sometimes the numbers confirm what we already suspect, while occasionally they highlight players or partnerships who might otherwise be overlooked.

But this is one competition where I would be particularly careful about treating statistics as predictions.

Doubles brings an entirely different set of challenges.

A player might feel more relaxed with a partner alongside them. Another might struggle to find their rhythm when throwing less frequently. Some partnerships will have played together regularly, while others may be relatively new combinations.

My analysis doesn't attempt to measure any of those factors.

It simply asks a question:

If we judge these partnerships on the individual performances recorded in the Q4QS database, who looks strongest?

On that basis, Graham Usher and Sam Spivey lead the way.

Whether they — or any of the other leading partnerships — can turn that statistical advantage into a successful doubles campaign is another matter altogether.

And that's what makes the competition interesting.

Analysis based on Q4QS database exports dated 16 October 2026. Entry list provisional. Partnerships without sufficient verified individual data have not been ranked in the main statistical comparison.

Friday, October 9, 2026

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.

DayMeanMedianMost CommonQ4QS Typical Strength
Friday59.1558.796159.15
Monday57.6758.886158.88
Thursday58.3858.866158.86
Tuesday57.4758.566258.56
Saturday60.2758.435758.43
Wednesday56.8357.796057.79
Sunday56.6256.605956.62

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.

Thursday, October 1, 2026

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

PosPlayer31 Aug Avg30 Sep AvgImprovement
1Arran Cundick53.8355.12+1.29
2Luke Yates62.8463.92+1.08
3George Nurdin58.4859.36+0.87
4Kai Carter63.0263.81+0.79
5Henry Povey69.4670.22+0.76
6Will Parker56.6457.39+0.75
7Joe Quiney76.8877.61+0.73
8Owen Smith66.5567.26+0.71
9David Farmer74.6575.35+0.70
10Andrew Smith54.4755.12+0.65
11Tom Pearce60.1160.67+0.56
12Alfie Palmer64.6565.20+0.55
13Jamie Kay82.6583.19+0.54
14Liam Glister69.2169.76+0.54
15Martyn Freeman69.6070.12+0.52
16Jack Kempster53.2253.74+0.52
17Dale Mills65.0765.57+0.50
18Daryl Beaven64.7765.24+0.47
19Shane Reidy58.4058.87+0.47
20Ant Pratley57.4957.94+0.44
21Charlie Shears52.1752.58+0.41
22Jamie Rhodes53.2153.62+0.41
23Matt Yarrow75.9076.30+0.40
24Ashton Brown80.6881.04+0.36
25Adam Lea67.8968.24+0.35
26Joe Bagguley74.2274.54+0.32
27David Moule75.8876.16+0.28
28Claire Spencer48.5448.82+0.28
29Lewis Richards57.0757.34+0.27
30Stuart Melbourne52.4052.67+0.26
31Wayne Barrett64.7765.02+0.26
32Zac Rendell62.0862.33+0.25
33Jeff Saunders56.8357.07+0.24
34Mark Wilson57.6157.84+0.23
35Dexter Cornes48.9149.09+0.18
36Scott Mc80.7780.94+0.17
37Steve Boundy71.6871.84+0.16
38Dan Sperring41.3241.48+0.16
39Liam Moore65.7065.85+0.15
40Thomas Goodrich48.2348.37+0.14
41Mason Beaven64.4464.58+0.14
42Steve Wynn60.6360.75+0.12
43Jamie Treacher51.1151.22+0.10
44Jay Anderson69.8669.95+0.08
45Jamie Shovelton65.7865.86+0.08
46Cameron Oram60.9961.06+0.08
47Pete Evans41.9642.03+0.08
48Dan Cornes59.6659.73+0.07
49Martin Haines63.6963.75+0.06
50Paul Philpot46.7146.77+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.

Wednesday, September 30, 2026

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 AverageWhere it puts you
59Top 75%
65Around the top 50%
73Around the top 25%
80Around the top 10%
83–84Around the top 5%
92Around 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 ColourRankingAverage Q4QS Average
Gold1–20088.53
Silver201–50082.43
Bronze501–1,00078.75
Black1,001–2,00074.14
Brown2,001–3,00069.51
Blue3,001–4,00066.51
Green4,001–5,00063.96
Red5,001–6,00061.86
Purple6,001–7,00059.96
Pink7,001–8,00058.19
Orange8,001–9,00056.78
Yellow9,001–10,00054.86

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.

Welcome to Questforqschool.com

Yesterday's Darts Results: Tyler Garrett and Lewis Michael Hit 107.36 as 50 Tournaments Join Q4QS – 3 November 2026

Yesterday's Darts Results: Tyler Garrett and Lewis Michael Hit 107.36 as 50 Tournaments Join Q4QS Results from Tuesday 3 November 202...