MODUS Super Series Week 11 Preview: Morris, Tweddell and McCarthy Lead a Fascinating 12-Player Field

 

Tommy Morris, Jack Tweddell and Josh McCarthy are among the names to watch as Week 11 of the MODUS Super Series gets underway, with a field containing experienced campaigners, emerging talent and several players enjoying excellent recent form.

One of the things I enjoy about looking ahead to a MODUS week is seeing how players from different levels of competitive darts measure up against each other.

This week's line-up is particularly interesting. There are players regularly producing averages in the 90s on the Challenge Tour, others arriving from successful grassroots campaigns, and a few who might surprise people once the short-format matches begin.

Using the latest Q4QS database, I've looked at the players' recent performances, rankings and results to see who might make an impression.

Morris and Tweddell Bring Challenge Tour Form

Tommy Morris enters the week with some of the strongest figures in the field.

Currently ranked 48th in Q4QS, Morris has an established Q4QS average of 89.08 and has won seven of his last ten recorded matches.

His recent Challenge Tour performances are particularly impressive. He reached the final of Event 21 with a tournament average of 95.42, including a 104.26 average in a 5–3 victory over Joe Hunt.

He followed that with a semi-final appearance at Event 23, where his run was eventually ended by another Week 11 entrant, Jack Tweddell.

That immediately gives us an interesting storyline.

Jack Tweddell, currently 128th in the Q4QS rankings, has an average of 87.30 and has also won seven of his last ten recorded matches.

Tweddell reached the final of Challenge Tour Event 23, averaging 91.11 across his campaign before losing to Joe Hunt.

There is already plenty of recent history between Morris and Tweddell. Both have beaten the other in Challenge Tour competition, and another meeting during MODUS Week 11 would be well worth watching.

On the evidence of their recent scoring, both should be serious contenders.

Josh McCarthy: The Player Arriving with Momentum

If there is one player whose recent results particularly caught my attention, it is Josh McCarthy.

McCarthy is currently ranked 112th in Q4QS, with an average of 82.70, but his recent winning record is the standout figure.

Nine wins from his last ten recorded matches.

He recently won a Vault 19.0 event at Wiltshire Darts House in Swindon, winning all eight of his matches and averaging 80.06 across the tournament.

He has also recorded tournament-winning form elsewhere, including an event average of 82.42 in a Saturday night round-robin competition.

McCarthy has demonstrated that he knows how to win tournaments, and that is something which shouldn't be underestimated.

MODUS presents a different challenge, but players arriving with confidence and a winning habit can be difficult opponents.

Jenson Walker and Ashley Coleman Have the Scoring Power

Jenson Walker is another player capable of producing some outstanding darts.

Ranked 134th in Q4QS with an average of 84.54, Walker recently recorded a remarkable 105.47 match average in a 4–1 victory over Damien Grimes at the WDF Europe Cup.

He also averaged 92.67 in his latest recorded World Youth Championship Finals appearance.

His recent results have been mixed, with four wins from his last ten recorded matches, but the scoring potential is clearly there.

Ashley Coleman also deserves considerable attention.

Coleman sits 171st in the Q4QS rankings with an average of 86.35. His most recent recorded tournament saw him reach the last 32 of a PDC World Championship qualifier, averaging 92.88 across his matches.

Those are competitive figures in this company.

If Coleman can reproduce that standard consistently, he could become a significant factor in the week's outcome.

Experience Could Make the Difference

There are some familiar names in the field who will not be intimidated by the format.

Jim McEwan arrives with seven wins from his last ten recorded matches and a Q4QS average of 82.95.

He reached the semi-finals of the England Open, averaging 87.70 during that run before losing to Chas Barstow.

Brian Raman also has impressive tournament form behind him.

Raman reached the final of the 2026 WDF World Masters, averaging 88.37 during his campaign before losing to Chris Lim.

His run included a 96.20 average in a 5–2 victory over Jeff Smith.

Scott Mitchell is another experienced competitor who could prove difficult to beat.

His most recent recorded appearance was a Vault 19.0 final at The Sandpiper in Christchurch, where he won seven matches before losing to Riley Milligan.

His overall Q4QS average is 78.27, although his most recent tournament average was lower at 69.82.

Experience and the ability to manage difficult matches could be particularly valuable as the week progresses.

Ashton Brown: Another Grassroots Contender

One of the players I'll be particularly interested in following is Ashton Brown.

Brown currently sits 188th in the Q4QS rankings with an average of 81.45.

He recently reached the semi-finals of a Vault 19.0 event at The Sartan Club in Bishopsworth, winning six matches before losing to Zach Quinn.

He has also recorded a 92.44 match average against Alfie Palmer and averaged 88.55 during his latest appearance at Hangar 61.

With seven wins from his last ten recorded matches, Brown is another player arriving with encouraging form.

He might not attract quite the same attention as some of the established names, but his recent performances suggest he deserves respect.

Davies and Williams Have Something to Prove

David Davies and Alex Williams complete the players covered by the Q4QS narrative data.

Davies has been competing regularly in Vault 19.0 events at Shooters Bar in Leominster, reaching a final and a semi-final in his recent appearances.

His Q4QS average is 61.87, although he has also recorded an 87.62 tournament average in a recent Challenge Tour appearance. That variation makes him difficult to assess purely from his overall figure.

Williams is another player whose recent results suggest a higher level than his overall Q4QS average of 56.32.

He reached the quarter-finals of a Welsh Open, Masters & Classic event with an 83.84 tournament average and has produced a 90.70 match average.

He also averaged 83.55 in his latest British Open & Classic appearance.

Both players have shown they can compete at a considerably higher standard than their overall averages might initially suggest.

What About Sander van Ockenburg-Zwaan?

The final name in the field is Sander van Ockenburg-Zwaan.

He isn't currently matched to a verified player history in the Q4QS export, so I don't have enough reliable information to make the same statistical assessment as the other eleven entrants.

That doesn't mean he should be discounted. It simply means there is less Q4QS evidence available to assess his recent form.

My Six to Follow

Rather than simply taking the six highest-ranked players, I've chosen six who bring different storylines into the week.

1. Tommy Morris – Outstanding recent Challenge Tour scoring, a final appearance and a Q4QS average above 89.

2. Jack Tweddell – Another Challenge Tour finalist with the scoring ability to challenge Morris.

3. Josh McCarthy – Nine wins in his last ten matches and recent tournament-winning form.

4. Jenson Walker – Has already demonstrated three-figure scoring power and could be dangerous if he finds consistency.

5. Ashley Coleman – Recent averages in the 90s suggest he has the ability to go a long way.

6. Ashton Brown – My less obvious selection, with strong recent grassroots form and some impressive individual performances.

Final Thoughts

Looking through the figures, Morris and Tweddell stand out for their recent Challenge Tour performances, while McCarthy arrives with arguably the strongest winning momentum.

But there are enough players capable of producing averages in the high 80s and 90s to make this a genuinely competitive week.

What interests me most is how the grassroots regulars perform against players with extensive experience of higher-level competition.

The Q4QS figures provide a useful guide, but they don't guarantee anything. Different tournaments, opponents and match formats all influence the numbers.

That's part of what makes MODUS so interesting.

I'll be following the results throughout the week to see whether the form translates into performances when it matters.

Follow more player statistics, rankings and tournament coverage at Quest For Q School.

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.

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.

Which Are the Strongest Counties in UKDA Darts? Results, Star Quality and Squad Depth Compared

 

Which county is currently the strongest in UKDA darts?

The obvious way to answer that is to look at the league tables. Results ultimately decide promotion, relegation and championships, and nothing I produce here is intended to replace that.

But I wanted to ask a slightly different question.

Does a county's league position accurately reflect the strength of the players it has available?

And, perhaps more interestingly, are there counties further down the UKDA system whose underlying player strength suggests they could be capable of considerably more?

I decided to have a look.

How I measured county strength

I started with the league positions of the counties and then compared those with the strength of their leading players.

For each county I took the top eight men and top six women and ranked the counties according to the strength of those groups.

League position, men's strength and women's strength were each converted into ranking points, with 53 points available for first place down to one for 53rd.

That gave a maximum possible total of 159 points and produced my initial Q4QS County Strength Ranking.

But there was an obvious question.

What about depth?

Having several outstanding players is one thing. Having quality running throughout a county's player pool is something else entirely.

So I ran a second comparison using the whole available men's and women's squads.

That gives us three different ways of looking at a county:

League Performance – what is actually happening in competition.

Top-End Strength – the quality of the leading eight men and six women.

Squad Depth – how strong the wider player pool looks when we go beyond those leading names.

And that's where things became much more interesting.

Lancashire Set the Standard

There isn't much argument at the very top.

Lancashire are the benchmark.

They rank first in the league standings used for this analysis, first for top-player strength and first again when I consider the wider squad.

In the original 159-point calculation, Lancashire scored an extraordinary 157 out of a possible 159.

That's about as emphatic as it gets.

Sometimes a statistical exercise produces a surprise at No.1. This one doesn't.

Lancashire aren't being carried by a handful of exceptional players, nor does their player strength look better on paper than the results they're producing.

All three measures point in exactly the same direction.

Warwickshire and Lincolnshire also emerge among the major forces when league results and player quality are combined, while Glamorgan feature strongly when the wider playing squad is taken into consideration.

But once we move away from the very top, the rankings begin telling some much more unexpected stories.

Yorkshire Have Serious Depth

Yorkshire might be one of the best examples of why I wanted to add the whole-squad calculation.

They sit fifth on league position and 11th when I concentrate on their leading players.

Look at the whole player pool, however, and Yorkshire climb to second in the country.

Even more impressively, their wider men's strength ranks second and their women's strength also ranks second.

That's significant.

There is a difference between having enough very good players to put out a formidable leading side and having quality extending well beyond those first selections.

The numbers suggest Yorkshire have the latter.

Their leading-player ranking perhaps doesn't immediately scream second-strongest county, but their depth certainly does.

And depth matters over time.

Players become unavailable, form fluctuates and new players have to step forward. A county capable of replacing quality with quality is in a very different position from one heavily reliant on a relatively small group.

Are Clwyd On the Rise?

This was one of the results that initially made me want to investigate the rankings more closely.

Clwyd sit 28th in the league order used for this analysis.

Based purely on that, there would be little reason to identify them as one of the stronger counties.

The player data tells a very different story.

Their leading-player strength ranks 11th.

That's a remarkable 17 places higher than their league position.

Perhaps that was simply being driven by a handful of particularly strong players?

The whole-squad test says not entirely.

When I widen the calculation, Clwyd rank 20th – still eight places higher than their current league position.

The women's strength is particularly eye-catching. Clwyd's leading six women rank sixth, while their wider women's group ranks seventh.

There is more of a drop-off on the men's side, so I wouldn't describe Clwyd as possessing outstanding depth in every department.

But there is enough here to ask a legitimate question:

Could Clwyd be a county on the rise?

This analysis can't predict the future and I'm deliberately putting a question mark on that statement.

What it can tell us is that the quality of players available to Clwyd currently looks considerably better than 28th place might suggest.

Whether that strength eventually translates into results is the interesting part to watch.

Cheshire Could Be Another to Watch

Clwyd aren't alone.

Cheshire are 20th on league position, but 11th on leading-player strength and 14th when the wider squad is considered.

I actually find that consistency particularly interesting.

There isn't the dramatic difference between elite strength and depth that we see with some counties. Both measures simply suggest Cheshire possess a stronger player base than their current league position indicates.

That doesn't guarantee a climb.

League darts isn't played on a spreadsheet.

But if I'm looking for counties whose underlying numbers suggest potential to outperform their current position, Cheshire would certainly be on my list.

Further down, Cleveland also deserve a mention.

They're 38th in the league comparison, but 28th for top-player strength and 33rd on the whole-squad measure.

Nobody is suggesting that suddenly makes Cleveland a top-ten county, but both independent player-strength measures come out better than their current league position.

Those are exactly the discrepancies I'm interested in finding.

Humberside Show Why Depth Matters

Perhaps the biggest justification for carrying out the second calculation comes from Humberside.

Using only the leading eight men and six women, Humberside rank 31st.

Use the wider squad and they jump to 16th.

That's a 15-place difference.

Their men's numbers are particularly striking. Humberside rank 24th when only the leading eight are considered but rise to 11th across the wider men's pool.

In other words, their strength doesn't appear to be concentrated right at the top.

Hampshire produce another huge change.

They are 20th using the leading-player calculation but ninth when depth is included.

Their men's figures are even more unusual – 32nd based on the leading eight but ninth when the wider group is assessed.

Cornwall also improve substantially, moving from 18th on top-end strength to eighth on whole-squad strength.

There are similar, if smaller, patterns elsewhere.

Cambridgeshire improve from 35th to 25th, Kent from 33rd to 23rd and Devon from 36th to 27th.

It shows why judging a county purely by its biggest names doesn't necessarily tell us how healthy the playing pool underneath them really is.

What About the Top-Heavy Counties?

Of course, the calculation works in the other direction too.

Some counties look considerably stronger when I restrict the analysis to their leading players.

Northumberland rank 23rd on top-player strength but fall to 39th when the whole squad is considered.

Salopian move from 16th to 32nd.

Tyne & Wear go from 19th to 34th.

Then there's London.

London's leading-player strength ranks an impressive seventh, but their whole-squad ranking is 22nd.

Their leading women's group is particularly strong, ranking fifth, but that elite strength doesn't extend through the wider numbers to quite the same extent.

Suffolk are another fascinating case.

They rank fourth when I concentrate on their leading players but 15th on the whole-squad calculation.

Their top six women rank eighth, compared with 28th when the wider women's player pool is assessed.

None of that means these are weak counties.

Quite the opposite in several cases.

It simply suggests that their strength is currently more concentrated among the players at the top.

And that is something a normal league table can't show us.

Some Counties Are Punching Above Their Numbers

There's another side to this analysis that I think is equally important.

If some counties look stronger than their league positions suggest, there must also be counties achieving better results than their underlying player-strength rankings might predict.

Kent are a great example.

They rank 16th in the league comparison, but only 33rd based on their leading players and 23rd using the wider squad.

Whatever the reason, Kent are getting results considerably above the position suggested by one of those measures.

Sussex are perhaps even more impressive.

They sit ninth in the league, compared with 23rd on leading-player strength.

The whole-squad calculation improves their position considerably to 12th, suggesting depth is an important part of the story, but they're still performing above the raw strength measures.

Cambridgeshire show something similar: 22nd in league position, 35th for leading-player strength and 25th on the wider squad calculation.

I'd describe those counties as punching above their numbers rather than suggesting the rankings are somehow wrong.

Because that's an important distinction.

This Isn't an Alternative League Table

The more I've looked at these numbers, the more important I think this point becomes.

Results are results.

If a county is winning matches and another isn't, a player-strength calculation doesn't change that.

There are countless things that can influence county results: availability, selection, individual performances, strength across the A and B teams and simply producing your best darts when the points are at stake.

The UKDA National League itself is built around four teams – Men's A, Women's A, Men's B and Women's B – which is another reason why depth can matter so much across a season.

What this analysis gives us is something different.

It allows me to ask whether the results we're currently seeing are broadly in line with the strength of the player pool behind them.

For Lancashire, the answer is an emphatic yes.

For some others, the answer is far less straightforward.

The Counties I'll Be Watching

If I were looking for the biggest stories coming out of this first analysis, I'd probably put them into four groups.

The established powerhouses are led by Lancashire, with Warwickshire, Lincolnshire and Glamorgan among those showing serious strength.

The depth counties include Yorkshire, Humberside, Hampshire and Cornwall – counties whose wider playing strength looks particularly impressive once I move beyond the leading names.

Then there are the potential risers.

Clwyd are the obvious one. A county sitting 28th in league position but 11th for leading-player strength and 20th across the wider squad is worth watching.

Cheshire's 20th/11th/14th profile makes them another.

Cleveland are a more speculative example further down, but again their underlying player rankings are better than their league position.

And finally there are the counties getting more from their numbers, with Kent, Sussex and Cambridgeshire among those whose results deserve recognition.

What Comes Next?

This is a snapshot, and that's what makes the next stage potentially even more interesting.

I'll revisit the rankings as the season develops.

If Clwyd begin climbing, we'll be able to look back and see that there were already signs of underlying strength.

If they don't, that becomes an interesting question in itself.

Likewise, can the counties with outstanding depth turn that depth into results? Can those currently outperforming their player-strength numbers continue doing so?

One set of rankings can't answer those questions.

But it can give us a much better idea of which questions are worth asking.

And after combining results, leading-player quality and whole-squad depth, one conclusion is very difficult to argue with.

Right now, Lancashire are the county everyone else has to catch.

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.

Beyond Mitchell Lawrie: The Young UK Darts Players Coming Through in 2026

 

The rise of Luke Littler helped shine an unprecedented spotlight on youth darts.

His progress from the junior system to the top of the professional game demonstrated what can happen when exceptional ability is matched by the right opportunities. Inevitably, attention has now turned towards the next generation.

Who might follow him?

Mitchell Lawrie is currently the most obvious answer. The young Scot has already produced remarkable results across junior and senior darts, establishing himself as one of the most exciting prospects anywhere in the sport.

However, one of the most interesting stories of 2026 is not simply the emergence of one outstanding player. It is the depth of young talent now appearing across the JDC system and beyond.

Names such as Lawrie, Kaya Baysal and Archie Self will already be familiar to many followers of youth darts. Yet a closer look at the Q4QS statistics reveals a much broader group of young players beginning to establish impressive records.

This article focuses on players from the UK who feature within my database. The figures are based on the tournaments and matches currently captured by the Q4QS system, rather than every match each player has played.

There are also several talented young players emerging elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Belgium, but they fall outside the scope of this particular analysis.

Mitchell Lawrie: The Current Standard-Bearer

Any discussion about the next generation has to begin with Mitchell Lawrie.

The young Scot has produced numbers that place him in a category of his own.

Across 97 recorded matches in the Q4QS database, Lawrie has won 90 and lost only seven. That gives him an extraordinary win rate of 92.8%.

He holds an overall average of 90.54 and a Q4QS average of 90.77.

Those numbers would be impressive for an established senior player. For somebody still progressing through youth darts, they are exceptional.

Lawrie’s achievements extend well beyond the database. He won the 2025 JDC Junior World Championship, became the WDF World Youth champion and reached the final of the senior WDF World Championship at Lakeside.

He has continued winning in 2026, collecting further senior WDF titles and dominating large parts of the JDC Advanced Tour.

What stands out most in the Q4QS data is the distance between Lawrie and the chasing group. Youth darts is highly competitive, but nobody else in this particular set of players has consistently matched his combination of scoring and winning.

Lawrie is no longer merely an exciting junior prospect. He is already producing the kind of performances that make people wonder how far he can eventually go.

The question is not whether he is one of the leading young players in the UK.

It is whether anybody in the current generation can close the gap.

Already Making Headlines

Jack Johnson

While Lawrie stands clear at the top of the figures, Jack Johnson leads the group immediately behind him.

Johnson currently ranks second in my system, averaging 84.16 across 68 recorded matches and winning 73.5% of them.

His achievements are not limited to statistical promise. Johnson won the JDC Super 16 in both 2024 and 2025, demonstrating an ability to deliver in major matches as well as across the wider junior circuit.

He also won the 2025 JDC National Volts title, defeating Alfie Hutton in the final on the World Grand Prix stage in Leicester.

Those successes have helped Johnson build a reputation as one of the most accomplished young players currently emerging from the UK system.

His average may remain some distance below Lawrie’s remarkable figure, but it places him firmly among the leading group. More importantly, he has already shown that he can handle the pressure that comes with competing for significant junior titles.

Kaya Baysal

Kaya Baysal has become one of the best-known names in junior darts over the last couple of seasons.

His record in the Q4QS database stands at 52 victories from 72 matches, alongside an overall average of 83.51. He has also won eight of his ten most recently recorded matches.

Baysal’s progress has not been restricted to junior competition.

He became the youngest winner of a senior WDF ranking title when he won the Budapest Classic in 2025. He has also demonstrated that his game can translate to the MODUS Super Series, where he reached a weekly final in 2026.

Baysal won nine of his ten group matches during that MODUS appearance before eventually losing to Jack Aldridge in the weekly final.

That matters when attempting to assess young prospects. Junior success provides the foundation, but performing effectively against experienced senior opponents presents a different challenge.

Baysal has already shown that he can make that transition.

Archie Self

Archie Self is another player whose profile has grown enormously during 2026.

His overall average of 83.10 places him firmly among the leading group in the database, while a perfect 10–0 record across his most recently captured matches demonstrates the momentum he has built.

Self’s senior achievements make his story particularly significant.

He won Week Four of MODUS Super Series 14 after going through the entire week unbeaten. That alone would have made 2026 an important breakthrough year.

He then went considerably further by winning PDC Challenge Tour Event 18 in August.

Winning a Challenge Tour title against an experienced adult field is a major achievement for any young player. For Self, it provides strong evidence that his ability is already translating beyond the age-group environment.

Among all the players included here, he may have made the biggest senior breakthrough of 2026.

The Leading Challengers

Lewis Cook

Lewis Cook may be one of the most underrated young players currently competing on the circuit.

His figures are remarkably close to those of Johnson and Baysal. Cook has won 52 of his 70 recorded matches, giving him a win rate of 74.3%.

His Q4QS rating is also virtually identical to Johnson’s.

Despite receiving less attention than some of the headline names, the underlying performance data suggests that Cook belongs firmly within the leading group of UK prospects.

He has been consistently competitive in JDC Advanced Tour events and has already shown that he can push the best players in the age group.

Lawrie defeated him only 4–3 in the quarter-finals of Advanced Tour Event Three in Bristol, illustrating how close Cook can come to the player currently setting the standard.

The challenge now is to turn that consistency into more major titles and headline performances.

Jayden Walker

Few players in the chasing group possess stronger all-round figures than Jayden Walker.

Walker has the highest Q4QS average among Lawrie’s leading pursuers at 84.64. He has won 66 of his 85 recorded matches, giving him a success rate of 77.6%.

That combination of scoring and results makes him one of the most interesting players in the database.

He already has tournament victories to his name and repeatedly appears in the latter stages of significant youth events. He also reached the final of the 2025 JDC Super 16, losing to Johnson.

Walker’s position is particularly intriguing because his figures suggest that he is not relying on an isolated run or a handful of strong performances. He has maintained a high level across a substantial sample of matches.

If Lawrie has a serious challenger within the current generation, Walker may be among the strongest candidates.

Closer Than Many Realise

Arthur Allston

If there is one player whose wider reputation may currently lag behind his numbers, it is Arthur Allston.

Allston ranks sixth in my database, ahead of several players who may be more widely discussed.

He has won 55 of his 78 recorded matches, producing a success rate of 70.5%, while his overall average stands at 82.10. He has also won eight of his last ten matches in the database.

Allston has regularly appeared in the latter stages of JDC events, including a semi-final at Advanced Tour Event Four in Bristol, where his run was eventually ended by Lawrie.

He may not yet carry the profile of some of the names above him, but the statistics suggest that he should be considered part of the same wider group.

When discussing potential future breakthroughs, Allston deserves considerably more attention than he currently receives.

Owen Bryceland

Owen Bryceland may not attract as many headlines as some of his contemporaries, but his numbers tell a positive story.

An overall average of 81.55 and a win rate approaching 70% demonstrate a player who is performing consistently at a strong level.

At this stage of a young player’s development, progress is not always measured through major titles alone. Building experience, regularly competing with the best players in the age group and maintaining solid performance levels are all important.

Bryceland’s figures suggest that he is doing exactly that.

Ben Townley

Ben Townley is another player who can easily be overlooked when attention is concentrated on the most recognisable names.

However, an average above 80, 44 victories from 64 recorded matches and a solid recent record indicate a player capable of competing regularly with the country’s leading juniors.

Townley has also reached the latter stages of JDC Advanced Tour events, including a semi-final at Event Four in Bristol.

Like Bryceland, his next step will be converting repeated competitive performances into major victories. The underlying level, however, is already encouraging.

Two More to Watch

Not every young player develops at exactly the same rate.

Some collect major junior titles almost immediately, while others build their game more gradually before making a significant breakthrough.

Two more names from the database are therefore worth watching.

Christian Ennis

Christian Ennis has quietly put together an impressive body of work.

The Northern Irish prospect holds an overall average of 80.10 across 71 recorded matches and has won more than 70% of them.

Those figures compare favourably with several better-known players. They also come across a sufficiently large number of matches to suggest genuine consistency rather than a brief spell of good form.

Ennis may not yet have generated the same attention as Lawrie, Baysal or Self, but his statistical record makes him an interesting prospect.

Charlie Greensmith

Charlie Greensmith enters the discussion largely because of his recent form.

His overall average of 79.28 may not immediately stand out alongside the leading names, but he has won eight of his ten most recently recorded matches.

That does not necessarily mean he is ready to challenge the very best immediately. It does, however, suggest a player moving in the right direction.

Youth development can happen quickly. A player who appears just outside the leading group at the beginning of a season can close the gap substantially within a matter of months.

Greensmith’s recent results make him one to monitor.

More Than One Outstanding Prospect

Mitchell Lawrie currently stands apart statistically, but he certainly does not stand alone.

Behind him is an extremely competitive group featuring Jack Johnson, Kaya Baysal, Archie Self, Lewis Cook and Jayden Walker.

Johnson is already a two-time JDC Super 16 champion. Baysal has reached a MODUS Super Series weekly final. Self has gone one better by winning a MODUS week and has now added a PDC Challenge Tour title.

Cook’s numbers place him much closer to the headline names than his current profile might suggest, while Walker combines one of the strongest averages with an excellent win rate across a considerable number of matches.

Beyond that group, Arthur Allston, Owen Bryceland and Ben Townley continue to build increasingly strong records. Christian Ennis and Charlie Greensmith could yet emerge as two of the next names to make a significant move.

Not every one of these players will reach the highest level. Development in darts is rarely predictable, and plenty can change as young players move into senior competition.

Some will progress quickly. Others may require more time. A few players currently receiving less attention may ultimately develop further than those already collecting the biggest titles.

That uncertainty is part of what makes following youth darts so interesting.

Luke Littler showed just how quickly an exceptional junior can become one of the biggest names in the sport. It would be unfair to expect every talented youngster to follow the same extraordinary path.

Lawrie is already building his own remarkable story, but the wider picture may be just as encouraging.

UK youth darts does not appear to be waiting for one new star to arrive.

It already has an entire generation coming through.

Who’s Hot in South West Darts? The Q4QS Recent Form Top 100

 

Who are the most in-form darts players across the South West right now?

The latest Q4QS data gives us an interesting answer – and perhaps more importantly, shows just how many different types of player can put together a sustained run of winning darts.

The Q4QS South West Recent Form Top 100 is based primarily on results across a player's last 20 recorded matches, rather than simply ranking players by their three-dart average.

The data covers qualifying players across Bristol, Bath, Gloucester, Taunton, Exeter, Plymouth, Tiverton, Swindon and Blandford Forum areas, with players required to have competed in at least six events.

More than 36,000 unique matches were scanned, with 642 players meeting the qualifying criteria.

And to even sneak into the Top 100 takes some doing.

Every player on this list has won at least 14 of their last 20 matches.

Brown Leads – But He Has Company

At the top is Ashton Brown, whose recent record stands at a remarkable 19 wins from 20 matches.

Brown's position is particularly impressive because this is anything but a small sample. The Q4QS database has 237 matches for him across 30 events, with 16 titles recorded.

But he isn't alone on 19-1.

Henry Cooper, Andy Steed, Scott Mc and Mitchell Atkins have all also won 19 of their most recent 20 recorded matches.

And already, that group demonstrates what makes this table so interesting.

Cooper is averaging 86.39, while Atkins is at 64.57 – yet both have produced exactly the same 19-1 recent record.

Mitchell Atkins Flying the Flag for the Juniors

Atkins is particularly noteworthy because his main competition in the data comes through the Junior Darts Corporation.

He has been a regular JDC competitor and has already enjoyed tournament success, while also competing in events such as the England Youth Grand Prix.

So fifth place in a form table covering players from across the South West isn't simply another good statistic – it's an indication of how competitive some of the region's emerging junior players already are.

And Atkins isn't the only junior to appear.

Warren Rixon sits 15th after winning 18 of his last 20, while Jacob Godber is 47th, Joseph Lauridsen 83rd, Aaron Rea 85th and Finley Bird 90th.

Rixon's numbers are particularly striking. He has seven titles from only eight qualifying events in this dataset and has been one of the leading performers in the South West JDC Volts competition.

It is another reminder that the grassroots picture isn't simply about established adult open players. Some of the best current winning records belong to the next generation.

Karl Aldom – Why Form Isn't All About Huge Averages

Perhaps my favourite story in the whole table is Karl Aldom at number 17.

Aldom plays much of his darts in Under-55 average competitions at DartAsylum, so comparing his average directly with somebody regularly competing in high-level open tournaments wouldn't tell us very much.

What does tell us something is this:

18 wins from his last 20 matches.

Aldom's recorded average is 48.62, but he has four titles and 170 matches in the database across 28 events.

That's exactly why looking beyond averages can be worthwhile.

You don't need to be averaging 90 or 100 to be playing extremely well relative to the level at which you compete.

Ultimately, darts is about winning matches – and Aldom has been doing plenty of that.

Different Levels, Same Result

There are examples throughout the rankings.

Jane Price is 16th with an 18-2 record and a 52.08 average.

Aldom follows at 17th averaging 48.62.

At the other end of the spectrum, Henry Cooper has exactly one defeat in 20 while averaging 86.39.

Different competitions. Different standards. Different averages.

But lots of winning darts.

That is one of the reasons I think grassroots statistics need context rather than simply publishing a list of averages.

Who Is Improving Fastest?

Another fascinating column in the Q4QS data compares a player's most recent 50 legs with the previous 50.

And Joshua Lewis is the player who really leaps from the page.

Lewis is already 20th on recent form with a 17-3 record and an 80.50 average, but his improvement figure stands at +9.71.

That's a significant upward movement.

Other notable improvement figures among the Top 100 include:

• Ricky Harding: +8.16

• Luke Harding: +7.44

• Robbie Long: +7.08

• Leon Taylor: +6.74

• Danny Humphries: +6.24

• Johnny Haines: +6.10

• Robbie Roy: +5.46

Johnny Haines is particularly interesting. He is averaging 84.04, has won 16 of his last 20 and is simultaneously showing one of the biggest positive movements in the table.

That's someone whose numbers are worth watching.

The Established Winners Are Still There

The form table also contains plenty of familiar names.

Josh McCarthy might be only 58th on this particular measure, but "only" needs some context.

He's won 15 of his last 20 matches.

Across the wider database, McCarthy has 298 recorded matches, 43 events and an extraordinary 26 titles, alongside an 83.61 average.

Andy Steed has another outstanding long-term record: 22 titles from 44 events, while Steve Boundy has 17 titles, Shaun Vernall 17 and Ashton Brown 16.

This is where the Recent Form table should be viewed alongside the wider Q4QS numbers rather than replacing them.

A player can be 50th or 60th here and still be one of the strongest performers in the region.

You Need a 70% Win Rate Just to Make the List

Perhaps the statistic that best illustrates the strength of this Top 100 comes right at the bottom.

Joe Quiney is 95th.

Paul Lewis is 99th.

Martyn Freeman rounds out the Top 100.

All three have won 14 of their last 20 matches.

Quiney's recorded average is 73.07. Paul Lewis's is 50.58.

That's a difference of more than 22 points in average – yet their recent match records are identical at 14-6.

Again, that's why this isn't an averages ranking.

It's a ranking about winning darts matches.

Q4QS South West Recent Form Top 100

#	Player	Main Venue	Avg	Recent Form
1	Ashton Brown	Sartan Club	78.91	19-1
2	Henry Cooper	Yeovil Labour Club	86.39	19-1
3	Andy Steed	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	76.17	19-1
4	Scott Mc	—	80.78	19-1
5	Mitchell Atkins	JDC	64.57	19-1
6	Kieran Smith	Magpies Social Club	79.97	18-2
7	Steve Boundy	Portishead Workmens Darts	71.68	18-2
8	Darren Herbert	Bullets Sports Bar	74.26	18-2
9	Kieran Spurdle	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	71.67	18-2
10	Junior Howard	Darts Circuit	68.11	18-2
11	Steven Rees	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	71.58	18-2
12	Liam Moore	DartAsylum HQ	67.54	18-2
13	Daren Field	Bullets Sports Bar	66.66	18-2
14	Ben Witcombe	DartAsylum HQ	61.36	18-2
15	Warren Rixon	Bridgwater Darts Academy	58.05	18-2
16	Jane Price	Magpies Social Club	52.08	18-2
17	Karl Aldom	DartAsylum HQ	48.62	18-2
18	Shaun Vernall	Magpies Social Club	77.25	17-3
19	Danny Humphries	Yeovil Labour Club	77.72	17-3
20	Joshua Lewis	Magpies Social Club	80.50	17-3
21	Ricky Harding	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	73.66	17-3
22	Mike Harper	Yeovil Labour Club	77.01	17-3
23	Joe Bagguley	—	75.08	17-3
24	C-Jay Pipe	—	73.99	17-3
25	Jack Walker	—	73.39	17-3
26	Finlay Cleave	—	70.10	17-3
27	Joe Smith	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	65.93	17-3
28	Sean Taylor	—	68.73	17-3
29	Dave Fisher	Darts @ The Lawns	67.50	17-3
30	Scott Lawrey	Darts Circuit	69.49	17-3
31	Mark Wellington	—	69.40	17-3
32	Glenn Pearce	DartAsylum HQ	62.68	17-3
33	Samuel Brough	—	61.47	17-3
34	Mac Docherty	Clandown Darts Promotions	60.12	17-3
35	Christopher Staples	Portishead Workmens Darts	57.86	17-3
36	Jimmy Bristow	North Star Club	77.84	16-4
37	Johnny Haines	North Star Club	84.04	16-4
38	John Brown	Sartan Club	79.66	16-4
39	Luke Harding	Portishead Workmens Darts	70.39	16-4
40	Iain Howie	Widden Rugby Club	76.43	16-4
41	Declan Cox	North Star Club	75.78	16-4
42	Dean Brown	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	74.36	16-4
43	Paul Meyer	Magpies Social Club	69.79	16-4
44	Gary Eastwood	Yeovil Labour Club	74.24	16-4
45	Steve Donohue	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	72.93	16-4
46	James Long	Portishead Workmens Darts	63.68	16-4
47	Jacob Godber	JDC	65.29	16-4
48	Darren Pearce	Darts Circuit	69.88	16-4
49	Mason Arnold	Portishead Workmens Darts	60.00	16-4
50	Duncan Bell	Lockleaze Family Community	63.93	16-4
51	Tommy Sperring	DartAsylum HQ	59.62	16-4
52	Matthew Reddy	—	60.76	16-4
53	James Wellbelove	Darts @ The Lawns	59.07	16-4
54	Phil Bisset	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	58.87	16-4
55	Joshua Hall	Portishead Workmens Darts	58.15	16-4
56	Caspar Paine	Darts @ The Lawns	57.76	16-4
57	Ben Hayman	Darts @ The Lawns	57.53	16-4
58	Josh McCarthy	North Star Club	83.61	15-5
59	Ryan Palmer	Sartan Club	82.47	15-5
60	Terry Jenkins	DD's Snooker & Pool Club	76.61	15-5
61	Robbie Long	—	72.64	15-5
62	Graham Jenkins	DD's Snooker & Pool Club	74.19	15-5
63	Clive Burgess	DD's Snooker & Pool Club	75.96	15-5
64	Zach Quinn	Sartan Club	73.33	15-5
65	Gary Hiscock	North Star Club	76.60	15-5
66	Dan Williams	—	76.03	15-5
67	Leon Taylor	Portishead Workmens Darts	69.55	15-5
68	Leighton Cox	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	72.80	15-5
69	Cori Wiltshire	North Star Club	66.20	15-5
70	Morgan Fowler	North Star Club	73.84	15-5
71	Ben Collins	Yeovil Labour Club	67.47	15-5
72	Paul Gardiner	—	67.62	15-5
73	James Wintle-Mckay	DartAsylum HQ	65.18	15-5
74	Warren Ryan	Portishead Workmens Darts	65.34	15-5
75	Cooper Cornish	Sartan Club	61.74	15-5
76	Collis Palmer	DartAsylum HQ	64.06	15-5
77	Robbie Roy	Yeovil Labour Club	63.74	15-5
78	Lee Bradley	Saintbridge Sports Club	63.07	15-5
79	Louis Hodge	—	61.10	15-5
80	Carl Galeitzke	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	65.59	15-5
81	Phil Woodall	Portishead Workmens Darts	61.46	15-5
82	James Chappell	Yeovil Labour Club	63.49	15-5
83	Joseph Lauridsen	JDC	61.11	15-5
84	Gary Lapham	Clandown Darts Promotions	59.18	15-5
85	Aaron Rea	JDC	57.42	15-5
86	Callum Dry	DartAsylum HQ	54.08	15-5
87	George Hughes	Bullets Sports Bar	55.21	15-5
88	Jenson White	DartAsylum HQ	53.95	15-5
89	Ray Payne	DartAsylum HQ	53.62	15-5
90	Finley Bird	Bridgwater Darts Academy	48.46	15-5
91	Liam James	49 Club	51.32	15-5
92	Tommy Climo	Bridgwater Darts Academy	50.13	15-5
93	Chris Britton	DartAsylum HQ	51.45	15-5
94	Alex Bird	Bridgwater Darts Academy	50.65	15-5
95	Joe Quiney	DD's Snooker & Pool Club	73.07	14-6
96	Geoff James	North Star Club	78.94	14-6
97	Ellis Radford	Sartan Club	72.26	14-6
98	Steve Brown	Sartan Club	71.84	14-6
99	Paul Lewis	Pegasus 68 Club Ltd	50.58	14-6
100	Martyn Freeman	Magpies Social Club	65.40	14-6

More Than Just An Average

Perhaps that's the biggest takeaway from the first Q4QS South West Recent Form Top 100.

There are high-average established players.

There are prolific tournament winners.

There are rapidly improving players.

There are juniors beginning to make their mark.

There are players dominating restricted-average competitions.

And they can all appear on the same list because ultimately they have one thing in common:

They're winning.

As the Q4QS database continues to grow, these rankings should become even more interesting. Recent form can change quickly, which means today's Top 100 won't necessarily look anything like the next one.

And that might be the best reason of all to keep watching it.

Floor vs Stage: Do Some Players Perform Better Under the Lights? A Q4QS Analysis of the 2026 PDC Season

 

One of the oldest debates in professional darts is whether certain players are better suited to the Players Championship circuit or the sport's biggest televised stages.

Some players seem to produce their very best performances in front of packed arenas and television cameras, while others quietly build exceptional records on the ProTour week after week.

But is there actually any evidence to support that idea?

To find out, I compared my 2026 Q4QS Knockout Pedigree Rankings from two very different environments:

• Players Championship events

• Televised ranking tournaments

Rather than comparing averages or prize money, these rankings measure knockout success during the 2026 season. I then compared where every player ranked in each list to see who climbed the rankings under the lights and who built their strongest record on the Players Championship circuit.

Before diving into the numbers, there are two important points to make.

Firstly, these are Q4QS Rankings, not the official PDC Order of Merit.

Secondly, this comparison only covers the 2026 season. Players with insufficient participation have been excluded. Most notably, Luke Littler does not feature, having not competed in a Players Championship event during 2026. Without a Players Championship ranking, it simply isn't possible to make a fair comparison.

Biggest Movers Towards the Televised Rankings

The following players achieved a significantly higher Q4QS Televised Ranking than their Q4QS Players Championship Ranking.

Player	Q4QS Players Championship Rank	Q4QS Televised Rank	Movement
Josh Rock	62	6	▲ 56
Ryan Joyce	70	17	▲ 53
Gian van Veen	50	7	▲ 43
Mike De Decker	71	27	▲ 44
Gerwyn Price	43	2	▲ 41
Niels Zonneveld	55	15	▲ 40
Nathan Aspinall	47	9	▲ 38

Josh Rock heads the list, climbing an incredible 56 places between the two rankings. Ryan Joyce also makes a huge leap, while Gian van Veen continues to strengthen his reputation whenever the biggest tournaments come around.

Gerwyn Price and Nathan Aspinall are perhaps less surprising. Both have built reputations over many years as players capable of producing some of their very best darts on the sport's biggest stages.

Biggest Movers Towards the Players Championship Rankings

These players recorded considerably stronger Q4QS Players Championship Rankings than their televised rankings.

Player	Q4QS Players Championship Rank	Q4QS Televised Rank	Movement
Andrew Gilding	5	29	▼ 24
Chris Dobey	2	20	▼ 18
Gary Anderson	30	40	▼ 10
Kevin Doets	3	12	▼ 9
Wessel Nijman	1	8	▼ 7
Luke Woodhouse	4	11	▼ 7
James Wade	9	13	▼ 4

Wessel Nijman's place at the top of the Players Championship rankings underlines just how impressive his ProTour campaign has been.

Chris Dobey, Kevin Doets and Luke Woodhouse have also put together exceptional Players Championship seasons, while Andrew Gilding's consistency on the floor has been rewarded with a remarkably high Q4QS ranking.

These results shouldn't be viewed as a weakness in televised tournaments. Instead, they demonstrate just how consistently these players have performed throughout the demanding Players Championship schedule.

Consistency Across Both Rankings

Some players don't show a dramatic difference between the two rankings.

Luke Humphries is a good example. While he ranks slightly higher in the televised list, he remains among the elite in both environments.

The same can be said for Michael van Gerwen, whose rankings remain consistently high regardless of whether he is playing on the Players Championship circuit or under the television cameras.

Those players may simply possess an ability to adapt to every environment they encounter.

Why Do The Rankings Differ?

There is probably no single explanation.

One obvious factor is match format.

Players Championship matches are generally played over shorter distances, meaning there is less time to recover from a slow start. Most televised ranking tournaments become progressively longer as the event develops, rewarding players capable of maintaining a high level over an extended contest.

The seeding system may also influence results.

Players Championship events are seeded using the Players Championship Order of Merit, whereas televised ranking tournaments are generally seeded using the main PDC Order of Merit. That can produce very different draws, particularly in the early rounds.

Participation is another important consideration.

Several leading players have reduced their Players Championship schedules during 2026, while others have entered almost every event. That inevitably affects the opportunities available to build a strong knockout pedigree.

Finally, there is the atmosphere itself.

Some players appear to relish performing in front of thousands of spectators, while others quietly produce outstanding results on the ProTour week after week.

Whether that's down to mentality, experience, preparation, playing style or something else entirely is impossible to measure—but it's certainly an intriguing discussion.

Final Thoughts

This analysis isn't designed to say that one player is better than another.

Instead, it highlights where players have built their strongest knockout records during the 2026 season.

Some have climbed the rankings when the television cameras arrive.

Others have quietly dominated the Players Championship circuit.

And a select few continue to perform at an exceptionally high level regardless of where they play.

As with any statistical comparison, there are caveats, but the trends are fascinating—and they raise an interesting question.

What do you think explains the differences? Is it the atmosphere, the format, the draw, the scheduling... or simply the mark of players who adapt to every challenge?