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

 

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

It seems logical.

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

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

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

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

How I've Worked It Out

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

There's a problem with doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The idea is simply:

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

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

So Which Day Comes Out Strongest?

Here's what happened.

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

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

It's what happens to Saturday.

Saturday Has The Biggest Average

Look at Saturday's first number.

60.27.

That's comfortably the highest mean of the week.

So my original assumption wasn't completely wrong.

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

But now look at the other two figures.

The median drops to 58.43.

And the most common rounded Tournament Strength is only 57.

That's quite a difference.

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

They aren't.

Instead, the figures suggest something slightly different:

Saturday has a very high ceiling.

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

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

That surprised me.

Then We Get To Friday

Friday is almost the opposite.

Its mean is 59.15.

Its median is 58.79.

And its most common rounded Tournament Strength is 61.

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

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

Regular Friday darts itself is strong.

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

Its Q4QS Typical Strength is 59.15.

Monday Isn't Exactly An Easy Night Either

Monday might be an even bigger surprise.

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

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

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

That's enough for second place.

So much for easing yourself gently into the darting week.

And Look At Tuesday

Tuesday has another fascinating number.

Its most common Tournament Strength is:

62.

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

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

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

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

The Weekday Vault Effect

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

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

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

Then do it again the following week.

And again.

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

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

The numbers appear to be picking that up.

Saturday Versus The Working Week

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

Saturday is the big-event day.

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

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

But the working week has something different.

Consistency of competition.

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

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

They don't need it.

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

Sunday Is Different Again

Sunday produced the lowest Q4QS Typical Strength at 56.62.

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

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

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

Different days aren't just producing different standards.

They're producing different types of tournament calendars.

So What Is The Toughest Night?

If you're asking:

Which day produces the biggest tournaments?

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

Its mean Tournament Strength of 60.27 is comfortably the highest.

But if you're asking:

On which day is the typical tournament toughest?

The answer from the Q4QS data is:

Friday.

And the margins behind it are tiny.

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

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

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

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

Perhaps Grassroots Darts Has Changed

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

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

And the big weekend open certainly hasn't disappeared.

But competitive darts is becoming increasingly available throughout the week.

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

That creates something different from one huge Saturday field.

It creates depth.

Monday night can be tough.

Tuesday night can be tough.

Thursday night can be tough.

Friday night can be particularly tough.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

What Do I Mean By An 'Area'?

This is important.

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

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

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

Think of this as the first Q4QS Area Strength table.

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

Tournament Strength Is NOT A Three-Dart Average

One familiar warning before we get to the numbers.

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

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

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

That allows us to ask:

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

The Early Q4QS Area Strength Picture

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

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

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

Dorset Takes The Early Lead

This wasn't necessarily the result I expected.

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

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

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

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

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

But Wiltshire May Have The Most Interesting Number

Wiltshire is second on mean Tournament Strength at 61.01.

Look at the median, though.

63.70.

That's the highest in this initial group.

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

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

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

But 63.70 for the median tournament is a serious number.

Oxfordshire Has Depth

Then we reach an area with considerably more data.

Oxfordshire records 162 tournaments and a typical strength of 60.75.

Its peak reaches 69.51.

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

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

It's beginning to show depth.

Buckinghamshire Is Fascinating

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

But then there's the peak:

89.02.

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

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

Buckinghamshire can stage an exceptionally strong tournament.

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

The typical figure tells us what happens regularly.

The peak tells us how strong it can become.

Worcestershire Has The Same Story

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

Again, that's useful.

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

Area Strength adds another layer.

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

Bristol Produces The Biggest Surprise

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

Bristol is bottom of this particular group at 55.89.

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

Absolutely not.

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

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

More importantly, Bristol offers an enormous range of competitions.

There are strong open tournaments.

There are ADC Vaults.

There are Under-55 events.

There are Sub-70 competitions.

There are junior events.

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

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

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

there is competitive darts available for almost everybody.

That's Why Mean And Median Both Matter

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

Look at Wiltshire.

Mean: 61.01
Median: 63.70

Now Bristol.

Mean: 55.89
Median: 56.36

And Buckinghamshire:

Mean: 60.70
Median: 62.53

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

Some areas have predominantly strong open competition.

Some have enormous tournament schedules covering every standard.

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

None of those is necessarily "better".

They're different.

South Wales Is Another Great Example

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

But look at the sample:

505 tournaments.

That's vastly more than Dorset or Wiltshire.

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

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

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

One Tough Venue Doesn't Make A Tough Area

That was the question I started with.

I think the database is already beginning to answer it.

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

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

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

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

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

The numbers are telling us far more than that.

These Rankings Will Change

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

Q4QS coverage isn't geographically equal yet.

Some areas have hundreds of tournaments in the database.

Others have dozens.

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

That's changing.

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

That means today's leader might not remain there.

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

That's part of the fun of building it.

Final Thoughts

So, where is the toughest area to play darts?

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

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

Wiltshire has the strongest median at 63.70.

Buckinghamshire has produced a staggering 89.02 peak.

Worcestershire has reached 83.40.

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

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

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

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

It's the number that makes you ask:

Why?

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

Where Are the Toughest Places to Play Darts South of Birmingham? Q4QS Venue Rankings 2026

 

Over the past few weeks, I've been using the Q4QS Tournament Strength database to look at darts from a slightly different perspective.

I've compared the major tours.

I've looked at the toughest individual tournaments.

I've compared ADC Vaults with recognised international circuits.

Now I'm bringing things much closer to home.

Where are the toughest venues to regularly play darts south of Birmingham?

Not which venue has produced one spectacular tournament.

Not which has the biggest names or the largest prize fund.

But if you repeatedly turned up and entered tournaments at the same venue, where would you statistically be most likely to encounter a strong field?

This is the first version of the Q4QS venue rankings. My current database coverage is strongest across the southern half of Britain, so rather than pretend it represents every part of the country equally, this opening edition concentrates on venues south of Birmingham.

I'll be expanding the geographical coverage in the very near future as more tournaments and venues are added to the database.

First – What Does Tournament Strength Mean?

As always with this series, an important explanation comes first.

Tournament Strength is NOT a tournament average.

A venue with a Tournament Strength figure of 65 does not mean its players average 65.

The Q4QS Tournament Strength Score is a calculated field-strength measure incorporating factors such as player ratings, recorded performances and the overall quality of the players taking part.

In simple terms:

Tournament average tells us how players performed.

Tournament Strength attempts to tell us how difficult the field was.

For this particular analysis, I've taken that one stage further.

Rather than ranking a venue by the strongest tournament it has ever staged, I've looked at its results across multiple events.

A venue needed at least six qualifying tournament records in the database to make the main table.

That gives us a much better indication of where strong fields appear consistently.

Q4QS Toughest Darts Venues South of Birmingham – 2026 So Far

Rank	Venue	Events	Typical Strength	Peak
1	Lindsay Constitutional Club, Cefn Hengoed	17	65.20	73.44
2	The Sartan Club, Bishopsworth	23	64.89	69.26
3	North Star Club, Calne	25	64.77	67.86
4	Bridley Moor & Batchley Social Club, Redditch	14	64.54	68.31
5	Brynmawr Social Club, Brynmawr	28	64.35	67.85
6	Dorchester Trinity Club, Dorchester	20	64.05	68.51
7	Faringdon Football Club, Faringdon	37	63.74	68.59
8	The Academy, Basingstoke	7	63.60	66.37
9	Windmill Hill Golf Centre, Milton Keynes	21	63.53	66.43
10	The Banckers Draft, Minehead	12	63.51	67.55
11	Bradmoor Farm, Aylesbury	42	63.51	68.72
12	Frimley Green Working Men's Club	6	63.39	65.21
13	County Conservative Club, Cardiff	16	63.28	69.35
14	Woodbridge Hill Working Men's Club, Guildford	7	63.28	65.05
15	Bagley Sports & Social Club, Shrewsbury	20	63.25	66.96
16	Topsham Football Club	13	63.04	66.58
17	St Johns Club, Banbury	23	62.94	66.08
18	The Cue Corner, Worcester	7	62.94	66.55
19	Chalvey WMC, Slough	19	62.93	66.96
20	Phoenix Pub, Portsmouth	12	62.79	67.34

Typical Strength is the mean Q4QS Tournament Strength of the qualifying events currently recorded for that venue. This opening ranking focuses on venues south of Birmingham where the current Q4QS database has sufficient coverage. Figures are for 2026 so far and will change as further tournaments and regions are added.

Cefn Hengoed Takes Number One

Perhaps the first surprise is that the current number one isn't one of the venues that immediately springs to mind when talking about English grassroots darts.

It's in Wales.

Lindsay Constitutional Club in Cefn Hengoed leads the rankings with a typical Tournament Strength of 65.20 across 17 recorded events.

And this isn't simply the result of one huge night.

Its median Tournament Strength is also above 64, while its strongest recorded event reaches 73.44.

That's exactly what I wanted this ranking to identify.

Not somewhere that happened to attract one exceptional field.

Somewhere that repeatedly does it.

Sartan Confirms Its Reputation

Second place probably won't surprise many people who follow the South West darts scene.

The Sartan Club in Bishopsworth scores 64.89 across 23 tournaments.

What's particularly impressive is the consistency.

Its median score is almost identical to its overall figure, and its peak reaches 69.26.

That tells us Sartan isn't being pushed towards the top by one or two exceptional competitions.

Strong fields are simply normal there.

For players around Bristol, that's probably confirmation of something many already suspected.

If you turn up at Sartan, expect a difficult draw.

Calne Might Be the Most Impressive of All

Third-placed North Star Club in Calne is particularly interesting.

Its overall figure is 64.77, but its median is actually slightly higher at 65.22 across 25 tournaments.

That's significant.

It means the typical North Star event is consistently landing around the very top of this entire venue dataset.

Its peak of 67.86 isn't the highest in the rankings.

It doesn't need to be.

North Star's strength is consistency.

There appear to be very few easy nights.

Redditch and Brynmawr Complete the Top Five

Bridley Moor & Batchley Social Club in Redditch sits fourth at 64.54, followed by another Welsh venue, Brynmawr Social Club, at 64.35.

Brynmawr is particularly convincing because that figure comes from 28 recorded tournaments.

That's a sizeable sample.

Once a venue maintains a figure above 64 across that many competitions, it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss it as a temporary spike.

Then Comes an Interesting Group

Dorchester, Faringdon, Basingstoke, Milton Keynes and Minehead complete the Top 10.

And there's something worth noticing here.

These aren't all venues concentrated in one recognised darts hotbed.

We're seeing strong tournament environments spread across Wales, the South West, the Midlands, the South Coast and the Home Counties.

That's one of the things I've enjoyed most about building this database.

Strong grassroots darts isn't confined to the places that receive the most publicity.

Faringdon and Bradmoor Deserve Special Mention

Sample size matters.

Faringdon Football Club ranks seventh with 37 recorded events.

Bradmoor Farm in Aylesbury ranks 11th with 42.

Those are two of the largest samples anywhere near the top of the ranking.

Maintaining Tournament Strength figures of 63.74 and 63.51 respectively across that many tournaments is arguably more impressive than reaching a slightly higher figure from six or seven events.

It suggests players attending those venues aren't occasionally encountering strong fields.

They're encountering them over and over again.

And What About Paignton?

This is where comparing peak strength with regular strength becomes fascinating.

In the previous ADC analysis, 8 Ball Bar & Sports in Paignton produced the strongest ordinary Vault event I'd found:

75.08.

That's still an exceptional result.

But across its 12 qualifying events in this analysis, Paignton's typical Tournament Strength is 62.64.

That puts it just outside this Top 20.

There is no contradiction.

It simply answers two different questions.

How strong can Paignton get?

Extremely strong.

Is every Paignton tournament played at that level?

No.

And that's precisely why looking at venues over a longer period gives us a different picture.

Peak Strength Still Matters

It would be wrong to completely ignore those exceptional nights.

Some venues outside the Top 10 have demonstrated how strong they can become when the right field assembles.

Among the notable peaks are:

Paignton – 75.08

Cefn Hengoed – 73.44

Cardiff – 69.35

Sartan Club – 69.26

Bradmoor Farm – 68.72

Faringdon – 68.59

Dorchester – 68.51

Those peaks tell us something different from the main ranking.

A venue's regular score tells us what you're likely to encounter.

Its peak tells us how difficult the room can become.

Both are useful.

Wales Is Producing Some Serious Fields

One of the clearest geographical stories in the rankings is Wales.

Cefn Hengoed is number one.

Brynmawr is fifth.

Cardiff is 13th.

That's three Welsh venues inside the Top 13.

Given how much attention English grassroots darts receives, that's worth highlighting.

The data suggests there are some extremely competitive regular tournament environments on the other side of the Severn.

The South West Is Very Much in the Picture

From my usual South West perspective, there is plenty here too.

Sartan is second.

Calne is third.

Minehead is tenth.

Topsham is 16th.

And immediately below the Top 20 are venues including Paignton, Yeovil and Gloucester.

So while Wales currently supplies the number-one venue, the South West has a very strong presence throughout the rankings.

And the numbers reinforce something I've seen repeatedly while covering darts in this region:

There is an enormous amount of quality operating well below the level that receives national attention.

Does This Mean Cefn Hengoed Is the Hardest Venue to Win At?

Not necessarily.

And that's an important distinction.

Tournament Strength measures the quality of the field.

It doesn't account for everything involved in actually winning a tournament.

A 16-player tournament and a 128-player tournament can have identical field-strength ratings but present very different challenges.

Format matters.

Number of entrants matters.

Match length matters.

Seeding matters.

The draw matters.

So this isn't intended to answer:

"Where is it mathematically hardest to lift a trophy?"

It's answering:

"Which regular venues are attracting the strongest fields?"

That's a subtly different – and I think equally interesting – question.

This Is Only the Beginning

There's another important caveat to these rankings.

This isn't yet intended as a definitive ranking of every darts venue in Britain.

The Q4QS database is growing all the time, and its geographical coverage isn't yet equal everywhere.

That's why I've deliberately started with venues south of Birmingham, where I have enough data to make meaningful comparisons.

I'll be expanding the coverage in the very near future.

As more regions and tournaments are added, we'll start to see whether these venues can hold their positions when they come up against the strongest rooms elsewhere.

And that should make the ranking even more interesting.

And What About My Own Regular Venues?

I was obviously curious to see how some of the venues I regularly cover and play at compared.

Hangar 61 in Patchway comes out particularly well. Across 42 recorded events, it has a typical Tournament Strength of 61.65, with its strongest tournament reaching an impressive 70.03. That leaves Hangar just outside the current Top 20, and there have been several particularly strong fields there recently.

DartAsylum HQ produces a very different number, averaging 53.22 across an enormous 132 recorded events, but that figure needs some context.

DartAsylum runs a huge variety of competitions, including Under-55, Sub-70, junior and other restricted events, so its overall venue figure is naturally pulled down by the type of tournaments it stages. When the stronger fields assemble, the numbers can be very different – DartAsylum's peak Tournament Strength this year is an excellent 73.33.

For me, it's a useful example of why the numbers need a little interpretation. These rankings measure the strength of the tournaments being staged at each venue, rather than rating the venue itself.

Final Thoughts

Looking only at the strongest individual tournament tells us where an exceptional field has assembled.

Looking across repeated tournaments tells us something more useful.

Where is strong darts normal?

Right now, among the venues south of Birmingham sufficiently represented in the Q4QS database, the answer is Cefn Hengoed.

But Sartan and North Star are extremely close.

Redditch, Brynmawr and Dorchester aren't far behind.

And venues such as Faringdon and Bradmoor Farm are producing strong numbers across dozens of competitions.

Perhaps most importantly, the difference between many of these venues is tiny.

A player looking for tough competitive darts doesn't need to enter a PDC event.

Across the southern half of Britain, there are plenty of clubs where strong fields are turning up week after week.

And as the Q4QS database expands, we'll find out just how those venues compare with the rest of the country.

What Are the Toughest Non-Televised Darts Tournaments of 2026 So Far?

 

Over the past few weeks, I've been using the Q4QS Tournament Strength data to look at the competitive landscape of darts from several different angles.

I've compared the world's leading tours, looked at the difference between the Players Championship, Challenge Tour and Development Tour, and most recently investigated just how tough ADC Vault tournaments can become.

This time I'm asking a simple question:

What have been the toughest individual non-televised tournaments of 2026 so far?

There is one important distinction before looking at the rankings.

This analysis does not include the PDC's televised events.

The ranking is based on the floor, qualifying, pathway, regional and open tournaments currently represented in the Q4QS Tournament Strength database. Events such as the World Championship, World Matchplay and other televised PDC tournaments are therefore not part of this comparison.

And, of course, we're only in August. This is a snapshot of 2026 so far, not a final end-of-year ranking.

First – Tournament Strength Is NOT an Average

This distinction is particularly important when looking at the numbers below.

A Q4QS Tournament Strength Score of 93.00 does not mean the players averaged 93.00.

Tournament Strength is a calculated Q4QS measure designed to assess the overall quality of a tournament field. It incorporates factors including player ratings, player performance and the overall strength of those competing.

It allows tournaments from very different levels and parts of the game to be compared using the same scale.

Think of it as a field-strength rating, not a three-dart average.

The Toughest Non-Televised Tournaments of 2026 So Far

Rank	Tournament	Q4QS Tournament Strength
1	PDC Players Championship 4	99.01
2	PDC Players Championship 1	98.15
3	Winmau World Masters – Preliminary Round Finals	97.99
4	PDC Players Championship 3	97.81
5	PDC Players Championship 2	97.75
6	European Tour 1 – Tour Card Holder Qualifier	96.51
7	European Tour 2 – Tour Card Holder Qualifier	95.00
8	UK Q-School Final Stage – Event 2	93.00
9	UK Q-School Final Stage – Event 1	92.81
10	PDC Challenge Tour 1	92.80
11	UK Q-School Final Stage – Event 4	92.61
12	UK Q-School Final Stage – Event 3	92.53
13	PDC Challenge Tour 2	92.46
14	PDC Challenge Tour 9	92.31
15	UK Q-School Stage 1 – Event 1	92.00
16	PDC Challenge Tour 3	91.50
17	EU Q-School Final Stage – Event 3	91.44
18	PDC Challenge Tour 4	91.41
19	EU Q-School Final Stage – Event 4	91.19
20	EU Q-School Final Stage – Event 1	91.18

Players Championship Is Still the Benchmark

Within the non-televised tournaments covered by this analysis, the Players Championship is the clear benchmark.

Players Championship 4 leads the database with a Tournament Strength Score of 99.01.

Players Championship 1, 3 and 2 are also all inside the top five.

These are 128-player fields packed with Tour Card holders, and there simply aren't many places for a weaker player to hide.

You can draw an outstanding player in the opening round and, should you win, potentially face another immediately afterwards.

The Players Championship doesn't have the crowds and atmosphere associated with televised darts, but purely in terms of field strength, the numbers underline just how unforgiving the floor circuit can be.

The World Masters Preliminary Stage Is a Standout

Sitting amongst all those Players Championships is something very different.

The Winmau World Masters Preliminary Round Finals scores 97.99, putting it third in the entire non-televised ranking.

That's an enormous Tournament Strength Score.

And it illustrates something that has become increasingly apparent while producing this series:

the most prestigious part of a tournament isn't necessarily the strongest part statistically.

When large numbers of extremely capable players are fighting for a limited number of places, preliminary rounds and qualifiers can create extraordinarily concentrated fields.

Tour Card Holder Qualifiers Are Brutal

Two European Tour Card Holder Qualifiers are next, scoring 96.51 and 95.00.

Those aren't European Tour stage events.

They're the tournaments players have to survive simply to reach them.

With fields consisting almost entirely of PDC Tour Card holders and only a limited number of qualification places available, straightforward matches are difficult to find.

Some of the strongest fields in darts therefore aren't playing in front of thousands of spectators.

They're playing on the floor trying to earn the right to do so.

Q-School Really Is That Difficult

Anyone who has followed Q-School knows its reputation.

The Tournament Strength data gives us an indication of just how difficult it really is.

UK Q-School Final Stage Event 2 records 93.00.

Event 1 scores 92.81, while Events 4 and 3 register 92.61 and 92.53 respectively.

For comparison, the strongest Challenge Tour event in the current data is 92.80.

That means the strongest UK Q-School Final Stage event actually edges it.

Q-School brings together former Tour Card holders, leading Challenge and Development Tour players, international competitors and ambitious players attempting to break into the professional game.

The numbers reinforce something anyone who has attempted Q-School already knows:

earning a Tour Card is brutally difficult.

Challenge Tour Shows the Depth Below the 128

Challenge Tour 1 reaches 92.80, with Events 2 and 9 recording 92.46 and 92.31.

That's another indication of the depth immediately beneath the PDC Tour.

It can be tempting to see Tour Card holders and non-Tour Card holders as two clearly defined standards of player.

The Tournament Strength data suggests reality is considerably less straightforward.

There is a huge amount of quality immediately outside the professional 128.

And Then It Starts Getting Really Interesting

The overall Top 20 is understandably dominated by Players Championship, Q-School and Challenge Tour events.

But move a little further down the rankings and tournaments from very different parts of darts start appearing alongside one another.

One in particular stands out.

ADC Winmau Championship South – Event 3: 89.02

The ADC Winmau Championship South Event 3 scores 89.02.

That's a significant number.

The event attracted more than 300 players in the Q4QS database, while another Championship South event scores 87.90 and the Friday night warm-up reaches 86.86.

In the previous article in this series I looked at how strong the sharp end of the ADC Vault system could become.

The Championship data takes that story another step further.

The strongest ADC Championship fields aren't at Challenge Tour level – there is still a meaningful gap between 89.02 and the Challenge Tour events above 92.

But they're considerably stronger than the term "grassroots darts" might lead some people to assume.

And Then There's the Dutch Open

The 2026 Dutch Open records 88.56 in the Q4QS database.

There is an important caveat with this figure.

The Q4QS Dutch Open data currently covers the tournament from the Last 1,024 onwards, rather than the complete entry.

The 88.56 Tournament Strength Score should therefore be interpreted as the strength of the section of the tournament represented in my database – not as a measurement of every player who originally entered the Dutch Open.

Even with that qualification, it provides another interesting reference point for the strength of major open darts.

Beyond the Top 20

Once we move away from the PDC-dominated top of the ranking, the variety becomes much more apparent.

Tournament	Q4QS Tournament Strength
ADC Winmau Championship South – Event 3	89.02
UK Q-School Stage 1 – Event 3	88.80
Dutch Open*	88.56
ADC Winmau Championship South – Event 1	87.90
EU Q-School Stage 1 – Event 1	87.86
PDC Europe Next Gen – Weekend 1	86.64
EU Q-School Stage 1 – Event 2	86.59
PDC Asian Tour 2	86.58
Scottish Open	86.56

*Dutch Open score represents the tournament from the Last 1,024 onwards.

This might actually be the most interesting part of the analysis.

We have ADC Championship darts, Q-School, Next Gen, the Asian Tour and major international opens all beginning to occupy similar territory.

They're very different competitions with very different purposes.

But Tournament Strength gives us a way of asking the same question of all of them:

How strong was the field?

A Bigger Tournament Doesn't Necessarily Mean a Stronger Field

Tournament prestige, prize money, crowd size and Tournament Strength are completely different things.

A small invitational event can contain some of the greatest players in the world.

A huge open tournament can contain hundreds or even thousands of players across a massive range of abilities.

And a qualifier can contain an unusually concentrated group of extremely strong players because almost everyone in the room is fighting for only a handful of places.

Tournament Strength isn't designed to tell us which event matters most.

It measures the competitive strength of the field represented in the Q4QS database.

That's a very different question.

And it's producing some fascinating answers.

Final Thoughts

So far in 2026, one thing remains very clear.

Within the non-televised tournaments covered by the Q4QS database, Players Championship darts sets an extraordinarily high benchmark.

But underneath it lies a much more interesting hierarchy.

Tour Card Holder Qualifiers are exceptionally strong.

Q-School really is as brutal as its reputation suggests.

The Challenge Tour demonstrates the enormous depth immediately outside the PDC's professional 128.

And further down, ADC Championships, major opens, Next Gen and international PDC circuits show just how much quality exists across the wider darts world.

Perhaps the biggest lesson from this series continues to be the same one:

The name above the tournament doesn't necessarily tell you how difficult the draw is going to be.

The players in the room do.

And that's exactly what the Q4QS Tournament Strength Score is designed to measure.

These are the standings in August 2026.

There is still plenty of darts to be played.

It will be fascinating to see whether anything can dislodge Players Championship 4 from the top before the end of the year.

Coming Next: The Toughest Darts Venues in Britain

We've compared tours.

We've compared individual tournaments.

Now the next question is:

Where are the toughest places to play?

Senior Darts: Why Can Golf and Snooker Make It Work?

 

There was a thought that occurred to me recently.

Golf has a successful senior circuit. Snooker has established a place for senior competition. Both sports have found ways of bringing familiar names back into meaningful competition long after their peak years on the main tour.

So why has the same idea proved so difficult to establish in darts?

On the surface, darts would seem almost perfect for it.

The sport has generations of recognisable players, an audience with plenty of affection for the stars they grew up watching, and — perhaps most importantly — a game in which age doesn't necessarily prevent somebody from remaining extremely competitive.

Yet attempts to establish senior darts have struggled to develop into something permanent.

The World Seniors Darts Championship generated considerable attention when it arrived in 2022, bringing some famous names back onto a major stage. But the organisation behind the World Seniors Darts Tour subsequently ceased operating, with plans for a 2026 championship cancelled.

That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't an audience for senior darts.

Perhaps the bigger question is whether we have been trying to build the wrong kind of product.

Darts Has a Very Different Problem

There is an important difference between darts and many other sports.

Darts players don't necessarily become uncompetitive simply because they get older.

Look around the professional game and there are numerous examples.

Andrew Gilding remains capable of competing for major honours well into his 50s. Jonny Clayton is still operating at the highest level. Gary Anderson remains capable of producing extraordinary darts, while James Wade and Dave Chisnall continue to compete against players considerably younger than themselves.

At the same time, a new generation featuring players such as Wessel Nijman, Kevin Doets, Beau Greaves, Sebastian Białecki and Niko Springer is pushing through.

It creates an unusual overlap.

In golf, physical changes eventually have a significant effect. Losing distance makes competing against the very best younger players increasingly difficult, which creates a natural reason for a separate senior tour.

Snooker has also been able to create a senior structure alongside its main professional circuit.

Darts isn't quite so straightforward.

If some of the best players aged 50 and above are still good enough to compete with the best players in the world, what exactly is senior darts supposed to be?

That may be one of the biggest questions any future circuit has to answer.

Nostalgia Is Great – But Is It Enough?

There is unquestionably appeal in seeing famous names from previous generations competing again.

That was part of the attraction when the World Seniors Championship appeared.

But nostalgia alone is difficult to turn into a sustainable sporting structure.

There is a difference between:

"I'd love to see that player throw again."

and:

"I'm going to follow this tour every week."

The first can sell tickets for an exhibition or generate interest in an occasional major championship.

The second is what you need to build a tour.

And perhaps senior darts has sometimes tried to jump directly to the big event without first establishing the ecosystem underneath it.

Why Golf and Snooker Have Advantages

Senior golf has something darts has never really established: a recognised place within the overall structure of the sport.

Tours such as the Legends Tour provide schedules, ranking competitions, significant events and an environment in which former elite professionals continue their competitive careers.

Senior snooker has similarly developed an organised structure. The World Seniors Snooker Tour operates alongside the wider sport, while the WPBSA recognises seniors snooker within its participation structure.

That matters.

It makes senior competition feel like a sporting category, rather than simply a collection of former stars being brought together for occasional events.

And that distinction might be crucial for darts.

The Biggest Problem May Actually Be Money

Forget the format for a moment.

Any new darts tour ultimately needs several things to survive: enough players wanting to compete, sufficient prize money to make competing worthwhile, sponsors willing to fund it and an audience large enough to justify the investment.

Unfortunately, each depends upon the others.

Sponsors want an audience.

Players want prize money.

Prize money needs sponsors.

Broadcasters and streaming platforms want interesting players and viewers.

And viewers generally need a reason to become invested in the competition.

It's a difficult circle to break.

Trying to launch immediately with large venues, significant prize funds and television production therefore carries enormous financial risk.

So perhaps the solution is to start at completely the opposite end.

What If Senior Darts Started at Grassroots Level?

This is the part I find most interesting.

What if somebody stopped trying to create a senior equivalent of the PDC and instead built something much smaller?

Imagine an Over-50s darts circuit beginning with relatively inexpensive events around the country.

Local competitions feed into regional rankings.

Those rankings feed into national standings.

Players accumulate points throughout the season.

There could then be regional finals and eventually a national championship.

Entry fees wouldn't need to be enormous. Venues wouldn't need thousands of spectators. Every tournament wouldn't require television-quality production.

Initially, the important thing would simply be getting people playing.

It's closer to the grassroots model we have seen developing elsewhere in darts than it is to creating another professional tour.

And that could solve one of senior darts' biggest problems.

Instead of trying to find an audience and then building a competition for them, build the competition first and allow an audience to form around it.

It Doesn't Have to Start on Television

This is another area where the landscape has changed dramatically.

Twenty years ago, launching a new sporting product without a television deal would have been extremely difficult.

Today?

YouTube changes the equation considerably.

A senior circuit could begin with relatively modest streams and gradually improve the product.

Good commentary.

Player interviews.

Statistics.

Highlights.

Short social-media clips.

Features introducing players people might not know.

Stories about former professionals attempting to compete again.

And importantly, coverage of the ordinary players progressing through the rankings rather than concentrating entirely on famous names.

Suddenly you aren't simply selling nostalgia.

You're creating stories.

If 500 people watch initially, perhaps that becomes 1,000.

Then 2,000.

Then 5,000.

At that stage, conversations with sponsors become considerably easier because there is evidence that an audience actually exists.

The Stars Could Still Be Part of It

None of this means famous former professionals should be excluded.

Quite the opposite.

They could become incredibly valuable.

But instead of being the entire product, they could enhance it.

Imagine grassroots qualifiers producing players who eventually reach a major championship where established names are also competing.

Now there is something at stake.

It isn't simply:

"Here are some players you remember."

It's:

"Can somebody who has spent the year coming through this circuit beat one of the great names of the sport?"

That is a sporting story rather than simply an exhibition.

And sporting stories are what keep people coming back.

Could MODUS Eventually Become Involved?

This is where things could become particularly interesting if a grassroots senior structure actually gained traction.

MODUS Super Series already has many of the things a developing senior competition would eventually need: production facilities, streaming experience, sponsors, an established darts audience and extensive contacts throughout the sport.

That doesn't mean MODUS would necessarily want to operate a senior tour.

But it illustrates why the first objective shouldn't necessarily be finding somebody capable of creating the finished product.

Create something worth investing in first.

If an independent Over-50s circuit eventually had hundreds of players, recognisable rankings, compelling stories and thousands of people watching its biggest events online, it would become considerably more attractive to established operators.

The commercial infrastructure can come later.

But What About the Age Limit?

Even 50 might require some thought.

Darts is unusual because somebody turning 50 isn't necessarily approaching the end of their competitive career.

Perhaps eligibility should begin at 55.

Perhaps there could eventually be Over-50 and Over-60 categories.

Perhaps Tour Card holders should be eligible. Perhaps they shouldn't.

Those are questions that would need answering.

But they are secondary to the bigger issue.

What is senior darts actually trying to achieve?

If the objective is to recreate the PDC with older players, I suspect it will always be difficult.

If the objective is instead to give older players a structured competitive environment — with rankings, progression, championships and eventually meaningful media coverage — the possibilities become much more interesting.

Maybe Senior Darts Has Been Starting at the Wrong End

That's ultimately where my thinking leads.

I don't believe the struggles of previous senior darts ventures necessarily prove that the concept doesn't work.

They may simply demonstrate how difficult it is to begin with the finished product.

Don't start with television.

Don't start with huge prize funds.

Don't start by trying to reunite every famous player from 25 years ago.

Start with players.

Create affordable tournaments.

Build regional and national rankings.

Give people something to qualify for.

Stream what you can.

Tell the stories.

Develop an audience.

Then approach sponsors.

Then improve the production.

And only expand when the numbers justify doing so.

Golf's senior circuit may never be a realistic comparison because the economics and competitive dynamics of the sports are completely different.

Senior darts doesn't necessarily need to become darts' answer to the Champions Tour.

It could become something else entirely.

A genuine grassroots competitive circuit for older players, with former professionals and ordinary competitors sharing the same ecosystem and digital coverage allowing the audience to grow alongside it.

Would it work?

I don't know.

But I do think there is enough evidence to suggest the idea of senior darts isn't the problem.

The way we try to build it might be.

Darts Is Global. But Is Elite Darts Really Global?

 

Walk into almost any major darts tournament today and you'll hear a variety of languages being spoken. The sport has never been more international.

Players now emerge from Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines and many other nations. The PDC has invested heavily in the World Series, regional tours and international qualifiers, helping spread professional darts further than ever before.

But while darts is undoubtedly a global sport, is elite darts truly global?

A look at PDC Tour Card distribution between 2021 and 2026 suggests the answer may be more complicated than many fans realise.

England's Dominance Is Shrinking

For decades England has been the dominant force in professional darts, but that dominance is gradually reducing.

In 2021, English players held 59 of the 128 PDC Tour Cards.

By 2026, that figure had fallen to 43.

At first glance, that looks like evidence that the professional game is becoming increasingly worldwide.

The surprise comes when you look at where that growth has actually occurred.

Europe Is Driving the Change

Rather than seeing dramatic increases from Asia, North America or Oceania, most of the expansion has come from continental Europe.

Germany has more than doubled its representation, growing from seven Tour Card holders in 2021 to fifteen in 2026.

The Netherlands has increased from sixteen to twenty-two, while countries including Poland and Sweden have also strengthened their presence on the professional circuit.

Meanwhile, many of the traditional UK nations have remained relatively stable.

Scotland has fluctuated without sustained growth, Wales enjoyed a brief peak before falling back, and Northern Ireland currently has the same number of Tour Card holders as it did five years ago.

The numbers suggest that professional darts is becoming more European, rather than dramatically more global.

Talent or Opportunity?

This raises an interesting question.

Are European nations producing more elite players simply because they possess more talent?

Or are they benefiting from greater access to opportunity?

The modern PDC calendar may provide part of the answer.

Most Players Championship events, European Tour tournaments and qualifying competitions are held within Europe.

For players based in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium or Poland, travelling to events is relatively affordable. Competing regularly is realistic without crossing continents every week.

For players based in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada or much of Asia, the situation is completely different.

Flights, accommodation, visa requirements and extended periods away from home create financial barriers that European players simply don't face to the same extent.

The talent may already exist.

The opportunities are much harder to reach.

Germany Shows What Is Possible

Germany is perhaps the perfect example of what sustained investment can achieve.

A decade ago, Germany produced relatively few professional players.

Today it boasts one of the strongest national contingents on the PDC circuit.

The growth hasn't happened by chance.

European Tour events, televised tournaments, development opportunities and easier access to professional competition have all helped create a genuine pathway for emerging talent.

The PDC's European expansion has been a clear success story.

Could the Same Happen Elsewhere?

The next challenge may be taking that model beyond Europe.

Sports such as golf and tennis allow players to develop through strong regional tours before earning opportunities on the biggest stages.

Darts already has respected regional organisations, including the CDC in North America, DPA in Australia and New Zealand, and PDC Asia.

However, success on those tours often leads primarily to World Championship qualification rather than providing a sustained pathway into elite professional competition.

Imagine if winners of regional tours earned funded appearances at Players Championship events.

Imagine if top performers received European Tour invitations, Grand Slam qualification opportunities or additional ranking events designed to bridge the gap between regional success and full-time professional darts.

The benefits could be enormous.

The next world-class player could emerge from Tokyo, Manila, Toronto, Auckland or New York just as easily as from London, Rotterdam or Munich.

More competitive nations would mean stronger tournaments, bigger audiences, new commercial markets and an even healthier professional game.

The Next Stage of Global Growth

The rise of Germany demonstrates what can happen when opportunity becomes accessible.

The next great challenge for professional darts may not be finding talent around the world.

It may simply be making elite opportunities available to those talented players.

Because darts is already a global sport.

The next step is ensuring that elite darts becomes truly global as well.