One of the biggest debates in professional darts centres around the PDC Order of Merit. Are the world's top players simply the best players, or does the structure of the professional game make it harder than ever for new names to break into the elite?
It's a question I've heard discussed countless times, particularly around the European Tour. The Top 16 receive automatic entry and seeded positions, while those further down the rankings often have to battle through qualifiers before they've even thrown a dart on the main stage.
Rather than simply offering an opinion, I wanted to look at the numbers.
A remarkably exclusive club
Looking at the year-end PDC Top 20 between 2010 and 2025 reveals just how difficult it is to join the sport's elite.
Across those sixteen seasons there were 321 Top 20 positions available (2019 included a tie for 20th), yet they were occupied by just 63 different players.
That immediately tells us one thing.
Breaking into the Top 20 is far harder than many people probably realise.
Even more striking is the annual turnover. On average, over 82% of the previous year's Top 20 remained there the following season. In a typical year, only three or four places became available.
Think about that for a moment.
A player isn't realistically competing for one of twenty places. They're competing for one of perhaps three opportunities, while the remaining positions are occupied by players who have already established themselves.
Staying there is just as impressive
Once players reach the elite, many stay there for years.
James Wade appeared in every year-end Top 20 from 2010 through to 2025.
Michael van Gerwen has spent fourteen consecutive years inside the Top 20.
Dave Chisnall has managed thirteen consecutive appearances, while Peter Wright and Simon Whitlock both enjoyed runs of twelve straight seasons.
This isn't simply a list of talented players. It demonstrates remarkable consistency over long periods.
At the other end of the scale, only eleven players appeared in the year-end Top 20 on just one occasion during the study period. Reaching the Top 20 is rarely a one-season fluke.
So is the system fair?
This is where opinions begin to differ.
One argument is simple.
The best players win the biggest tournaments, therefore they deserve to be seeded, receive automatic entries and benefit from those rewards.
It's difficult to argue against success being rewarded.
However, there is another side to the debate.
Once a player reaches the Top 16, they gain regular access to the biggest ranking events, avoid qualification for many tournaments and often receive more favourable draws through seeding.
Those advantages don't guarantee victories, but they do provide more opportunities to earn ranking money than players trying to break through from outside the elite.
The statistics alone don't prove that the system keeps players in the Top 20.
What they do show is that very few places become available each year, meaning the pathway into the elite is incredibly narrow.
Is there a changing of the guard?
Yes, but perhaps not as quickly as many people think.
The early part of the study was dominated by names such as Phil Taylor, Adrian Lewis, Raymond van Barneveld, Terry Jenkins and Simon Whitlock.
Gradually they were replaced by Michael van Gerwen, Gary Anderson, Peter Wright, Michael Smith and Gerwyn Price.
Now we're seeing another generation emerge, led by Luke Humphries, Luke Littler, Gian van Veen, Josh Rock and Martin Schindler.
What's interesting is that this change rarely happens overnight.
Most players don't jump from outside the Top 100 into the Top 20 in a single season. Instead they tend to climb steadily over several years before finally making the breakthrough.
Luke Littler is the obvious exception. His rise has been extraordinary and almost certainly shouldn't be viewed as the normal route to the top.
Can we spot the next breakthrough?
This is where I think statistics become really interesting.
The PDC Order of Merit measures prize money won over a two-year period.
My own Q4QS rankings are designed to measure current playing strength using a different methodology.
That means they don't always agree.
Sometimes a player appears high in the Q4QS rankings long before they reach the very top of the PDC Order of Merit.
That doesn't mean they'll definitely become a Top 20 player.
But history suggests that players who consistently produce high averages, win regularly and continue to climb the rankings often follow a similar pathway to those who have broken through before them.
Over the coming months, I'll be comparing today's Q4QS leaders with previous generations of players to see whether we can identify the next stars before they establish themselves on the biggest stages.
The verdict
The figures leave little doubt that breaking into the PDC Top 20 is one of the hardest achievements in professional darts.
With only a handful of places changing hands each year, new players need sustained excellence rather than one outstanding season.
Whether the current structure simply rewards the very best players or also makes it harder for newcomers to force their way through is a debate that will continue.
What the numbers do prove is that reaching the Top 20 is only half the battle.
Staying there is an achievement in itself.
This is only the first part of the research. Over the coming weeks I'll be looking more closely at the journeys of previous breakthrough players, comparing them with today's emerging talent and asking one simple question:
Who will be the next player to force their way into the PDC's elite?
