- This topic has 34 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
- Posts
Yes De Decker was poor after an ok start. He’s never kicked on from the World Grand Prix win last year.
That first set between Chisnall and Sherrock was like watching two people playing in the pub.
I don’t know what the averages were but Sherrock only had a 13% success rate on the doubles. That means you are going to win nothing.
Chisnall played well in set two and his 160 checkout was the only bit of quality in the whole match. But otherwise he was poor and knows he got very lucky. Most other players would have beaten him.
Gurney won that by timing shots like that. There wasn’t much in the overall stats and Greaves actually won one more leg but that was a suckerpunch.
Another narrow loss to a good player, she’s going to go on a run in a big event sooner rather than later.
Chisnall didn’t get away with abysmal finishing this time, although he nearly did. It actually improved massively for a while but the damage was done. He won the 180 count 11-0 which must be somewhere near a record for a loss. Especially in a 5 set match with 21 legs played.
Trebles for show, doubles for dough
Superb doubling from Hood who was 11/11 until he landed on match dart and ended up missing a few after that
Hope he’s buys his Chinese restaurant and its in Somerset…. I will be eating thereCharles Darwin to conquer the World
It was a great performance from Hood but I suspect that was his peak. If he can improve again from there, he will have to be taken seriously but I suspect he will run out of steam.
I’ve half lumped on Searle to beat Clayton
Clayton would have been out if the Swedish chap had hit his doubles
Searle looks in the zone
When I say half lumped, I only bet small anyway ..
As we all know form and momentum can change quick with these type of players but I fancy it so I’ve playedCharles Darwin to conquer the World
I hope it is a good final tonight and Littler does not simply run away with it.
My finger hovered over taking 10/1 against Van Veen earlier in the competition but I didn’t bother. I wish I had now!
Brilliant match yesterday, by far the standout of the latter stages which to be honest have largely been a bit of a damp squib. Some great individual performances but lots of one sided matches.
Obviously if Littler plays his best then he wins and he has extra gears that we haven’t seen so far this tournament because he hasn’t needed them, bar perhaps a brief period against Cross. However van Veen has the game to capitalise should Littler drop off which is a big if. Ultimately I think Littler will have too much and will pull away towards the end but it could be close early doors.
1/1 Luke Littler To Win & Luke Littler Most 180s – Was 4/7
William Hill… fiver for a bit of interest, prefer to see Van Veen win mind you
Charles Darwin to conquer the World
Demolition job. He’s simply too good.
Brilliant tournament overall and especially for the first four rounds though. The expansion to 128 has been a success. Despite the numbers the standard was generally very good and will only improve as the game grows. As I said, there was a growing inevitability in the latter stages but even then we had the odd surprise package.
I half agree, half disagree.
Littler is simply the best, on that we can all agree. He is now so dominant that all the other players know they cannot beat him if he plays at or near his best. Some of them look beaten before they have even thrown a dart. If he stays motivated, he can break every record, including Taylor’s number of titles.
Where I disagree slightly is about the expansion to 128 players. To my mind, the Championship goes on for too long. The worst issue is that once Littler appeared on the opening night, we didn’t see him again for something like ten days. That is simply much too long to go without seeing the best player.
I realise the PDC, Sky Sports and the owners of Alexandra Palace will point to sold out crowds every session and the amount of money the event makes – but I honestly believe the Championship would be better purely from a sporting point of view with only 64 players. Which won’t happen, of course!
Yes Littler definitely has the beating of many before they’ve started like Taylor did. The potential of breaking the 16 titles mark is still a long way off and will be very difficult but the fact that we’re even talking of it says a lot.
I do see your point that it is a long tournament with 20 days of play plus the breaks (could be 19 if every first round day was a double session). I did find the 96 player format a bit messy though and it was tough on the qualifiers who had to win what was sometimes the biggest match of their life and then go out again later the same evening against a top seed. The underdog wins by players who wouldn’t otherwise have made it in provide the best justification for me but as you say it will all be about the money regardless of what we think!
It does require a fairly deep talent pool to work so they will need to ensure that it is maintained and ideally improved or we will start to see a lot of 3-0 matches early on.
I take your point about the 96 players and it being tough on the qualifiers having to play twice in the same session. But to my mind the main issue with 128 players is the amount of time it takes before we see the best players again. Bar the occasional match, I thought the Championship dragged before Christmas.
I know there are 128 players in the tennis Grand Slams and most of them have no chance. But at least those matches are played on multiple courts and are over inside two days. We don’t have to wait so long to see the best players.
The other issue which needs to be mentioned is: none of the female players made it beyond the first round again. OK, Beau Greaves was arguably unlucky. If Gurney had not hit a 144 checkout, there is a strong possibility she would have won. But the others did not offer much.
I realise the PDC and Sky like to suggest darts is a sport where men and women can compete equally. But is that really the case? The average man is bigger and stronger, has a longer reach and can throw the dart harder and faster. All of that has to be an advantage. And maybe men also have better hand/eye coordination when it comes to throwing objects, due to the way our species has evolved?
Perhaps we will see some better female players emerge in the next few years after having been inspired by Sherrock and Greaves. But I have my doubts they could defeat the best male players over a long format match.
I read some online speculation last night about Beau Greaves being given a place in the upcoming Premier League. I think that would be a risky move.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Beau. I think she is a terrific player and an asset to the sport. But her ranking does not justify a place amongst the elite players. I would be worried that the week in, week out grind of the Premier League might affect her confidence if she started losing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.