Jan Dekker sealed a spot in the PDC World Championship second round thanks to a surprise 3-1 victory over fellow Dutchman Jelle Klaasen. With the 12th seed defeated, Dekker will take on youth sensation Dimitri van den Bergh in the last 32, after a win in which the 27-year-old's finishing proved vital.
Klaasen looked up for it from the very first visit, breaking the Dekker throw immediately and holding without his compatriot getting close to a double. A first 180 punished yet more slack scoring from Dekker, who was struggling to find his feet. This time, Dekker had a chance to check out, but once he missed double 16 for a 104 finish, Klaasen landed double 10 to take the first set without hassle.
The 2016 World Championship semi-finalist landed double four with his last dart in hand to deny Dekker a chance to break early in the second set. Players Championship quarter-finalist Dekker held, and then put the pressure on with a maximum. That pressure told; Klaasen could not finish. Dekker, on 100, could. 'Double' Dekker has never had many problems on the outer ring, and more efficient finishing levelled matters. 1-1, and all to play for.
A maximum was the perfect way for Dekker to kick off the first leg of the third set; a 128 checkout was the perfect way to end it. The tide had well and truly turned. The world number 48, so strong on his doubles, showed a superb clinical side. Klaasen's darts were beginning to drag, the big scores not flowing with the same regularity. But Klaasen always has something in the locker - a 101 finish levelled the tie. But Dekker again went one better, landing Shanghai to retake the lead. The parade of ton-plus finishes couldn't last forever, though. 74 was all Dekker needed to go 2-1 up, having won six of the last eight legs.
Spurred into life, Klaasen started the fourth set with five perfect darts. After a flirtation with the wrong double, the 33-year-old was able to hold off his junior compatriot. Dekker made it seven successful doubles out of 10 with a 56 finish, before Klaasun spurned about as many attempts en route to retaking the lead in the set. The biggest weapon in Klaasen's arsenal, the power scoring, needed to be deployed. And so it was. A 180 set up 124, but Klaasen fluffed his lines. The usually reliable Dekker missed double 16 twice but, when Klaasen entered the madhouse and did not return, a third chance was taken greedily. Tasked with sealing the win against the throw, Dekker did not falter. He will fancy his chance in the last 32, even if van den Bergh is in hot form.
Klaasen looked up for it from the very first visit, breaking the Dekker throw immediately and holding without his compatriot getting close to a double. A first 180 punished yet more slack scoring from Dekker, who was struggling to find his feet. This time, Dekker had a chance to check out, but once he missed double 16 for a 104 finish, Klaasen landed double 10 to take the first set without hassle.
The 2016 World Championship semi-finalist landed double four with his last dart in hand to deny Dekker a chance to break early in the second set. Players Championship quarter-finalist Dekker held, and then put the pressure on with a maximum. That pressure told; Klaasen could not finish. Dekker, on 100, could. 'Double' Dekker has never had many problems on the outer ring, and more efficient finishing levelled matters. 1-1, and all to play for.
A maximum was the perfect way for Dekker to kick off the first leg of the third set; a 128 checkout was the perfect way to end it. The tide had well and truly turned. The world number 48, so strong on his doubles, showed a superb clinical side. Klaasen's darts were beginning to drag, the big scores not flowing with the same regularity. But Klaasen always has something in the locker - a 101 finish levelled the tie. But Dekker again went one better, landing Shanghai to retake the lead. The parade of ton-plus finishes couldn't last forever, though. 74 was all Dekker needed to go 2-1 up, having won six of the last eight legs.
Spurred into life, Klaasen started the fourth set with five perfect darts. After a flirtation with the wrong double, the 33-year-old was able to hold off his junior compatriot. Dekker made it seven successful doubles out of 10 with a 56 finish, before Klaasun spurned about as many attempts en route to retaking the lead in the set. The biggest weapon in Klaasen's arsenal, the power scoring, needed to be deployed. And so it was. A 180 set up 124, but Klaasen fluffed his lines. The usually reliable Dekker missed double 16 twice but, when Klaasen entered the madhouse and did not return, a third chance was taken greedily. Tasked with sealing the win against the throw, Dekker did not falter. He will fancy his chance in the last 32, even if van den Bergh is in hot form.
ADVERTISEMENT
claps 0visitors 0
Just in
Popular news
Latest comments
- She is a professional. If darts is her income, she is a professional. Same as Adrian Lewis, Martin Adams. A tour card just means someone can play on the PDC tour. You could even make a case that Clayton wasn't a professional (until recently I believe) because he had employment elsewhere.BandB04-11-2026
- She's technically not a professional though as she doesn't hold a pro tour card.mr-pablo04-11-2026
- Such a shame that lakeside has been reduced to this. Fantastic venue,and previously a great tournament. Not any morerick6703-11-2026
- Seems to me that the top 16 players pick and choose whatever they want to play. Good,all the money will get spread out more. They get more money from exhibitions than tournaments so let them all withdrawrick6703-11-2026
- Play all legs and the winners split the pot. Luke gets the lot of he wins them all. If your occupation is darts player you can't enter, regardless of ability.BandB01-11-2026
- I'm quite a jaded person all things considered, but to be honest I found Beat Luke Littler to be pretty entertaining. It certainly wasn't seamless, which is to be expected given the lack of precedence, but I actually think the pacing was pretty good, the production was impressive, and there was a good sense of humour and levity to it. I think it was a very ambitious undertaking but one that, for the most part, paid off. I liked the system with the four pots and I think it added to the drama and intrigue. I enjoyed seeing the diverse range of entrants and learning about their backstories. I think the interactivity was pretty clever and well-integrated. The panel was a little incoherent at times; Lee Mack shone however, and his improvisational skills were appreciated during some more awkward interstitial moments. As far as the darts is concerned, it was a shame that the format didn't allow Littler to get into full flow. You obviously don't want him to steamroll everyone but you want to feel like you're getting the full Littler package rather than seeing him struggling to get out of first gear. I will say that his leg against Jayden Walker was very impressive, but it was mostly downhill from there. The attraction revolves around Littler being this untouchable, indomitable force, yet the format doesn't really allow him to fulfil that characterisation. As for Fallon Sherrock, she was mightily impressive and deserved the victory. It is a testament to her unshakeable character that she was able to bang in a 14-darter under such mind-bending pressure. Everything that has been said about the misleading marketing is valid, though they were clear about their eligibility criteria and were able to offload the responsibility somewhat by bringing the viewers into the decision-making process in real time. What is clear though, is that Fallon played the game according to the rules, and she should not be criticised for that, much less abused. I will admit though that it is a kick in the teeth for those true amateurs who committed time and money to the course, and I would also question those who think pub players would have no chance, given that some of Littler's winning legs were dispatched in 7 visits to the board! The great thing about darts is that it isn't so much that amateurs cannot replicate the feats of brilliance pulled off by professionals of the sport, than it is that they simply cannot replicate the consistency of their output, something that this format almost entirely removes from the equation. It should also be noted that, financially, Fallon certainly stands to benefit much less in relative terms from the paycheque than would your average pub thrower, as I'm sure she nets a fair income from the lucrative exhibition circuit alone. What I do hope is that she might use this as an opportunity to really build up a head of steam heading into the new season, as it seems long overdue that she come through Q-School and really take it to the pros on a week-in week-out basis, but whatever she chooses to do, she has certainly achieved enough already for one if not several lifetimes, so who am I to dictate terms? To conclude though, I will state once again that I found Beat Luke Littler to be a pretty enjoyable evening of entertainment. I do feel for the contestants who never actually had the chance to try their luck against the world #1, although I suppose it comes with the format, but all which inevitably raises the question: will Netflix be tempted to do it all again next year? It's hard to say. Whether it would be financially viable, I can't weigh in there. One point I have been making though, and which I touched on earlier, is that the entire concept relies on a public perception that Littler is more or less unbeatable, and that certainly hasn't been the case of late. If the execs had been trying to pitch the show in recent months while Littler has seemed vulnerable, rather than when he was mopping up almost every major title on the calendar, it would certainly be a tougher sell. We will have to see in about 6 months' time whether Littler can still reliably command perception as a near-unstoppable force in darts, and then we'll have a clearer idea about whether we should expect a second helping. Even as a one-off experiment though, and with all the controversy taken into account, I still don't think they disgraced themselves by any means, and that will probably be my lingering assessment of the event when all is said and done.Deduce635801-11-2026
- Fair play to Fallon. But...shows the mockery when a professional players wins what was meant to be an amateur v Pro event, Littlers performance was poor, and what about the players who didn't get a game? Would have been better if the pot was split amoungst all the winners and they all got a leg.BandB31-10-2026
- Not even slightly interestedrick6730-10-2026
- And yet the PDC has decided to aggravate this problem by doubling the Players Championship Finals field from 2027. I can't imagine there will be fewer withdrawals next year with even less reason to turn up. I can only hope that a whole slew of Challenge Tour top-up players receive enough prize money in the absence of much of the elite, that some of the more complacent among them struggle to scrape into even a heavily diluted field! More semi-pro players will get to test their mettle, but the standard of competition will be much inferior. It could hardly be said that the Players Championship series will provide an opportunity for darts' second string to test their Tour Card credentials anymore, but at least it will underscore the achievements of those Challenge Tour players of current and previous years, who were able to prove themselves as more than capable of competing with, and beating, the elite of the sport on a consistent basis, and reaping the due rewards.Deduce635828-10-2026
- No point in being there? Champions want to win.Deduce635828-10-2026