"There were other options apart from those two": James Wade maintains Aspinall and Dobey shouldn't have been in Premier League Darts
PDC
James Wade remains firm in his belief that Nathan Aspinall and Chris Dobey did not earn their places in the 2024 Premier League Darts line-up. The selection of Aspinall, in particular, has raised eyebrows, despite his strong track record in past editions of the tournament.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dobey returned this year after making his debut in 2023, while Aspinall was handed a wildcard despite enduring a difficult season plagued by injuries. His inclusion has sparked debate, with both Mike De Decker and former world number six Dave Chisnall previously voicing their disapproval. Chisnall even suggested Aspinall’s popular walk-on song, Mr. Brightside by The Killers, may have played more of a role than his recent form.
Wade, a 10-time major champion, echoed these sentiments during the UK Open, where he hinted that commercial interests play a role in the Premier League selection process. “I think two players that got in were probably because they are part of something that’s bigger than darts,” he said.
Speaking further on talkSPORT Breakfast, Wade stood by his earlier comments, clarifying that they weren’t intended as an attack but rather as an honest assessment.
“It wasn’t a criticism. It was an opinion. There’s a couple of reasons why one of them got in and that would be Nathan (Aspinall). Nathan’s never, ever had a bad Premier League. He’s always produced good darts. He’s always been there or thereabouts.
“I think there’s only one time where he’s not finished inside the top four. Do I think he should have been in this year? No, I don’t. But I know why they put him in. He’s reliable and he’s good at what he does. The crowd do like him.
“I think probably there’s another player that should have gone in his place, and the same again for Chris Dobey. I think there could have been other players. There were other options apart from those two.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite the criticism, Aspinall hasn’t shied away from the challenge. After eight nights of action, he currently sits sixth in the Premier League table, with Dobey in seventh. Aspinall has delivered a mixed bag of results—two finals, two semifinals, and a few early exits.
Most recently, he edged out Michael van Gerwen 6-5 before falling to world champion Luke Humphries in the semifinals. Just days later, he showcased his pedigree by claiming the European Darts Trophy in Germany—his maiden PDC European Tour title—beating Ryan Joyce 8-4 in the final and pocketing £30,000 in prize money.
If Aspinall maintains this form, he’ll be a strong contender for next year’s Premier League—potentially silencing Wade, who believes rankings should carry more weight in selection decisions.
"I think there’s a reason why someone’s ranked inside the top eight or the top ten. I think rankings should be looked at a little bit more than they are.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It does get looked at as a business because it is. You’ve got other players that aren’t as popular. Let’s put it that way.”
Wade also named Jonny Clayton as a player he felt was unfairly overlooked. “Jonny Clayton should have been in it, in my opinion. Is he as popular as Nathan? Probably not. But he’s up there in the rankings.”
The 41-year-old concluded by taking aim at the recurring invitations extended to certain players who, in his view, haven't consistently delivered.
“It’s not criticism, it’s an opinion. We saw it with other players over the years that have been constantly re-invited back to the event. They haven’t even done the business when they’ve been in it, and they’re also not doing the business in the other tournaments.
“Is that right or is that wrong? I guess from a business point of view, it’s the right decision because they’re there to sell tickets and they’re there to make the PDC money. But is it on fair merit all the time?”
ADVERTISEMENT
James Wade is critical of the way the Premier League Darts lineup has come about
Samuel GillChief Content Officer
Samuel Gill is the Chief Content Officer (CCO) of DartsNews.com, a role he has held since 2020. He is responsible for editorial governance across the platform, including setting content standards, overseeing accuracy and consistency, and guiding long-term editorial strategy across professional darts coverage. Since joining, he has contributed more than 10,000 articles and editorial pieces, playing a central role in the development and daily operation of the site.
Based in Leicester, Samuel has extensive experience in darts media and has been closely involved in coverage of the professional darts circuit for several years. Within the UK darts community, he is a recognised figure known for his consistent editorial output and ongoing reporting on major tournaments and developments across the PDC calendar.
In his current role, Samuel works closely with editors and writers to ensure content meets clear journalistic standards, with a focus on source verification, editorial consistency, and timely updates when new, confirmed information becomes available.
claps 1visitors 1
Just in
Popular news
Latest comments
- 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
- Littler lost to crabtree in the youth/junior/whatever you call it. He had no point in being there. He's unfortunately now got to the stage,he feels all he has to do is get on the stage to win. Well,I hope he realises part of his fear factor has gone. Happened to Taylor,then van gerwen,and it's causing him to realise pretty sharp,he isn't unstoppable. It's good for the sport,not 1 single player in my 60 years has ever,or will ever be, unbeatable.rick6725-10-2026
- I think it's great to see Mark Webster looking good,good ladrick6725-10-2026