+2
01-11-2026 06:42
+1
28-10-2026 03:57
+0
28-10-2026 03:08
+5
11-10-2026 17:38
06-10-2026 20:17
26-09-2026 22:15
+8
26-09-2026 20:44
+3
26-09-2026 20:36
Loading
+2
Deduce6358
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.01-11-2026 06:42
+1
Deduce6358
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.28-10-2026 03:57
+0
Deduce6358
No point in being there? Champions want to win.28-10-2026 03:08
+5
Deduce6358
I love Jonny but I disagree. The Grand Slam was always supposed to be "champion of champions" type competition. If the top 16 are guaranteed participation in everything there will be so much less jeopardy involved in qualifying and each major tournament will lose its unique flavour which the PDC has worked hard trying to develop. I enjoy following the qualification races towards the end of the year, and while consistency should have its rewards, the truth is Jonny hasn't reached a major final all year or won a single event on the Pro Tour. Being consistent is one thing, but that alone should have consequences as the sport's elite should not be prepared to accept consistently strong performances, their foremost motivation should be to win and this should be what separates them from the rest, not the consistency of their performances. Jonny is expecting that losing should be enough; it shouldn't be, at least not as far as the Grand Slam is concerned.11-10-2026 17:38
+5
Deduce6358
Assuming you qualify as one of the "muppets" in question. Classist too. And since you're so clearly interested in academia, look up "linguistic descriptivism" while you're at it. Oh, and better stay away from the working class sport of darts and maybe offer your insightful analysis to, let's say, croquet instead?06-10-2026 20:17
+1
Deduce6358
I believe he has it in him to qualify for the Worlds as he consistently wins matches, even if it is only one or two at a time, although his recent PC quarter-final run was somewhat encouraging in that regard. I think there is a lot of pressure for him to retire, people in the media accusing him of tarnishing his legacy. I think that is a ridiculous line of thinking. How ungrateful it is to attach terms and conditions to the amazing moments he has provided us over the course of his career. What position are we in to dictate to him how he should manage his career when it is he who achieved those successes in the first place? What's more, this is his life and the passion that sustains it, it is not for us to decide when his career is over when it is he who must bear the genuine ramifications of that decision. Since I'm sure money is not a concern, the only question on which the decision should rest is whether he truly continues to enjoy competing. He has retired once before, but the desire to compete is what brought him back. We see a lot of negative body language and he does genuinely look miserable when he is not playing well, but only he will know when he wakes up the next day whether he wants to go and do it all over again. If he wants to compete, he should, it's as simple as that, this is a decision that should not involve anyone else but him and his family. He should not retire to indulge the whims of the media or the public. What satisfaction would he receive by being forced into retirement? What closure would it bring to such a brilliant career? When Phil Taylor decided to retire, his decision was final and resolute. I believe RvB needs to get to this point himself, no matter how many 70 averages it might take. We see the likes of John Part continue to compete on a regular basis well past his prime, I say more power to him, and who knows, further glory could be around the corner, it's darts after all, you just never know. Sometimes I worry that RvB is acutely aware of the clamour for him to retire and that this pressure may even have an impact on his performances as he begins to question whether there is even a place for him in darts anymore, further compounding his poor form and creating a vicious loop. Perhaps to take his future into his own hands would provide him with a levity and freedom that would lend itself to better performances, not to mention an improved wellbeing. In any case, it is under these conditions that one can clear-headedly and definitively settle an issue so profound as retirement, not when you feel you're being rushed out the door. If his performances can no longer sustain his presence on the tour, so be it; as it stands his card seems safe for this year but is in serious jeopardy next year. He could always allow himself to drop off the tour naturally rather than forfeiting his place in the top 64, this could provide a sense of finality while offering a route back through Q-School if he so desired; after all, he's done it before. In conclusion, I just hope that RvB can play - or not play - for his own sake, rather than anyone else's, so that when the time comes he can be in no doubt as to his decision, leaving no lingering questions, so that he can reflect with no regret or uncertainty on the marvelous career he has had.26-09-2026 22:15
+8
Deduce6358
Luke Littler has been good for the sport of darts, no question. But he is not above it. For his sake and ours, he needs to be put in his place sometimes, rather than having his every whim catered to. That is not how you build a good person nor a good sporting organisation, and it's beginning to have consequences.26-09-2026 20:44
+3
Deduce6358
Extremely disappointing decision. It used to be that, along with major events and Euro Tours, the Players Championship series constituted one of three standards against which successful darts players could be measured, one of three challenges every successful darts player should be expected to master to consider themself among the elite. Now they are dead weight in the darting calendar, and player turnout and the standard of competitiveness will reflect that. The truth is that Luke Littler and other big names would rather play lucrative exhibitions than put in the hard graft that being a successful dart player requires. It undermines the authority of the PDC and the game in general. So what do they do about it? Give them exactly what they want. Of course, why wouldn't they? They are their star attractions. It is ironic that an organisation formed in protest by the sport's elite should be undermined and disrespected by their contemporary equivalents, but the PDC had a chance to stand up to them with a firm message: play 2 events all year and expect the final to be played without you. Instead, they caved in. These events will be hardly worth playing anymore and this decision may have grave consequences for the future of floor events at the elite level. Some may say the calendar is overstuffed, yet these elite players have more than enough time to play plenty of exhibitions. The Premier League in particular is gruelling, but busy players are not expected to play every event, they are expected to manage their playing schedule carefully in order to apportion their time and energy appropriately. Clayton and Humphries, for instance, both sit in the top 20 of the Players Championship and European orders of merit, in addition to competing in the Premier League; they have proven it is absolutely possible and this change is an insult to their efforts in effectively managing their calendars. I think we are seeing players who simply think they are too good for Pro Tour events, arrogance which should be punished rather than rewarded as we are seeing here. Furthermore, why should success in Euro Tours qualify you for the Players Championship Final? The PDC are blurring the lines between those three disciplines of darting excellence, and in so doing destabilising the very foundations upon which the organisation and its success is built. Some may say I'm overreacting, but this, in addition to the PDC's subservience and snivelling obsequiousness toward their biggest assets, makes me fear for the future of professional darts.26-09-2026 20:36