I've been looking for these for a while.
Today, a business trip to BBC Newcastle to do a little TV recording took me to St. James' Metro Station, and hence right past St. James' Park football ground. Well, I thought, if they can't supply me with a set of Magpies darts flights no one can, and now I have a set :o)
I still need a dartboard, of course, but I'm getting there :o)
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Darts is a "Working Class" Sport
All I will say about the football is bring on an England v. Germany darts match :o)
I must apologise to my regular readers (both of them) for the absence of a recent blog post. My work occasionally requires me to travel, and the last couple of weeks have been hectic. Apologies.
I feel I must get something off my chest which has been bugging me for a long time.
Over the last couple of weeks, I have heard darts described as a "working class" sport, as if that somehow means it should be considered less valid than other sports. When I've pointed out to the people claiming this that Wayne Rooney is not "of the Hampshire Rooneys" and didn't go to Eton, I've received, more or less, the response "Yes, but darts is different isn't it?".
I think class is irrelevant in sport (and indeed should be in any other walk of life); however, I've given up trying to convince people that darts isn't exclusively "for the working classes". That being so, I'm going to try a different tack. Instead of convincing people that darts isn't "working class", I'm going to start arguing that they are "working class".
Most people who talk about class have never actually read Marx. Marx is one of the most misunderstood writers in all history, and particularly when he talks about class.
Class, as defined by Marx, is about the ownership of the means of production. The bourgeoisie own the means of production, be it companies, factories, shops, whatever. The crucial point is that because of their ownership, they cannot be sacked. It does not matter whether you own Microsoft or the Durham City Nanomart, you own it and it cannot be taken away from you.
If you WORK for Microsoft or the Durham City Nanomart, it makes no difference whether you earn a million dollars a year or £4.00 an hour; the key point is that because you do not share in the ownership of the company (capital), you can be dispensed with at any time because you are, in effect, selling your labour and skills to the company. If they decide that they do not want to buy, or that your price is too high, you have to accept that. You are therefore selling your labour, which is the only thing you own, and therefore a member of the proletariat; you are working class.
It does not matter if you go to work wearing a suit, sit in an office, earn a large salary, have a mortgage, pay school fees, read the Daily Mail, vote Tory and attend Ascot every year; you are, as defined by Marx, working class if you cannot control your own destiny through the ownership of capital. The fact that you can command a much higher premium for your labour than your hammer and torch wielding forebears is irrelevant; the fact that you have a University education, belong the golf club and sit at a computer all day is irrelevant.
The overwhelming majority of the British population is "working class", because they do not have any control over the companies for which they work. Unless you own enough shares in Macdonalds to stop them being able to fire you, you are "a worker" because, whatever your skills are and however much you can charge for them, the only thing you own is your own labour. People talk about how there is no such thing as the working class any more, but that is rubbish; just because most people don't forge steel or mine coal for a living doesn't mean that they have any more ownership of capital than they did before. You might support capitalism, you might benefit from capitalism, but none of those things make you bourgeois or a capitalist.
So the next time some snooty sod tells you darts is "working class", just point out that they almost certainly are too :o)
I must apologise to my regular readers (both of them) for the absence of a recent blog post. My work occasionally requires me to travel, and the last couple of weeks have been hectic. Apologies.
I feel I must get something off my chest which has been bugging me for a long time.
Over the last couple of weeks, I have heard darts described as a "working class" sport, as if that somehow means it should be considered less valid than other sports. When I've pointed out to the people claiming this that Wayne Rooney is not "of the Hampshire Rooneys" and didn't go to Eton, I've received, more or less, the response "Yes, but darts is different isn't it?".
I think class is irrelevant in sport (and indeed should be in any other walk of life); however, I've given up trying to convince people that darts isn't exclusively "for the working classes". That being so, I'm going to try a different tack. Instead of convincing people that darts isn't "working class", I'm going to start arguing that they are "working class".
Most people who talk about class have never actually read Marx. Marx is one of the most misunderstood writers in all history, and particularly when he talks about class.
Class, as defined by Marx, is about the ownership of the means of production. The bourgeoisie own the means of production, be it companies, factories, shops, whatever. The crucial point is that because of their ownership, they cannot be sacked. It does not matter whether you own Microsoft or the Durham City Nanomart, you own it and it cannot be taken away from you.
If you WORK for Microsoft or the Durham City Nanomart, it makes no difference whether you earn a million dollars a year or £4.00 an hour; the key point is that because you do not share in the ownership of the company (capital), you can be dispensed with at any time because you are, in effect, selling your labour and skills to the company. If they decide that they do not want to buy, or that your price is too high, you have to accept that. You are therefore selling your labour, which is the only thing you own, and therefore a member of the proletariat; you are working class.
It does not matter if you go to work wearing a suit, sit in an office, earn a large salary, have a mortgage, pay school fees, read the Daily Mail, vote Tory and attend Ascot every year; you are, as defined by Marx, working class if you cannot control your own destiny through the ownership of capital. The fact that you can command a much higher premium for your labour than your hammer and torch wielding forebears is irrelevant; the fact that you have a University education, belong the golf club and sit at a computer all day is irrelevant.
The overwhelming majority of the British population is "working class", because they do not have any control over the companies for which they work. Unless you own enough shares in Macdonalds to stop them being able to fire you, you are "a worker" because, whatever your skills are and however much you can charge for them, the only thing you own is your own labour. People talk about how there is no such thing as the working class any more, but that is rubbish; just because most people don't forge steel or mine coal for a living doesn't mean that they have any more ownership of capital than they did before. You might support capitalism, you might benefit from capitalism, but none of those things make you bourgeois or a capitalist.
So the next time some snooty sod tells you darts is "working class", just point out that they almost certainly are too :o)
Monday, 14 June 2010
I do not have a shrine to Phil Taylor, I swear!
The other day a visitor to my humble abode rather sarkily suggested that I had a shrine to Phil Taylor on my dining table.
This picture should allow readers to judge for themselves...
I placed the signed photo on my dining table, against the wall, since I happened to have nowhere else to put it.
The two tea light candles were there already!
Honest :o)
This picture should allow readers to judge for themselves...
I placed the signed photo on my dining table, against the wall, since I happened to have nowhere else to put it.
The two tea light candles were there already!
Honest :o)
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Should Darts be in the Olympics?
Given that, for some bizarre reason, the PDC has not yet recognised my writing talents and decided to pay me (or at least expense me) to travel to all their non-televised events and do write-ups for them - if anyone from the PDC is reading this: hint, hint... :o) - I shall have to find some way of filling the barren wasteland between televised events with stuff to blog about.
One way of doing this is to revisit some of the hoary old darting debates, and I thought I'd start with this one: should darts be in the Olympics?
My personal answer to this is simple: absolutely not.
The Olympics is the most over-rated sporting event ever to spring forth from the mind of man; it does about as much for global peace, harmony, integrity and the noble competitive spirit of all peoples as the Eurovision Song Contest. Why bringing darts into this melange of pompous corporate posturing about Olympic glory and the noble spirit of athleticism would be a good idea is frankly beyond me.
I do not wish to underplay the achievements of any Olympic participant in their chosen sport or discipline; personally I have little interest in watching athletics, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise the enormous talent, dedication and competitive spirit that is involved, and I respect the choice of people who are interested in athletics or any other Olympic sport (though I wish more people were prepared to extend that recognition and respect to darts). Also, it should be said, for many smaller sports the Olympics represents their biggest opportunity to enter the public imagination; I respect that too. Showcasing global sport isn't the issue; it's the Olympic system, with its bureaucracy, over-blown ideology and fanfare which is the problem.
During July 2005, I was rooting for the French to be saddled with the task of building expensive white elephants for a total anti-climax, but hey ho...
Anyway, I digress.
This particular debate is very good at bringing forth the preconceptions, snobberies and prejudices that many people who scoff at the idea of darts as a sport labour under, and does get the juices flowing on both sides as darters leap up to defend their sport from those detractors who, for some reason (probably related to unhappy childhoods), seem to have nothing better to do than rubbish the achievements and interests of others. Some people who oppose the idea of darts as a sport do so with reasonable, coherent and respectful arguments; sadly, many do not.
A good example can be found in this article from the Guardian in 2006 - "Should Darts be included in the Olympic Games?", in which Phil Taylor argues yes and Tom McNab, former director of coaching for British Athletics, argues no. It's rather old, but it demonstrates the prejudices very neatly.
The title of the article concerns appearing in the Olympic Games. Many sports are recognised by the International Olypmic Committee (and are thus Olympic sports), but do not actually appear in the Olympic Games. These include Bridge, Chess and Ballroom Dancing. Why should these be recognised Olympic sports, but not darts? It's not always clear whether McNab is arguing against darts appearing in the Games or becoming an Olympic sport at times, but his views of darts would presumably be much the same regardless, so it is those I shall examine.
Permit me to fisk:
"The first problem for darts obviously is the fact that its governing body is not actually recognised by the International Olympic Committee. For the games beyond London 2012, only sports represented by recognised federations may be considered to become Olympic sports and only Olympic sports may become part of the Olympic programme. The list of recognised federations does not include darts."
Well spotted, Tom. Recognition is what we (well, some of us) are looking for.
"Secondly, in a more trivial way, it's hard to imagine putting forward a sport in which you can drink beer while doing it. There are a few sports I can think of where you might have a drink afterwards but not many that permit you to have one beforehand."
I would be the first to admit that darts has had a problem in this respect (Andy Fordham being the most obvious example); however, darts has made enormous progress in cleaning up this aspect of the sport over the last 20 years. The World Darts Federation (which includes the BDO) Tournament Rules prohibit alcohol consumption during matchplay; the Darts Regulation Authority Rules (which the PDC plays by) prohibit the consumption of alcohol during televised matchplay, but do not, I must admit, specifically forbid it during any matchplay. Since I do not watch non-televised PDC matches, I cannot comment on what goes on during them (if anyone else can, please do) but I would be very surprised if many, if any, professional players drank during matchplay.
Since McNab sticks up for chess at one point, here are some enlightening quotes from the English Chess Forum:
"I always find the amount of alcohol consumed by players at chess matches staggering (no pun intended), particularly considering most of them drive to and from the venue.
There's probably a genuine legal issue there."
"Even at the European Club Cup in Feugen , whilst drinking was banned at the board due to it being a high level event (the only event in the world at the time to offer the 7 round norm). Outside the playing hall was a beer van where you could drink during the game if you desired. Note that you had like 40 of the worlds top 60 at this event."
Except in cases where someone who has had a drink could pose a danger to themselves or others (shooting, archery, motorsport etc.) I can think of few sports in which the governing body directly prohibits alcohol consumption for a specified period prior to a match; football club managers, for example, set their own rules. If a sportsman was obviously affected by alcohol during play then that would surely be dealt with under general rules of good conduct? If the amount consumed is insufficient to have any affect on their standard of play or conduct, who cares? Dennis Taylor admitted that before the final frame of the 1983 Snooker World Championship he had a drop of brandy to steady his nerves. Is that such a terrible thing?
"Thirdly, I think the most important point is that for a sport to be considered for the Olympics it must represent a minimum level of physical activity. I know people will say that darts does entail a certain level but then so does marbles. Look at the bellies on these guys; some of them are more like places than people."
This sounds like he's seen one picture of Andy Fordham, so he's qualified to call darts players generally overwieght (Simon Whitlock, Steve Beaton, Colin Osborne, Jelle Klaasen, Co Stompe...?). And being overweight automatically negates any level of dedication, focus, competitiveness and physical skill? That's just prejudice - "You can't be a sportsman, you're too fat." The derogatory language doesn't help either.
And in shooting, competitors shout "Bang!" before sprinting down the range and pushing their bullets into the target do they? I enjoy rifle and pistol shooting; they require a lot of skill to do well and are rightly counted as sports. Yes, guns are heavy; you need exceptionally steady hands, arms and controlled breathing to shoot accurately, but then you need them in darts too. Unless you're participating in a pentathlon or a war, shooting does not require great levels of aerobic physical exertion.
"It is not easy to define a sport - you can make all sorts of arguments both ways. Where sports involve aesthetic elements, such as ice skating or dressage, there is an argument to be made against those because of the subjective nature of the competition. But look at the level of physical exertion involved in something like ballroom dancing, which could also be considered for the Olympics. Consider Darren Gough on Strictly Come Dancing for evidence of that. Ballroom dancing has a huge number of participants around the world as well and I wouldn't argue against it being included in the games."
"Fishing people would make a similar argument based on the numbers participating, but again it's difficult to define fishing as a sport on the grounds of physical exertion. It is at the parameters of where sport ends and a pastime begins. Sport England regards weight training and jogging as sports so it is not a matter of whether there is direct competition involved."
One way of doing this is to revisit some of the hoary old darting debates, and I thought I'd start with this one: should darts be in the Olympics?
My personal answer to this is simple: absolutely not.
The Olympics is the most over-rated sporting event ever to spring forth from the mind of man; it does about as much for global peace, harmony, integrity and the noble competitive spirit of all peoples as the Eurovision Song Contest. Why bringing darts into this melange of pompous corporate posturing about Olympic glory and the noble spirit of athleticism would be a good idea is frankly beyond me.
I do not wish to underplay the achievements of any Olympic participant in their chosen sport or discipline; personally I have little interest in watching athletics, but that doesn't mean I don't recognise the enormous talent, dedication and competitive spirit that is involved, and I respect the choice of people who are interested in athletics or any other Olympic sport (though I wish more people were prepared to extend that recognition and respect to darts). Also, it should be said, for many smaller sports the Olympics represents their biggest opportunity to enter the public imagination; I respect that too. Showcasing global sport isn't the issue; it's the Olympic system, with its bureaucracy, over-blown ideology and fanfare which is the problem.
During July 2005, I was rooting for the French to be saddled with the task of building expensive white elephants for a total anti-climax, but hey ho...
Anyway, I digress.
This particular debate is very good at bringing forth the preconceptions, snobberies and prejudices that many people who scoff at the idea of darts as a sport labour under, and does get the juices flowing on both sides as darters leap up to defend their sport from those detractors who, for some reason (probably related to unhappy childhoods), seem to have nothing better to do than rubbish the achievements and interests of others. Some people who oppose the idea of darts as a sport do so with reasonable, coherent and respectful arguments; sadly, many do not.
A good example can be found in this article from the Guardian in 2006 - "Should Darts be included in the Olympic Games?", in which Phil Taylor argues yes and Tom McNab, former director of coaching for British Athletics, argues no. It's rather old, but it demonstrates the prejudices very neatly.
The title of the article concerns appearing in the Olympic Games. Many sports are recognised by the International Olypmic Committee (and are thus Olympic sports), but do not actually appear in the Olympic Games. These include Bridge, Chess and Ballroom Dancing. Why should these be recognised Olympic sports, but not darts? It's not always clear whether McNab is arguing against darts appearing in the Games or becoming an Olympic sport at times, but his views of darts would presumably be much the same regardless, so it is those I shall examine.
Permit me to fisk:
"The first problem for darts obviously is the fact that its governing body is not actually recognised by the International Olympic Committee. For the games beyond London 2012, only sports represented by recognised federations may be considered to become Olympic sports and only Olympic sports may become part of the Olympic programme. The list of recognised federations does not include darts."
Well spotted, Tom. Recognition is what we (well, some of us) are looking for.
"Secondly, in a more trivial way, it's hard to imagine putting forward a sport in which you can drink beer while doing it. There are a few sports I can think of where you might have a drink afterwards but not many that permit you to have one beforehand."
I would be the first to admit that darts has had a problem in this respect (Andy Fordham being the most obvious example); however, darts has made enormous progress in cleaning up this aspect of the sport over the last 20 years. The World Darts Federation (which includes the BDO) Tournament Rules prohibit alcohol consumption during matchplay; the Darts Regulation Authority Rules (which the PDC plays by) prohibit the consumption of alcohol during televised matchplay, but do not, I must admit, specifically forbid it during any matchplay. Since I do not watch non-televised PDC matches, I cannot comment on what goes on during them (if anyone else can, please do) but I would be very surprised if many, if any, professional players drank during matchplay.
Since McNab sticks up for chess at one point, here are some enlightening quotes from the English Chess Forum:
"I always find the amount of alcohol consumed by players at chess matches staggering (no pun intended), particularly considering most of them drive to and from the venue.
There's probably a genuine legal issue there.""Even at the European Club Cup in Feugen , whilst drinking was banned at the board due to it being a high level event (the only event in the world at the time to offer the 7 round norm). Outside the playing hall was a beer van where you could drink during the game if you desired. Note that you had like 40 of the worlds top 60 at this event."
Except in cases where someone who has had a drink could pose a danger to themselves or others (shooting, archery, motorsport etc.) I can think of few sports in which the governing body directly prohibits alcohol consumption for a specified period prior to a match; football club managers, for example, set their own rules. If a sportsman was obviously affected by alcohol during play then that would surely be dealt with under general rules of good conduct? If the amount consumed is insufficient to have any affect on their standard of play or conduct, who cares? Dennis Taylor admitted that before the final frame of the 1983 Snooker World Championship he had a drop of brandy to steady his nerves. Is that such a terrible thing?
"Thirdly, I think the most important point is that for a sport to be considered for the Olympics it must represent a minimum level of physical activity. I know people will say that darts does entail a certain level but then so does marbles. Look at the bellies on these guys; some of them are more like places than people."
This sounds like he's seen one picture of Andy Fordham, so he's qualified to call darts players generally overwieght (Simon Whitlock, Steve Beaton, Colin Osborne, Jelle Klaasen, Co Stompe...?). And being overweight automatically negates any level of dedication, focus, competitiveness and physical skill? That's just prejudice - "You can't be a sportsman, you're too fat." The derogatory language doesn't help either.
"Darts does involve a physical skill, however, but no obvious physical exertion. Throwing a dart to a small area involves a great deal of physical skill, but then so does skipping. Chess is regarded as a sport in Russia but the top chess players do have to train: physical activity stimulates the brain and so they engage in that in order to play better chess."
I hadn't realised that the rules of chess require players to engage in a minimum level of physical activity to qualify for tournaments; oh wait, they don't. So you have to exercise to play chess, because it stimulates the brain, but in darts you just switch your brain off? That's just prejudice as well; anyone who has bothered to watch top-level darts can see how much mental strength and focus it requires.
"Where it falls down is that darts does not really involve any degree of physical exertion. Darts players would level that argument against archery or even curling, but they do at least involve some; in fact drawing back the string of a bow involves quite a lot. And curling requires the competitors to exert themselves physically as well."And in shooting, competitors shout "Bang!" before sprinting down the range and pushing their bullets into the target do they? I enjoy rifle and pistol shooting; they require a lot of skill to do well and are rightly counted as sports. Yes, guns are heavy; you need exceptionally steady hands, arms and controlled breathing to shoot accurately, but then you need them in darts too. Unless you're participating in a pentathlon or a war, shooting does not require great levels of aerobic physical exertion.
"It is not easy to define a sport - you can make all sorts of arguments both ways. Where sports involve aesthetic elements, such as ice skating or dressage, there is an argument to be made against those because of the subjective nature of the competition. But look at the level of physical exertion involved in something like ballroom dancing, which could also be considered for the Olympics. Consider Darren Gough on Strictly Come Dancing for evidence of that. Ballroom dancing has a huge number of participants around the world as well and I wouldn't argue against it being included in the games."
"Fishing people would make a similar argument based on the numbers participating, but again it's difficult to define fishing as a sport on the grounds of physical exertion. It is at the parameters of where sport ends and a pastime begins. Sport England regards weight training and jogging as sports so it is not a matter of whether there is direct competition involved."
You read it here first folks: it's not about direct competition, it's all about physical exertion. What he fails to tackle, which I believe in a balanced argument he should, is why cue sports are classed as Olympic sports. If cue sports can be classed as Olympic sports, why not darts? If he doesn't believe they should be, it seems only fair to say so. In any case, Sport England has recognised darts as a sport since March 2005, almost a year before this article was written.
"When the modern Olympics started, Baron de Coubertin wanted to include cricket - and it was, in the Paris games of 1900. They had the same problem of which sports to include in those days."
"In the early years of the Olympics what was included and what was not was pretty arbitrary. In the 1900 games croquet was also in, and you don't exactly lose your breath playing that. But just because croquet was in the Olympics 100 years ago does not mean darts should be in now."
You don't lose your breath playing chess either, but a couple of paragraphs ago you were defending it. You don't have to have an active physical training regime to be a good chess player (though I do not doubt that many do), nor is there any requirement for chess players to pass a physical fitness test before entering tournaments. Either a proper sport requires aerobic exertion during matchplay or it doesn't; make up your mind.
"The spirit of Olympism in terms of sportsmanship and competition remains but I think the IOC has to be quite objective about which sports it admits. There is a minimum level of physical activity which is required and that means darts cannot be considered."
I'm always a little sceptical about the "Spirit of Olympi[ani?]sm" (see doping scandals passim); when applied to darts, it often seems to be code for "we don't want fat people with tattoos and chunky jewellery in the same event as our clean-cut heroic-looking athletes". And even if there is a minimum level of physical activity required for participating in the Games themselves (shooting?), there evidently isn't for being an IOC recognised sport, otherwise bridge and chess wouldn't be there.
End of fisk.
There is a certain snobbery against darts; the fact that, more than any other, it's seen as a working class, common man's game, whilst not stated out loud, seems to pervade much of the public discussion about the recognition of darts as a sport, by the IOC or anyone else. Many of the things said about darts to prove it's not a proper sport apply to other sports which are recognised, but that seems to be forgotten about.
The snobbery row has often surfaced regarding Honours for success in sport. Eric Bristow and Phil Taylor both received the MBE (Bristow in 1989, Taylor in the 2000 New Year's Honours List but lost it following a misdemeanour in a camper van after a tournament in Scotland; he has always denied any wrong-doing, and it's difficult to believe your heroes are villains, but I'm not going to speculate), but we all know that if Phil Taylor had been 15 times World Show Jumping Champion, he'd be in a civil partnership with Prince Charles by now.
There is, however, a much greater snobbery than class (football, after all, is primarily a "working class" sport) at play here, and it can be seen in McNab's use of the words "Spirit of Olympism"; sporting snobbery. Darts, darts players, and darts fans, simply do not fit the image of pure sporting nobility - heroic, clean-cut, sinewy young men and women, stepping forward in a quasi religious atmosphere of reverential sporting glory, epitomised by the Olympic torch, to demonstrate what is best and noblest in human sporting endeavour.
It applies particularly to athletics, which seems to resent its low TV viewing figures and therefore portrays itself as the only pure and noble forum in which human sporting endeavour can be defined according to the "Olympic" ideals, unsullied by any false notions of popularity. Chanting, drinking darts fans simply do not have a place in this golden (yet false) vision of the nobility of man epitomised through pure athletic competition. This is the over-blown ideology of the Olympics to which I referred earlier.
I personally do not believe that the noblest and purest spirit of mankind's sporting endeavours can be exclusively revealed by men and women running around a track very fast, or jumping higher than each other; however, for people who take this "Olympic" propaganda to heart (especially the promoters of professional athletics, since it is the only way they can make themselves feel superior to far more popular sports) it is extremely important, and the fact is that the type of people who watch and play darts have no place in their ideology of sporting purity.
Phil Taylor does not look like a sporting hero, an embodiment of man's pursuit of sporting excellence, to these people; the fact that he is more successful than any other sportsman in recent history does not matter; to protect the "purity" of sport as they see it, they must rubbish darts.
I'm not bothered about Olympic recognition for darts myself, but it is an issue which gets to the heart of people's prejudices against darts, darts players and darts fans.
Very long post, very tricky issue. For those who enjoy a long weekend read :o)
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Dartboards
As mentioned at the end of my last post, I currently lack a dartboard at home.
The one I used as a kid is still attached to a wall in my parents' house, but it's basically knackered and I need a new one.
Until I get one the only place I have to throw darts is my local pub; whilst this has certain distinct advantages, it lacks the blessed cloak of anonymity which beginners like to have when practising - and, frankly, the thought of one of the regulars challenging me to a game (we're friendly like that in the north east) is terrifying since it would make the recent Phil Taylor v. Kevin Painter fixture look like a two-sided game.
So, I need to buy a dartboard, to enable me to reach the standard at which I would feel confident about throwing darts in the presence of people who aren't terrible at it :o)
I was on fairly solid ground purchasing darts - cheapest decent set going - but I must confess I'm a bit more at sea when it comes to choosing a dartboard. I don't need something heinously expensive with wires the thickness of dental floss, but I would like something that will last a long time, and wires small enough to keep dart resharpening to a minimum. As far as I can tell dartboards are made of pretty much the same material, so I'm wondering what the major differences are between the wide variety of boards on offer, and what the extra money would buy me if I went for one of the more expensive options (at the moment I'm looking in the £20-£30 range).
If anyone has any advice on choosing a dartboard, or can enlighten me as to what the differences between board types are (beyond wire size), please do. Also, is it true that Winmau boards have slightly smaller double and treble beds than Unicorn boards, or is that just a rumour put about to try and show that BDO players are better than PDC players?
On a related note, thanks to Rags for being the first person to leave a comment on this blog (and for saying nice things about my darts). I hope others will follow his shining example... :o)
The one I used as a kid is still attached to a wall in my parents' house, but it's basically knackered and I need a new one.
Until I get one the only place I have to throw darts is my local pub; whilst this has certain distinct advantages, it lacks the blessed cloak of anonymity which beginners like to have when practising - and, frankly, the thought of one of the regulars challenging me to a game (we're friendly like that in the north east) is terrifying since it would make the recent Phil Taylor v. Kevin Painter fixture look like a two-sided game.
So, I need to buy a dartboard, to enable me to reach the standard at which I would feel confident about throwing darts in the presence of people who aren't terrible at it :o)
I was on fairly solid ground purchasing darts - cheapest decent set going - but I must confess I'm a bit more at sea when it comes to choosing a dartboard. I don't need something heinously expensive with wires the thickness of dental floss, but I would like something that will last a long time, and wires small enough to keep dart resharpening to a minimum. As far as I can tell dartboards are made of pretty much the same material, so I'm wondering what the major differences are between the wide variety of boards on offer, and what the extra money would buy me if I went for one of the more expensive options (at the moment I'm looking in the £20-£30 range).
If anyone has any advice on choosing a dartboard, or can enlighten me as to what the differences between board types are (beyond wire size), please do. Also, is it true that Winmau boards have slightly smaller double and treble beds than Unicorn boards, or is that just a rumour put about to try and show that BDO players are better than PDC players?
On a related note, thanks to Rags for being the first person to leave a comment on this blog (and for saying nice things about my darts). I hope others will follow his shining example... :o)
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
My Darts
Having talked a lot about pro darts recently, I thought I'd discuss darts at the very opposite end of the spectrum :o)
Readers of this blog have already seen my darts, since they're the ones displayed in the blog title - 19 gram, steel and brass-plated Unicorn Level Ones, obtained for a discount £3.50 courtesy of a sports shop in the Metro Centre, Gateshead.
A pretty basic choice, but they throw well enough and are just fine for a darts player of my level - beginner, basically. The most consistent bit of advice I received was 'Don't spend a lot of money on your first set of darts' and I've certainly taken that advice to heart - not a sliver of tungsten in sight.
For anyone who doesn't know, tungsten is a much denser metal than steel, which enables tungsten darts to be much slimmer than steel darts for any given weight. This allows for extra tight grouping, but given that RAF pilots equipped with cluster bombs are currently achieving tighter grouping than I am it's not really something I have to worry about :o)
I did have a more expensive set when I played as a kid, but they seem to have been thrown out by my mother when I left home, though for some reason she didn't chuck out the darts wallet, and the 3 sets of flights it contained, which I'm now using. I'd like to find a set of Newcastle United flights to complement my old Spurs flights - two football teams in my life: Spurs from my childhood down south, and Newcastle from my adulthood up north. You wouldn't have thought that would be too difficult in Durham, but live and learn.
I'm getting very fond of my darts though - I suspect every darter has a soft spot for their first set of darts. If anyone has any tales of their first darts that they'd like to share, or any tips for a beginner on how to practice and improve, please do share them :o)
All I need now is a dartboard...
Readers of this blog have already seen my darts, since they're the ones displayed in the blog title - 19 gram, steel and brass-plated Unicorn Level Ones, obtained for a discount £3.50 courtesy of a sports shop in the Metro Centre, Gateshead.
A pretty basic choice, but they throw well enough and are just fine for a darts player of my level - beginner, basically. The most consistent bit of advice I received was 'Don't spend a lot of money on your first set of darts' and I've certainly taken that advice to heart - not a sliver of tungsten in sight.
For anyone who doesn't know, tungsten is a much denser metal than steel, which enables tungsten darts to be much slimmer than steel darts for any given weight. This allows for extra tight grouping, but given that RAF pilots equipped with cluster bombs are currently achieving tighter grouping than I am it's not really something I have to worry about :o)
I did have a more expensive set when I played as a kid, but they seem to have been thrown out by my mother when I left home, though for some reason she didn't chuck out the darts wallet, and the 3 sets of flights it contained, which I'm now using. I'd like to find a set of Newcastle United flights to complement my old Spurs flights - two football teams in my life: Spurs from my childhood down south, and Newcastle from my adulthood up north. You wouldn't have thought that would be too difficult in Durham, but live and learn.
I'm getting very fond of my darts though - I suspect every darter has a soft spot for their first set of darts. If anyone has any tales of their first darts that they'd like to share, or any tips for a beginner on how to practice and improve, please do share them :o)
All I need now is a dartboard...
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
The Taylor Affect
A post over at Andy's Blog is looking forward to the World Matchplay (the next televised PDC tournament, at the end of July) with some trepidation:
http://superstarsofdarts.blogspot.com/2010/06/taylor-triumphs-but-is-it-too.html
I guess it's inevitable after so many years of Phil Taylor being the dominant force in professional darts that the question is asked: is Taylor's dominance actually good for the sport?
I take Andy's point that for some people the sense that they already know what the outcome of the tournament will be can take the edge off watching. However, I'd like to look at things from a somewhat more optimistic point of view.
Phil Taylor has done an enormous amount to bring darts as a sport into the mainstream, and there are a large number of people out there who only got into watching darts because they heard about Phil Taylor. Those people, for whom watching Taylor is a highlight, shouldn't be put off by a continuation of his dominance. Taylor playing like he has done recently is a great thing to watch in and of itself; much excitement comes from wondering whether or not he'll surpass himself.
Also, we know for a fact that Phil Taylor is not unbeatable because we've seen him get beaten before, so there's also a certain frisson that comes from wondering whether anyone will be able to stop him this time. He sets the level which every other player wants - or should want - to beat.
Andy is right to point out that it is up to the other players to take the game to Taylor and play at his level, and he's also right to point out that even the best players can play below their usual standard when up against the Power; during the UK Open one commentator referred to this as 'The Taylor Affect'.
One thing that the darts detractors (and despite recent improvements, there are many) consistently underestimate is the psychological nature of darts, and the amount of mental strength that is required to play at the top level. To regularly put two or three darts into an area of board with roughly the surface area of a 10p piece from 7 feet 9 1/4 inches away takes a throwing action with incredible consistency. This in turn requires every muscle and sinew in the hand, arm and shoulder to act in exactly the right way; even the slightest doubts or emotions or rush of adrenalin can cause loss of focus and concentration (making the arm muscles tense up a bit, or the fingers linger on the barrel at the release, or the shoulder move out of line or the wrist bend too much) and throw the shot off target. On a board which was designed (by Brian Gamlin in 1896) to punish inaccuracy to the greatest possible extent, this matters a great deal.
Regular snooker players will know how this works: when Ronnie O'Sullivan is stroking in shots the length and breadth of the table, and everything just seems to drop in perfectly, the commentators say not that he's aiming well, but that he's cueing well. That's because aiming is a relatively small part of the shot; what really counts, and what is most difficult, is ensuring that the cue action is consistent, accurate and controlled enough to put the cue ball and the object ball where the player's eyes are telling him they should go. A little too much tension in the arm can result in, say, screwing the cue ball back too far or sending the object ball towards the pocket at the wrong angle.
Therefore 'The Taylor Affect' could aso be put down, not just to players crumbling, but on them being too focused on beating the Power and too emotionally invested in the match. When things start to go wrong, as they did for Gary Anderson in the UK Open Final, determination to get back into the match can make matters worse; then frustration and resignation set in, and as soon as that happens the match is as good as over.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Phil Taylor is only human; it is possible, although difficult, to rattle him and cause him to pull shots or slip off line - Denis Ovens demonstrated that in the UK Open Semi Final when Taylor missed several shots at a double. The players who achieve this are those who come at him like a bat out of hell, break him early and open up a lead, putting him under pressure; once Taylor gets his head in front it's almost impossible to pull him back.
I think Andy is a little harsh on Gary Anderson's performance in the UK Open Final. His scoring stats (2 180, 15 140+ and 19 100+) are not that different to Taylor's (3, 16, 20). However he hit just over a quarter of the doubles he went for, whilst Taylor hit just over half; doubling is the weakest aspect of Anderson's game and this must have played on his mind. Also, Taylor and Anderson get on well; I thought seeing Anderson take his defeat in a good spirit showed character, rather than standing by the oche with a face like a slapped arse. Finally, I suspect that when Anderson said he was happy he meant with the tournament overall, which he should have been, rather than with the final specifically. I'm sure he wasn't happy with second place, but he still had a good tournament.
I'd like to ask Andy to comment on this, but his blog isn't configured for comments and there are no contact details (reading a few posts down should explain why); if he wants to comment he's very welcome to, as is anyone else...
Overall, I think Taylor attracts many more people to darts than he puts off, but the other players do need to raise their games to his level more often. Of course, many young players have grown up watching Taylor, and I can't think of a better darting role model for them.
http://superstarsofdarts.blogspot.com/2010/06/taylor-triumphs-but-is-it-too.html
I guess it's inevitable after so many years of Phil Taylor being the dominant force in professional darts that the question is asked: is Taylor's dominance actually good for the sport?
I take Andy's point that for some people the sense that they already know what the outcome of the tournament will be can take the edge off watching. However, I'd like to look at things from a somewhat more optimistic point of view.
Phil Taylor has done an enormous amount to bring darts as a sport into the mainstream, and there are a large number of people out there who only got into watching darts because they heard about Phil Taylor. Those people, for whom watching Taylor is a highlight, shouldn't be put off by a continuation of his dominance. Taylor playing like he has done recently is a great thing to watch in and of itself; much excitement comes from wondering whether or not he'll surpass himself.
Also, we know for a fact that Phil Taylor is not unbeatable because we've seen him get beaten before, so there's also a certain frisson that comes from wondering whether anyone will be able to stop him this time. He sets the level which every other player wants - or should want - to beat.
Andy is right to point out that it is up to the other players to take the game to Taylor and play at his level, and he's also right to point out that even the best players can play below their usual standard when up against the Power; during the UK Open one commentator referred to this as 'The Taylor Affect'.
One thing that the darts detractors (and despite recent improvements, there are many) consistently underestimate is the psychological nature of darts, and the amount of mental strength that is required to play at the top level. To regularly put two or three darts into an area of board with roughly the surface area of a 10p piece from 7 feet 9 1/4 inches away takes a throwing action with incredible consistency. This in turn requires every muscle and sinew in the hand, arm and shoulder to act in exactly the right way; even the slightest doubts or emotions or rush of adrenalin can cause loss of focus and concentration (making the arm muscles tense up a bit, or the fingers linger on the barrel at the release, or the shoulder move out of line or the wrist bend too much) and throw the shot off target. On a board which was designed (by Brian Gamlin in 1896) to punish inaccuracy to the greatest possible extent, this matters a great deal.
Regular snooker players will know how this works: when Ronnie O'Sullivan is stroking in shots the length and breadth of the table, and everything just seems to drop in perfectly, the commentators say not that he's aiming well, but that he's cueing well. That's because aiming is a relatively small part of the shot; what really counts, and what is most difficult, is ensuring that the cue action is consistent, accurate and controlled enough to put the cue ball and the object ball where the player's eyes are telling him they should go. A little too much tension in the arm can result in, say, screwing the cue ball back too far or sending the object ball towards the pocket at the wrong angle.
Therefore 'The Taylor Affect' could aso be put down, not just to players crumbling, but on them being too focused on beating the Power and too emotionally invested in the match. When things start to go wrong, as they did for Gary Anderson in the UK Open Final, determination to get back into the match can make matters worse; then frustration and resignation set in, and as soon as that happens the match is as good as over.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Phil Taylor is only human; it is possible, although difficult, to rattle him and cause him to pull shots or slip off line - Denis Ovens demonstrated that in the UK Open Semi Final when Taylor missed several shots at a double. The players who achieve this are those who come at him like a bat out of hell, break him early and open up a lead, putting him under pressure; once Taylor gets his head in front it's almost impossible to pull him back.
I think Andy is a little harsh on Gary Anderson's performance in the UK Open Final. His scoring stats (2 180, 15 140+ and 19 100+) are not that different to Taylor's (3, 16, 20). However he hit just over a quarter of the doubles he went for, whilst Taylor hit just over half; doubling is the weakest aspect of Anderson's game and this must have played on his mind. Also, Taylor and Anderson get on well; I thought seeing Anderson take his defeat in a good spirit showed character, rather than standing by the oche with a face like a slapped arse. Finally, I suspect that when Anderson said he was happy he meant with the tournament overall, which he should have been, rather than with the final specifically. I'm sure he wasn't happy with second place, but he still had a good tournament.
I'd like to ask Andy to comment on this, but his blog isn't configured for comments and there are no contact details (reading a few posts down should explain why); if he wants to comment he's very welcome to, as is anyone else...
Overall, I think Taylor attracts many more people to darts than he puts off, but the other players do need to raise their games to his level more often. Of course, many young players have grown up watching Taylor, and I can't think of a better darting role model for them.
Monday, 7 June 2010
UK Open - Day 4: Super Sunday
Picture that scene in Star Wars when Obi-wan Kenobi confronts Darth Vader on board the Death Star - "Now the circle is complete. When I left you I was the learner; now I am the master", "Only the Master of Evil, Darth." Cue light sabres...
Now imagine that Obi -wan proceeds to kick seven kinds of crap out of Darth Vader, and you've got some idea of what happened when Phil Taylor took on Adrian Lewis in yesterday's Quarter Finals (except that if Adrian Lewis had struck him down, Phil Taylor couldn't have become more powerful than we can possibly imagine, because he already is). Master defeated Apprentice 10-2.
Gary Anderson got through to the semis, as most expected he would. What they weren't expecting was Tony Ayres, a relative unknown, to beat James Wade 10-9 in a nail-biting 19 leg epic, with world no. 62 Ayres winning his first ever ranking Quarter Final.
Another great result was Denis Ovens beating Wes Newton to reach his first televised semi-final in something like 57 events. Nothing personal, Wes, but Denis Ovens is a great veteran player, with abilities way beyond his track record in televised events, who's been playing since the days when Bristow was King and Taylor was making bog handles, so to see him play brilliantly on TV and get some recognition was just great.
Not that I did see the Quarter Finals, mind, as I was walking around Newcastle in the p-ing rain. Still, I think Newcastle looks best in the grey and rain - more atmospheric around the Tyne bridges; if you want sunshine, go to Malaga. Anyway, after a thoroughly pleasant afternoon in the jewel of the North East (and having recovered from the shock of being charged £8 for two pints of lager at a certain public house on the Quayside, which shall remain nameless) I was back home, champing at the bit for the semis and finals.
First up was Anderson-Ayres. We were all rooting for Ayres - everyone loves an outsider don't they? - but he just couldn't sustain the form that had got him that far, and Anderson rapidly began to dominate, eventually taking the match 10-2. Ominous for Anderson was his finishing; such was his dominance that he should have won 10-0, but he missed several important doubles. Anderson is a fantastic scorer, but doubles have been his stumbling block and against a player like Phil Taylor you don't need stumbling blocks. Hats off to Tony Ayres; a great performance to get to the semis - players like him are what the UK Open is all about.
Next to square up were Ovens and Taylor. I'm generally non-partisan when watching darts, and I like Phil Taylor very much (he recently sent me a great personally dedicated and signed photo for my profoundly disabled mate's 20th birthday :o) ) but I must confess I was rooting for Ovens.
The Heat didn't disappoint either, coming out of the traps like a Whippet with an itch. He broke Taylor's throw (and very few people have done that recently) in the first leg with a 14 darter, then threw a great Bullseye finish to hold his own throw. 3-2 up at the break, Ovens extended his lead to 4-2. Taylor was looking rattled - no-one had come at him like this all tournament - but raised his game superbly, winning 5 straight legs to sieze back the initiative. Ovens finally succumbed 10-5 - a score line which didn't accurately reflect how well he played: he hit 19 ton plus scores, 9 140+, 6 maximums (to Taylor's 19, 12 and 7) and finished with an average of 100.68. One person who certainly wasn't surprised was Taylor: long-time pros know just how good Denis Ovens is away from the crowds and cameras, and for me this was the best match of the evening.
So we moved on to the Final. We were expecting big things from Anderson-Taylor, billed as the best England-Scotland fixture since Bristow-Wilson, but the match didn't quite live up to it in the end. Anderson's double trouble resurfaced with a vengeance, and he was clearly feeling the pressure. It was a great shame, as he'd played brilliantly up til the final, but there are a great deal of positives he can take from this tournament too, and hopefully we'll be seeing more of him in the PDC in future. Phil Taylor clinched his 68th major title 11-5.
Congratulations to Phil and everyone else who took part in the UK Open. This tournament has shown why the sport of darts has everything: brilliance, drama, sportsmanship, atmosphere, excitement and some brilliant young talent coming through.
Full round ups of the whole tournament can be found here.
Now imagine that Obi -wan proceeds to kick seven kinds of crap out of Darth Vader, and you've got some idea of what happened when Phil Taylor took on Adrian Lewis in yesterday's Quarter Finals (except that if Adrian Lewis had struck him down, Phil Taylor couldn't have become more powerful than we can possibly imagine, because he already is). Master defeated Apprentice 10-2.
Gary Anderson got through to the semis, as most expected he would. What they weren't expecting was Tony Ayres, a relative unknown, to beat James Wade 10-9 in a nail-biting 19 leg epic, with world no. 62 Ayres winning his first ever ranking Quarter Final.
Another great result was Denis Ovens beating Wes Newton to reach his first televised semi-final in something like 57 events. Nothing personal, Wes, but Denis Ovens is a great veteran player, with abilities way beyond his track record in televised events, who's been playing since the days when Bristow was King and Taylor was making bog handles, so to see him play brilliantly on TV and get some recognition was just great.
Not that I did see the Quarter Finals, mind, as I was walking around Newcastle in the p-ing rain. Still, I think Newcastle looks best in the grey and rain - more atmospheric around the Tyne bridges; if you want sunshine, go to Malaga. Anyway, after a thoroughly pleasant afternoon in the jewel of the North East (and having recovered from the shock of being charged £8 for two pints of lager at a certain public house on the Quayside, which shall remain nameless) I was back home, champing at the bit for the semis and finals.
First up was Anderson-Ayres. We were all rooting for Ayres - everyone loves an outsider don't they? - but he just couldn't sustain the form that had got him that far, and Anderson rapidly began to dominate, eventually taking the match 10-2. Ominous for Anderson was his finishing; such was his dominance that he should have won 10-0, but he missed several important doubles. Anderson is a fantastic scorer, but doubles have been his stumbling block and against a player like Phil Taylor you don't need stumbling blocks. Hats off to Tony Ayres; a great performance to get to the semis - players like him are what the UK Open is all about.
Next to square up were Ovens and Taylor. I'm generally non-partisan when watching darts, and I like Phil Taylor very much (he recently sent me a great personally dedicated and signed photo for my profoundly disabled mate's 20th birthday :o) ) but I must confess I was rooting for Ovens.
The Heat didn't disappoint either, coming out of the traps like a Whippet with an itch. He broke Taylor's throw (and very few people have done that recently) in the first leg with a 14 darter, then threw a great Bullseye finish to hold his own throw. 3-2 up at the break, Ovens extended his lead to 4-2. Taylor was looking rattled - no-one had come at him like this all tournament - but raised his game superbly, winning 5 straight legs to sieze back the initiative. Ovens finally succumbed 10-5 - a score line which didn't accurately reflect how well he played: he hit 19 ton plus scores, 9 140+, 6 maximums (to Taylor's 19, 12 and 7) and finished with an average of 100.68. One person who certainly wasn't surprised was Taylor: long-time pros know just how good Denis Ovens is away from the crowds and cameras, and for me this was the best match of the evening.
So we moved on to the Final. We were expecting big things from Anderson-Taylor, billed as the best England-Scotland fixture since Bristow-Wilson, but the match didn't quite live up to it in the end. Anderson's double trouble resurfaced with a vengeance, and he was clearly feeling the pressure. It was a great shame, as he'd played brilliantly up til the final, but there are a great deal of positives he can take from this tournament too, and hopefully we'll be seeing more of him in the PDC in future. Phil Taylor clinched his 68th major title 11-5.
Congratulations to Phil and everyone else who took part in the UK Open. This tournament has shown why the sport of darts has everything: brilliance, drama, sportsmanship, atmosphere, excitement and some brilliant young talent coming through.
Full round ups of the whole tournament can be found here.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
UK Open - Day 3
Knackers!
At the precise moment Phil Taylor set a new World Record three dart average of 118.66 during a 9-0 demolition of Kevin Painter during the 4th round (you have to feel sorry for Painter, who didn't have a shot at a double during the whole 9 legs; still, I bet it made Wayne Mardle feel better...) I was struggling up a hillside in Northumberland, pushing my girlfriend in her wheelchair up to see Houseteads Fort. Still, we had a lovely day in that most beautiful part of the world, and I'm extraordinarily proud of managing to push a wheelchair to, round and from Housesteads (if you've seen it, you'll know why), even if I am sun burned.
Anyhoo, the upshot is I missed the 4th round - results and a write up can be found here courtesy of the nice gentlemen at the PDC - so all I'll say on it is congratulations to Phil Taylor for an astonishing performance and the breaking of yet another record.
On to the 5th round, which I watched during an orgy of after-sun application, and the 16 survivors of round 4 certainly did not disappoint. Highlight of the schedule was Phil Taylor v. Simon Whitlock, which promised a cracking fixture between the two best players in the world at the present time. It was a great match, with Simon Whitlock applying more pressure to the Power than any other player has done so far; for once Phil showed signs of pressure too, missing multiple darts at a double in the 13th leg. Whitlock, also feeling the pressure as anyone who plays Taylor does, couldn't capitalise though, and the Power came through. He'll now face his own apprentice Adrian Lewis, who beat an out-of-sorts looking Wayne Jones 9-4, in the Quarter Finals.
The highlight of the evening, in this author's humble opinion, was the match between Mervyn King and Gary Anderson. This match had everything; a break down at one stage, Anderson hung in, throwing some fantastic darts and managing to overcome finishing problems which were dogging him. Mervyn King was on great form too, and slammed in a milimetre perfect 9 dart leg. Neck and neck for most of the match, it ended, as it had to, with a 17th leg shoot-out; King, who had the throw in the 17th, started as favourite, but Anderson threw brilliantly to break King's throw and clinch a well-deserved 9-8 victory.
Another great aspect of King v. Anderson was that the crowd respected and even seemed to get a bit behind Mervyn King, who has been on the receiving end of more than his fair share of stick from some crowds. Granted, he doesn't always handle stick from the crowd in the best way, some heckling is inevitable, and having heroes and villains is all part of the theatre, but sometimes it goes too far. Mervyn King is a brilliant player; when Anderson hit his final double to win the match, King reacted like a true sportsman; he deserves respect for that, and I'm glad to say that last night, he got it.
Another great match was Andy Hamilton v. Ronnie Baxter. The Hammer staged a brilliant come-back from 7-5 down to overhaul the Rocket 9-7. Andy Hamilton will now play Gary Anderson.
James Wade strolled past Kevin McDine 9-2 to book his place in the Quarter Finals, where he'll face Tony Ayres, who knocked out Alan Tabern 9-5. Veteran pro Denis Ovens overcame pie-man Andy Smith 9-1 and will go on to face Wes Newton.
Well that just about wraps up a terrific evening of sport ladies and gentlemen; I hope you all enjoy the feast of darts that is the UK Open's Super Sunday - Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals all in one gruelling day.
I'll be in Newcastle for the afternoon and won't see the Quarter Finals, which means Phil Taylor will probably hit 3 back to back 9 darters or become the first man to do a perfect 3 x 167 9 dart leg :o)
I'll be watching from 7 though, so hopefully the last 4 players will save some magic for me....
At the precise moment Phil Taylor set a new World Record three dart average of 118.66 during a 9-0 demolition of Kevin Painter during the 4th round (you have to feel sorry for Painter, who didn't have a shot at a double during the whole 9 legs; still, I bet it made Wayne Mardle feel better...) I was struggling up a hillside in Northumberland, pushing my girlfriend in her wheelchair up to see Houseteads Fort. Still, we had a lovely day in that most beautiful part of the world, and I'm extraordinarily proud of managing to push a wheelchair to, round and from Housesteads (if you've seen it, you'll know why), even if I am sun burned.
Anyhoo, the upshot is I missed the 4th round - results and a write up can be found here courtesy of the nice gentlemen at the PDC - so all I'll say on it is congratulations to Phil Taylor for an astonishing performance and the breaking of yet another record.
On to the 5th round, which I watched during an orgy of after-sun application, and the 16 survivors of round 4 certainly did not disappoint. Highlight of the schedule was Phil Taylor v. Simon Whitlock, which promised a cracking fixture between the two best players in the world at the present time. It was a great match, with Simon Whitlock applying more pressure to the Power than any other player has done so far; for once Phil showed signs of pressure too, missing multiple darts at a double in the 13th leg. Whitlock, also feeling the pressure as anyone who plays Taylor does, couldn't capitalise though, and the Power came through. He'll now face his own apprentice Adrian Lewis, who beat an out-of-sorts looking Wayne Jones 9-4, in the Quarter Finals.
The highlight of the evening, in this author's humble opinion, was the match between Mervyn King and Gary Anderson. This match had everything; a break down at one stage, Anderson hung in, throwing some fantastic darts and managing to overcome finishing problems which were dogging him. Mervyn King was on great form too, and slammed in a milimetre perfect 9 dart leg. Neck and neck for most of the match, it ended, as it had to, with a 17th leg shoot-out; King, who had the throw in the 17th, started as favourite, but Anderson threw brilliantly to break King's throw and clinch a well-deserved 9-8 victory.
Another great aspect of King v. Anderson was that the crowd respected and even seemed to get a bit behind Mervyn King, who has been on the receiving end of more than his fair share of stick from some crowds. Granted, he doesn't always handle stick from the crowd in the best way, some heckling is inevitable, and having heroes and villains is all part of the theatre, but sometimes it goes too far. Mervyn King is a brilliant player; when Anderson hit his final double to win the match, King reacted like a true sportsman; he deserves respect for that, and I'm glad to say that last night, he got it.
Another great match was Andy Hamilton v. Ronnie Baxter. The Hammer staged a brilliant come-back from 7-5 down to overhaul the Rocket 9-7. Andy Hamilton will now play Gary Anderson.
James Wade strolled past Kevin McDine 9-2 to book his place in the Quarter Finals, where he'll face Tony Ayres, who knocked out Alan Tabern 9-5. Veteran pro Denis Ovens overcame pie-man Andy Smith 9-1 and will go on to face Wes Newton.
Well that just about wraps up a terrific evening of sport ladies and gentlemen; I hope you all enjoy the feast of darts that is the UK Open's Super Sunday - Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals all in one gruelling day.
I'll be in Newcastle for the afternoon and won't see the Quarter Finals, which means Phil Taylor will probably hit 3 back to back 9 darters or become the first man to do a perfect 3 x 167 9 dart leg :o)
I'll be watching from 7 though, so hopefully the last 4 players will save some magic for me....
Saturday, 5 June 2010
UK Open - Day Two
Top notch entertainment on Friday evening (and no Eastenders this time; girlfriend had to make a decision between Eastenders and James Wade, and James Wade won :o) )
James Wade did indeed win, beating Muffin Man Steve Hine in a match which Wade should have wrapped up fairly early; he allowed Hine back in though, and the Muffin Man came right back at him, having one dart at a double to set-up a 17th leg shoot out. Fortunately for Wade, Hine missed and Wade clinched it 9-7 (blaming being distracted by the air conditioning for his mid-match slump; hmmmmm). Wade moves on to play impressive young Irishman William O'Connor.
Gary Anderson was on fire, producing a scintilllating display and a 106 average to knock out Michael van Gerwen 9-6; Anderson plays Paul Nicholson in what should be a cracking match.
Poor Wayne Mardle went down 9-2 to Phil Taylor; it's not so much losing to Phil Taylor that hurts - anyone can do that - as the way he did it. He looked so focused at the start, and then gradually crumbled as everything seemed to go Phil Taylor's way. He was visibly melting on stage. Phil Taylor has said he's taking Mardle under his wing for some training; let's hope it produces some results for Mardle - if Phil can't train you, no one can. The Power goes on to play Kevin Painter.
Reece Robinson, the fresh-faced 18 year old debutant from Hull produced a performance that many a seasoned pro wouldn't have been disappointed with, losing out to Simon Whitlock 9-5; he took the opening two legs and produced several ton plus checkouts, but the Wizard (reckoned as the number two player in the world right now) was too much for him in the end. Robinson's mental stamina seemed to run out towards the end; his focus slipped and so did his darts, often in to the 5 and 1, but that's something which will naturally improve with time and experience; there's potentially great things ahead for Reece Robinson, and he should be very proud this morning.
In other games, Dennis Ovens overcame Dennis Priestly 9-8, Mervyn King overcame a spirited performance by Joe Cullen (and more crowd hostility: what is it about King?) to go through 9-5, and Jelle Klaasen beat Steve Evans 9-6. Full list of games and the 4th round draw here.
That sets us up for what should be a great day of darts today; drag the TV into the garden and watch in the glorious summer sunshine if you can :o)
I'm off to Northumberland for the day, though I'm hoping to be back by 7 pm for session 2.
James Wade did indeed win, beating Muffin Man Steve Hine in a match which Wade should have wrapped up fairly early; he allowed Hine back in though, and the Muffin Man came right back at him, having one dart at a double to set-up a 17th leg shoot out. Fortunately for Wade, Hine missed and Wade clinched it 9-7 (blaming being distracted by the air conditioning for his mid-match slump; hmmmmm). Wade moves on to play impressive young Irishman William O'Connor.
Gary Anderson was on fire, producing a scintilllating display and a 106 average to knock out Michael van Gerwen 9-6; Anderson plays Paul Nicholson in what should be a cracking match.
Poor Wayne Mardle went down 9-2 to Phil Taylor; it's not so much losing to Phil Taylor that hurts - anyone can do that - as the way he did it. He looked so focused at the start, and then gradually crumbled as everything seemed to go Phil Taylor's way. He was visibly melting on stage. Phil Taylor has said he's taking Mardle under his wing for some training; let's hope it produces some results for Mardle - if Phil can't train you, no one can. The Power goes on to play Kevin Painter.
Reece Robinson, the fresh-faced 18 year old debutant from Hull produced a performance that many a seasoned pro wouldn't have been disappointed with, losing out to Simon Whitlock 9-5; he took the opening two legs and produced several ton plus checkouts, but the Wizard (reckoned as the number two player in the world right now) was too much for him in the end. Robinson's mental stamina seemed to run out towards the end; his focus slipped and so did his darts, often in to the 5 and 1, but that's something which will naturally improve with time and experience; there's potentially great things ahead for Reece Robinson, and he should be very proud this morning.
In other games, Dennis Ovens overcame Dennis Priestly 9-8, Mervyn King overcame a spirited performance by Joe Cullen (and more crowd hostility: what is it about King?) to go through 9-5, and Jelle Klaasen beat Steve Evans 9-6. Full list of games and the 4th round draw here.
That sets us up for what should be a great day of darts today; drag the TV into the garden and watch in the glorious summer sunshine if you can :o)
I'm off to Northumberland for the day, though I'm hoping to be back by 7 pm for session 2.
Friday, 4 June 2010
UK Open - Day One
One major advantage enjoyed by professional commentators and sports journalists is that their girlfriends don't usually make them turn the darts off at 10.00 pm so they can watch Eastenders. However, despite my slightly-less-than-uninterrupted spectation, I did make a few notes :o)
First, I must get this off my chest...
Note to Ashley Whisker re Chewing Gum at the Oche:
Dear Ashley,
This was your first televised darts match, and I thought you showed flashes of real talent in a difficult pairing with a previous UK Open Finalist. However, one polite request for your future career: PLEASE consider refraining from chewing gum during televised matches as it really isn't pleasant to watch on the split-screen close-up. I enjoy chewing gum as much as the next man, but then a close-up of my face isn't being displayed to TV viewers around the world while I do it.
Thanks and best wishes for the future...
OK, now that's done...
Gary Mawson fell at the second hurdle, beating Whisker in the preliminary round but losing to Dylan Duo (that's a superhero, surely?) in the first round.
Wayne Mardle survived, and will play Phil Taylor today.
Peter Manley (a top 32 player) made a surprise exit, losing 6-3 to 19 year old Michael Smith.
Most impressive to me was 23 year old Irishman William O'Connor, who showed some real class and for much of his match was running at an average of over 100.
Another impressive youngster (it seems - I missed this one) was 18 year old Reece Robinson, who'll meet Simon Whitlock in the third round - I'll be watching out for that one.
Other matches I'll be looking out for: Dennis Priestly v. Steve Maish, Kirk Shepherd v. Paul Nicholson and Wes Newton v. Terry Jenkins.
Full results and more detailed commentary here
First, I must get this off my chest...
Note to Ashley Whisker re Chewing Gum at the Oche:
Dear Ashley,
This was your first televised darts match, and I thought you showed flashes of real talent in a difficult pairing with a previous UK Open Finalist. However, one polite request for your future career: PLEASE consider refraining from chewing gum during televised matches as it really isn't pleasant to watch on the split-screen close-up. I enjoy chewing gum as much as the next man, but then a close-up of my face isn't being displayed to TV viewers around the world while I do it.
Thanks and best wishes for the future...
OK, now that's done...
Gary Mawson fell at the second hurdle, beating Whisker in the preliminary round but losing to Dylan Duo (that's a superhero, surely?) in the first round.
Wayne Mardle survived, and will play Phil Taylor today.
Peter Manley (a top 32 player) made a surprise exit, losing 6-3 to 19 year old Michael Smith.
Most impressive to me was 23 year old Irishman William O'Connor, who showed some real class and for much of his match was running at an average of over 100.
Another impressive youngster (it seems - I missed this one) was 18 year old Reece Robinson, who'll meet Simon Whitlock in the third round - I'll be watching out for that one.
Other matches I'll be looking out for: Dennis Priestly v. Steve Maish, Kirk Shepherd v. Paul Nicholson and Wes Newton v. Terry Jenkins.
Full results and more detailed commentary here
Thursday, 3 June 2010
PDC Chairman Barry Hearn takes over World Snooker
Here's the full story
I hope the PDC's Great Helmsman is as successful with snooker as he was with darts. I enjoy watching and playing snooker (not much cop at it though, a bit like darts), but the recent attempts to add pizzazz with darts-style walk-on music have frankly been painful to watch - it was a bit like seeing your dad try to cut it on the dance floor at your secondary school Christmas party: everyone feels uncomfortable, and it's about as convincing as a Nissan Micra with cardboard spoilers at the British Grand Prix.
In all honesty, watching major BDO events feels a bit like that too - just uncomfortably wrong, somehow, as if someone's hired an MC, Cameramen and full lighting rig to cover a match at the Dog and Duck, Gateshead. Not that there aren't great players in the BDO - Martin Adams, Ted Hankey (love him or loathe him, he's good), Andy Fordham was a personal favourite of mine (joined the PDC last year), who I sincerely hope will make a comeback - but the Organisation itself is failing at the top level. The "World Championship" at the Lakeside feels oddly dowdy and 1980s - I keep expecting Crazy Nights to strike up and Eric Bristow to stroll out, although of course, sadly, he never does. Watch a BDO event followed by a PDC event and the contrast is obvious.
Good luck with snooker Barry...
I hope the PDC's Great Helmsman is as successful with snooker as he was with darts. I enjoy watching and playing snooker (not much cop at it though, a bit like darts), but the recent attempts to add pizzazz with darts-style walk-on music have frankly been painful to watch - it was a bit like seeing your dad try to cut it on the dance floor at your secondary school Christmas party: everyone feels uncomfortable, and it's about as convincing as a Nissan Micra with cardboard spoilers at the British Grand Prix.
In all honesty, watching major BDO events feels a bit like that too - just uncomfortably wrong, somehow, as if someone's hired an MC, Cameramen and full lighting rig to cover a match at the Dog and Duck, Gateshead. Not that there aren't great players in the BDO - Martin Adams, Ted Hankey (love him or loathe him, he's good), Andy Fordham was a personal favourite of mine (joined the PDC last year), who I sincerely hope will make a comeback - but the Organisation itself is failing at the top level. The "World Championship" at the Lakeside feels oddly dowdy and 1980s - I keep expecting Crazy Nights to strike up and Eric Bristow to stroll out, although of course, sadly, he never does. Watch a BDO event followed by a PDC event and the contrast is obvious.
Good luck with snooker Barry...
Darts News
Quick check of the stories ahead of the UK Open:
Derby Evening Telegraph has an interview with last year's UK Open losing finalist Colin Osborne, who's hoping for revenge on Phil Taylor. Given that Ladbrokes are quoting Phil at 1/2 and Osborne at 50/1, I wouldn't bet my shirt on an upset. Still, you never know...
Stoke and Staffordshire Sentinel talks to local heroes Phil Taylor and Adrian Lewis.
Sky Sports - 'Underdogs on the Oche'
Derby Evening Telegraph has an interview with last year's UK Open losing finalist Colin Osborne, who's hoping for revenge on Phil Taylor. Given that Ladbrokes are quoting Phil at 1/2 and Osborne at 50/1, I wouldn't bet my shirt on an upset. Still, you never know...
Stoke and Staffordshire Sentinel talks to local heroes Phil Taylor and Adrian Lewis.
Sky Sports - 'Underdogs on the Oche'
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
UK Open Starts Tomorrow
I love the UK Open, known as the FA Cup of Darts, where (relative) minnows can find themselves playing the greatest professionals.
Gary Mawson and Wayne Mardle are both competing - Gary was losing finalist in 2008; best of luck to him.
Wayne Mardle hasn't performed at the top of his game for quite some time, but he's quite a character so it would be great to see him make something of a comeback; perhaps a little less focus on the famous walk-on would help his focus on the game, but then again maybe not if it helps him get psyched up... Anyone have any thoughts on Mardle?
Barneveld seemed to be finding form towards the end of the Premier League, so it's a great shame he hasn't qualified for the UK Open (having not completed the requisite 3 qualifiers). When he was interviewed during the Premier League he mentoned being blackmailed - very nasty business; there's an article on it here
As for some of the other Dutchmen, it would be great to see Jelle Klaasen do well again, having become the youngest ever world champion (BDO) in 2006 but not really set the darting world on fire since. I like watching Vincent van der Voort, with that trade-mark rapid fire throwing action, and Co Stompe's fun too - trying to figure out his throwing action is just mind-bending.
Anyone have any other suggestions for players to look out for during the UK Open - this blog is always open to suggestions...
Anyway, long-story-short, I'm looking forward to having some darts to watch again (local pub excepted) - being a poor (financially) student, the number of non-televised events I can get to is sadly limited.
Gary Mawson and Wayne Mardle are both competing - Gary was losing finalist in 2008; best of luck to him.
Wayne Mardle hasn't performed at the top of his game for quite some time, but he's quite a character so it would be great to see him make something of a comeback; perhaps a little less focus on the famous walk-on would help his focus on the game, but then again maybe not if it helps him get psyched up... Anyone have any thoughts on Mardle?
Barneveld seemed to be finding form towards the end of the Premier League, so it's a great shame he hasn't qualified for the UK Open (having not completed the requisite 3 qualifiers). When he was interviewed during the Premier League he mentoned being blackmailed - very nasty business; there's an article on it here
As for some of the other Dutchmen, it would be great to see Jelle Klaasen do well again, having become the youngest ever world champion (BDO) in 2006 but not really set the darting world on fire since. I like watching Vincent van der Voort, with that trade-mark rapid fire throwing action, and Co Stompe's fun too - trying to figure out his throwing action is just mind-bending.
Anyone have any other suggestions for players to look out for during the UK Open - this blog is always open to suggestions...
Anyway, long-story-short, I'm looking forward to having some darts to watch again (local pub excepted) - being a poor (financially) student, the number of non-televised events I can get to is sadly limited.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Premier League Final - Phil Taylor's two 9 darters
The lights may have failed at Wembley on the Sunday, but there was no "Power" failure on the Monday (sorry, couldn't resist it).
It may be a while after the event, but I've haven't been able to blog for a while and just can't resist commenting on this fantastic match.
A good thing it was on the Monday too; I would have missed it if it had been on the Sunday. Fortunately (for me, if not for those who pitched up at Wembley on Sunday) fate intervened, and on Monday I was able to watch what must be the greatest televised darts match in history.
By the time Phil came within a whisker of his 3rd 9 darter I'd left the edge of my seat and was hovering somewhere above it. Sid Waddell was so excited I was half-expecting a doctor with a sedative to storm the commentary box at any moment.
Stephen Fry in the commentary box? I missed that bit (long drive, only caught the final match), perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how well he did...? Of course, our new Prime Minister recently mentioned that he's a darts fan (was it on Desert Island Discs?) so if they're thinking of aiming even higher in the celebrity stakes in future...
Ah, what a match though. Just when you think "The Power" can't get any better, he proves you wrong. Hats off to James Wade too though, and not just because my girlfriend will moan at me for leaving him out - she rather likes him :o) It's not be easy to be Phil Taylor's opponent in any match, and especially not a match like that, but I thought Wade acquitted himself very well - especially since in the early stages it looked like he wouldn't even make the play-offs.
Congratulations to Phil Taylor for being the first to throw two 9 dart legs in a single match; as one commentator pointed out afterwards, it's probably just as well he missed the third one - if he hadn't, there'd have been nothing left for him to achieve.
It may be a while after the event, but I've haven't been able to blog for a while and just can't resist commenting on this fantastic match.
A good thing it was on the Monday too; I would have missed it if it had been on the Sunday. Fortunately (for me, if not for those who pitched up at Wembley on Sunday) fate intervened, and on Monday I was able to watch what must be the greatest televised darts match in history.
By the time Phil came within a whisker of his 3rd 9 darter I'd left the edge of my seat and was hovering somewhere above it. Sid Waddell was so excited I was half-expecting a doctor with a sedative to storm the commentary box at any moment.
Stephen Fry in the commentary box? I missed that bit (long drive, only caught the final match), perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how well he did...? Of course, our new Prime Minister recently mentioned that he's a darts fan (was it on Desert Island Discs?) so if they're thinking of aiming even higher in the celebrity stakes in future...
Ah, what a match though. Just when you think "The Power" can't get any better, he proves you wrong. Hats off to James Wade too though, and not just because my girlfriend will moan at me for leaving him out - she rather likes him :o) It's not be easy to be Phil Taylor's opponent in any match, and especially not a match like that, but I thought Wade acquitted himself very well - especially since in the early stages it looked like he wouldn't even make the play-offs.
Congratulations to Phil Taylor for being the first to throw two 9 dart legs in a single match; as one commentator pointed out afterwards, it's probably just as well he missed the third one - if he hadn't, there'd have been nothing left for him to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
