So he won because of the throw then, thanks

You are a t[ii[/it, he lost because Hankey was the better player, he had a better one and three dart average, he hit more 100's, 140's and 180's and outscored Taylor in most legs. Nothing to do with the throw the stats and facts tell the truth, you talk sh[ii[/it.

You've proved you are a complete tool, what I believe Carl is saying is Taylor had hardly any darts at a double on Hankey's throw and Hankey had plenty on Taylor's throw because he outscored him during the legs.

I never said he didn't, but that's not my point. He didn't 'only' win by having the good fortune of throwing first, he was the better player and got the result he deserved. Suggesting he only won because of the throw as if Taylor was unlucky or hard done to is codswallop, quite frankly.

He broke Phils throw once, dominance at it's finest that is then. Mind you Phil broke straight back and ended up losing the match because he was against the throw. Ted did well to take advantage of the short format and obviously winning the bull off was crucial

He beat him because he outplayed, outscored and outdoubled him the same way everyone loses. Nothing to do with the throw, Taylor could've thrown first as he was nowhere near winning the game in the last leg. All the stats say you are wrong and the match said you are wrong.

It's as bad as listening to ITV and SKY looking at his posts mate, all the stats tell you why he lost. If Taylor had an average of 103 everyone would be raving on it, ITV's post match didn't even mention it. All they spoke about was Taylor's glasses.

Ted did well to take advantage of throwing first, had it been the other way round it would have been 5-4 to the Power even though he was poor by his own standards

Why would it have been? Hankey outscored Taylor bigtime in that last leg, they're is nothing to suggest that Taylor would've won had it been the other way round. Hankey should've won it earlier when he missed two darts at double 19. Did you watch the match?

It's just a slight dip in Taylor's form in the last couple of tournaments IMO. I don't see why there has to be excuses found for it. The bloke's easily the best darts player of all time and has been dominant for 20 years. In that time there have to be blips, he's still human. He's good enough as he is, I really don't understand why it seems that some (including Waddell) want to build him up even more. When the truth's that impressive you have no need to embellish it. If anything it only cheapens the reality.

Yes thanks, I'm quite enjoying this now

Enjoying being proved wrong?

You still haven't said why the throw was so vital come the last leg, a leg Taylor was completely outscored?

Spot on, sums it all up really. It would just nice to see the consistency across the board, if Taylor hit 103 against Hankey they would've been talking about until the programme finished, Hankey was class and outplayed Taylor but it still gets overlooked.

I haven't been proven wrong in anything, I just enjoyed the fact i only had to mention the Power and you was firing all the abuse under the sun at me



The Power would have won had he had the throw, he'd won his previous 3 legs with throw before that. The only one he lost was his first leg with throw, he was never in trouble after that. Sure Hankey had Darts for the match but he never looked like hitting that double 19, the first dart was closer to Double Top.

You didn't just mention the power though, wrong again. You said he only lost because Hankey had the throw, he actually lost because Hankey won the final leg and throwing first had no bearing on it Hankey's good scoring and good finishing did it. Just because Taylor won legs before on his throw doesn't really prove anything. So Hankey having a better one and three dart average, hitting more 100's, 140's and 180's doesn't mean anything?

Taylor hit 100 with his first three darts in the final leg Hankey hit 180 followed by a 140 and finished in 14 darts, so even if Taylor threw first and they both started in the same fashion Hankey would've had the darts anyway. It meant nothing, even Taylor himself admitted he was outplayed he said, 'Ted out played me. My darts were clipping the wires just on the wrong side and I know I didn't play as well as I can.'

Feel sorry for Webster. Blew it big time, but you could see he was in bits about it.

Chisnall's let himself down so far, far too many stray darts. If he gets away with it (although it still doesn't look good) he should consider himself lucky.

To be honest Webster with a bit of steel about him would be up there where Whitlock is today but I think him dithering about moving over the divide instead of taking the plunge when he was World Champion shows a lack of self belief and days like this will not help matters. Bar getting sucked in by the crowd on Saturday Night he had a good tournament and if he can reflect on that rather than the negatives perhaps he can kick on and become a top PDC player but I fear he is a lower top 16 player at best unless he can find the confidence and belief to kick on up the rankings. If 3rd in the Worlds can not kick him on to have a good season (and he's had an awful one) I do not know what will and as Chris Mason said about Osbourne players should invest in their futures by hiring sports psychologists to work with them and Webster is right up there as a player who could do with going down that path.

Dan, don't feed the WUM.

I think Webster could maybe be top 8 but not top 5 like Whitlock. He's probably more likely to hover around 10-12 with the likes of Walsh and Hamilton though. I think Anderson is the best bet to break into the top 5, especially if he improves his finishing.

True. I should've realised not too myself last night and gave up.

The glasses came off and he averaged 108 last night

I was a bit surprised about that. I thought Taylor was stronger mentally than to think that was the cause of his form.

He has already said he played badly on the night, no excuses.

Oh no, I wasn't saying he was making excuses. I just find it strange that he felt the need to abandon the glasses. Seems like somewhere in his mind he thinks they've affected him somehow, or that by playing without them again it would remove a distraction. I wouldn't have had him down as a player who would be bothered by something like that.

Me neither, unless they were a genuine distraction and affected his balance? I guess it's a fine line between a treble 20 and a single and if the glasses are making any slight difference then it would affect his game.