The Jolly Man wrote:Numbers will surely depend on what they are offered. Will they restrict entry to euro tour qualifiers on those who go to q-school?
I'm expecting something like that. Maybe exempt the host nation qualifying from it, or do some quota rule, e.g. players who didn't do Q School can only play 3 ET qualifiers or something like that.
The Jolly Man wrote:how would the OOM between the two q-schools work to fill up pro tours?
Beats me. They can't really use the same points scale for both Q Schools, so a combined points list would make no sense. I'd just go Brit #1 -> Euro #1 -> Brit #2 -> Euro #2 -> etc., although that might be unfair to the Brits as well if their QS has 400 players and the other one has 100...
I wonder what the ratio of European tour card winners to attendees on the tour is.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
MancheStar wrote:Surely the European qschool is to scrap the European tour Europe qualifiers and attract sponsors.
Huh?
I was thinking if they had a order of merit for the European q-school they could scrap the European qualifiers for the Euro tour. It's a lot of chasing for no guaranteed money.
MancheStar wrote:Surely the European qschool is to scrap the European tour Europe qualifiers and attract sponsors.
Huh?
I was thinking if they had a order of merit for the European q-school they could scrap the European qualifiers for the Euro tour. It's a lot of chasing for no guaranteed money.
So the same top 8 from the Q-School would play every Euro tour?
The Jolly Man wrote:Numbers will surely depend on what they are offered. Will they restrict entry to euro tour qualifiers on those who go to q-school?
I'm expecting something like that. Maybe exempt the host nation qualifying from it, or do some quota rule, e.g. players who didn't do Q School can only play 3 ET qualifiers or something like that.
The Jolly Man wrote:how would the OOM between the two q-schools work to fill up pro tours?
Beats me. They can't really use the same points scale for both Q Schools, so a combined points list would make no sense. I'd just go Brit #1 -> Euro #1 -> Brit #2 -> Euro #2 -> etc., although that might be unfair to the Brits as well if their QS has 400 players and the other one has 100...
I think they will just simply give x number of cards to UK and y to Europe.
ifm wrote:I wonder what the ratio of European tour card winners to attendees on the tour is.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
I've just asked a mate and he said 3 million to 1. He's got a degree in euro dartology.
Can you ask him to scribble it on the back of a fag packet and post a blurred pic of it.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
The problem with allotting so many cards to the OOM is that it's kinda pointless to do it. We've seen it in the two Q Schools where over 40 cards were on offer (4x4 automatic, 24+ by OOM) - everybody who lost in the final round of a tournament scored enough points that they all ended up getting a card anyway. So it made no sense to award only 4 cards per day to the semifinalists - they should have just given them out to all 8 quarterfinalists (32 total) and reduced the number of OOM cards.
The same would probably happen with that 8 + 12 split. If they keep the same points structure (1 / 2 / 3 / 5 / 9), they would have to add points for losing semifinalists, probably something like 15. All those players would be virtually guaranteed a card after scoring those 15 points.
The problem with allotting so many cards to the OOM is that it's kinda pointless to do it. We've seen it in the two Q Schools where over 40 cards were on offer (4x4 automatic, 24+ by OOM) - everybody who lost in the final round of a tournament scored enough points that they all ended up getting a card anyway. So it made no sense to award only 4 cards per day to the semifinalists - they should have just given them out to all 8 quarterfinalists (32 total) and reduced the number of OOM cards.
The same would probably happen with that 8 + 12 split. If they keep the same points structure (1 / 2 / 3 / 5 / 9), they would have to add points for losing semifinalists, probably something like 15. All those players would be virtually guaranteed a card after scoring those 15 points.
Yes, I think this is a problem with Q-School in general. I would probably prefer either a bit more balanced points structure or more automatic cards, for clarity.
Dan Dawson said during commentary for the Dutch Darts Masters that it is to be on a pro rata basis depending on entries, TBC though. So if 400 entries for the UK and 100 for Euro, Euro would get significantly less tour cards on offer
billyd wrote:Dan Dawson said during commentary for the Dutch Darts Masters that it is to be on a pro rata basis depending on entries, TBC though. So if 400 entries for the UK and 100 for Euro, Euro would get significantly less tour cards on offer
billyd wrote:Dan Dawson said during commentary for the Dutch Darts Masters that it is to be on a pro rata basis depending on entries, TBC though. So if 400 entries for the UK and 100 for Euro, Euro would get significantly less tour cards on offer
I see. Probably the fairest way of doing it.
I agree, but the other commentator (Rob Malarkey?) was arguing about the standard being much higher in the UK and a "better" player missing out on a tour card just because someone is of foreign origin. Depends how you look at it, if you grow the game (which what PDC are trying to achieve), in the long term the standard would get better by doing this
billyd wrote:Dan Dawson said during commentary for the Dutch Darts Masters that it is to be on a pro rata basis depending on entries, TBC though. So if 400 entries for the UK and 100 for Euro, Euro would get significantly less tour cards on offer
I see. Probably the fairest way of doing it.
I agree, but the other commentator (Rob Malarkey?) was arguing about the standard being much higher in the UK and a "better" player missing out on a tour card just because someone is of foreign origin. Depends how you look at it, if you grow the game (which what PDC are trying to achieve), in the long term the standard would get better by doing this
He's absolutely right, they got rid of the Irish OOM which was massively unfair and have now returned to the same type of thing, discrimination.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
Its a catch 22 and depends how you look at "fairness"
On the one hand, yes its unfair if a better player loses out to a player of foreign origin as described.
On the other, is it "fair" that for the past 25 years the majority of the tour has been based in UK and the travelling has been from wigan to barnsley to reading. It gives UK players a much bigger chance of qualifying and also for improving as players as they are at the epicenter of it all. Foreign players looking to try and crack the tour are at a big disadvantage as they really have to locate to the UK. Huge costs, huge personal sacrificies.
They have to continue to globalise the game imo. In the main they are actually doing a decent job of it.
As with everything PDC, the motive is all about money. Theyve achieved all they can in the UK and saturation point was reached a long time ago. But from a darts fans point of view, I want to see diversity in darts. They need to kill off the leisure centre tour imo.
Ginge wrote:
I see. Probably the fairest way of doing it.
I agree, but the other commentator (Rob Malarkey?) was arguing about the standard being much higher in the UK and a "better" player missing out on a tour card just because someone is of foreign origin. Depends how you look at it, if you grow the game (which what PDC are trying to achieve), in the long term the standard would get better by doing this
He's absolutely right, they got rid of the Irish OOM which was massively unfair and have now returned to the same type of thing, discrimination.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Fair comment actually, opens a can of worms that's for sure. Think we are underestimating the talent in Europe, just because good old blighty haven't heard of them, doesn't mean they are not any good. And a tour card is nothing compared to automatically qualifying for a major tounament
Loads of players have snuck into the PDC through the European and Irish route, maybe the likes of Dolan and Hybrechts would have made it anyway but it's still wrong imo.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
If FIFA were to go down the route you appear to be suggesting then the World Cup would likely comprise teams from Europe and South America and that would be it. If Uefa made the Champions League a collection of the best teams you'd have 10 from England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France and others from Belgium, Scotland, Portugal, Denmark etc etc would all be excluded. Picking the best from certain regions to compete against the best in other regions is a fairly normal way to organise cross border sporting events.
Rout wrote:Its a catch 22 and depends how you look at "fairness"
On the one hand, yes its unfair if a better player loses out to a player of foreign origin as described.
On the other, is it "fair" that for the past 25 years the majority of the tour has been based in UK and the travelling has been from wigan to barnsley to reading. It gives UK players a much bigger chance of qualifying and also for improving as players as they are at the epicenter of it all. Foreign players looking to try and crack the tour are at a big disadvantage as they really have to locate to the UK. Huge costs, huge personal sacrificies.
They have to continue to globalise the game imo. In the main they are actually doing a decent job of it.
As with everything PDC, the motive is all about money. Theyve achieved all they can in the UK and saturation point was reached a long time ago. But from a darts fans point of view, I want to see diversity in darts. They need to kill off the leisure centre tour imo.
Agree with most of this. And if a player isn't good enough on the tour he simply won't qualify for anything, simple as that.
The Reyes', Ratajski's, Suljovic' of this world could do with some windfalls, seeing as they have to risk a lot more to really give the tour a go.
Rout wrote:Its a catch 22 and depends how you look at "fairness"
On the one hand, yes its unfair if a better player loses out to a player of foreign origin as described.
On the other, is it "fair" that for the past 25 years the majority of the tour has been based in UK and the travelling has been from wigan to barnsley to reading. It gives UK players a much bigger chance of qualifying and also for improving as players as they are at the epicenter of it all. Foreign players looking to try and crack the tour are at a big disadvantage as they really have to locate to the UK. Huge costs, huge personal sacrificies.
They have to continue to globalise the game imo. In the main they are actually doing a decent job of it.
As with everything PDC, the motive is all about money. Theyve achieved all they can in the UK and saturation point was reached a long time ago. But from a darts fans point of view, I want to see diversity in darts. They need to kill off the leisure centre tour imo.
I like non-trolling Rout's posts. Although I think the player's championship events need to stay, at least for the time being
I like non-trolling Rout's posts. Although I think the player's championship events need to stay, at least for the time being
