Buzz Fledderjohn wrote:For what it's worth Rout, I don't see the problem with this thread.
As you say, certain people still using your Bunting quote as a stick to beat you with gives you the right to start this thread, and anyway looking at the quotes you selected in your OP, a few of them look perfectly reasonable at this point in time.
We'll see how well they age over the next year or two.
Admittedly, including Clemens in your list of "top players" to score a cheap point was a bit desperate, but none of us on here are above doing that from time to time.
Nice one Buzz.
You are right that some of the quotes arent outrageous, but look to have underestimated glen a smidge. But some are wildly out. I didnt put that much thought into it really.
Btw, I put all his "long format" matches in a list but then only included "top" players in the 5-4 breakdown, which didnt include clemens or dobey.
Buzz Fledderjohn wrote:For what it's worth Rout, I don't see the problem with this thread.
As you say, certain people still using your Bunting quote as a stick to beat you with gives you the right to start this thread, and anyway looking at the quotes you selected in your OP, a few of them look perfectly reasonable at this point in time.
We'll see how well they age over the next year or two.
Admittedly, including Clemens in your list of "top players" to score a cheap point was a bit desperate, but none of us on here are above doing that from time to time.
Nice one Buzz.
You are right that some of the quotes arent outrageous, but look to have underestimated glen a smidge. But some are wildly out. I didnt put that much thought into it really.
Btw, I put all his "long format" matches in a list but then only included "top" players in the 5-4 breakdown, which didnt include clemens or dobey.
Fair enough. I just saw Clemens and "top players" in the same paragraph, and thought you were taking the piss a bit.
Rout wrote:A debate on a current players ability and potential based around predictions made before he switched on a darts forum
Yes, that's what's wrong with darts forums these days. Not the guys dragging personal info from peoples private lives, not the constant grammar policing, not the endless stream of threads begging the BDO to fail. It's because of debates about a darts player.
Your priorities are strange at times zapp.
Also I’d say the issues of personal insults on here have only gone through the roof since two people came back and decided for whatever random reason they have to try and wind everyone up on here.
If you want to be fanatical there was a a group for you to be fanatical on, maybe if your apologise to Ross and Paul they will let you back on.......
So it's my fault that other posters are posting personal insults about other posters?
I really am influential arent I!
So what’s the end game here!
When everyone is completely tired of the crap and. ferrets off csn you pat yourself on the back that another forum is destroyed?
There is no game. For the last 6 years, every time Bunting loses a match, one post I made regarding his form at the time gets dragged out over and over. I can laugh at it and myself, its how it is and it's hardly likely to stop soon, so be it.
I post one thread reviewing how the pre-switch predictions on Duzza were just as wildly inaccurate and I am destroying the forum?
Wazza is not me and nothing to do with me. Davidowen was scrapping with everyone and anyone long before I came back. Phil and Davidb the same. The "df refugees" the same.
You're gonna have to help me out on what I am meant to have done wrong here? This is the only thread I've started and I honestly dont see what is so bad about it that it can be seen as forum destroying?
Thehateful180 wrote:He has a solid base game, but not much of a B game. Over a long format against the top players he's a bit toothless.
What's your definition of long format out of interest?
Anything over best of 19 or around that. He seems to fall quite a way short whenever he faces Wright in a long format game.
So it's just Wright now? It was "top players" a minute ago.
Since getting a card he has played 11 games that fit your definition, if we take best of 7 sets as equivalent of best of 19.
Beaten: Lewis, MVG, Wade, Clemens, M Smith, Dobey, Gurney
Lost to Barney, Price, Wright, M Smith
So "top players" I'd say he is 5-4 up.
Wright was an example. Top players are literally the very top players. The standard Durrant likely judges himself by. His level tends to be a respectable 93-95 average over that distance. That's sometimes good enough, but often isn't. 94 in the Matchplay semi was respectable but not enough. 94 in the world championship quarters. Not enough. 94 in the GSOD quarter final. Not enough.
One off wins aren't the story here, it's about patterns of performance and that pattern clearly is that Durrant struggles to maintain a really high level against the very best under the cosh. It's not really a criticism, it's just where his level is. It's why while he may consistently go pretty deep in events, he'll struggle to get over the line. I think he's a decent player. But the pattern is clear.
Rout, you clown!One off wins don't count but one off losses do. I thought we all knew this.
Rout wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:59 pm
What's your definition of long format out of interest?
Anything over best of 19 or around that. He seems to fall quite a way short whenever he faces Wright in a long format game.
So it's just Wright now? It was "top players" a minute ago.
Since getting a card he has played 11 games that fit your definition, if we take best of 7 sets as equivalent of best of 19.
Beaten: Lewis, MVG, Wade, Clemens, M Smith, Dobey, Gurney
Lost to Barney, Price, Wright, M Smith
So "top players" I'd say he is 5-4 up.
Wright was an example. Top players are literally the very top players. The standard Durrant likely judges himself by. His level tends to be a respectable 93-95 average over that distance. That's sometimes good enough, but often isn't. 94 in the Matchplay semi was respectable but not enough. 94 in the world championship quarters. Not enough. 94 in the GSOD quarter final. Not enough.
One off wins aren't the story here, it's about patterns of performance and that pattern clearly is that Durrant struggles to maintain a really high level against the very best under the cosh. It's not really a criticism, it's just where his level is. It's why while he may consistently go pretty deep in events, he'll struggle to get over the line. I think he's a decent player. But the pattern is clear.
Rout, you clown!One off wins don't count but one off losses do. I thought we all knew this.
Yes the five one off wins are isolated incidents. The four losses were part of a pattern. My bad.
Thehateful180 wrote:
Anything over best of 19 or around that. He seems to fall quite a way short whenever he faces Wright in a long format game.
So it's just Wright now? It was "top players" a minute ago.
Since getting a card he has played 11 games that fit your definition, if we take best of 7 sets as equivalent of best of 19.
Beaten: Lewis, MVG, Wade, Clemens, M Smith, Dobey, Gurney
Lost to Barney, Price, Wright, M Smith
So "top players" I'd say he is 5-4 up.
Wright was an example. Top players are literally the very top players. The standard Durrant likely judges himself by. His level tends to be a respectable 93-95 average over that distance. That's sometimes good enough, but often isn't. 94 in the Matchplay semi was respectable but not enough. 94 in the world championship quarters. Not enough. 94 in the GSOD quarter final. Not enough.
One off wins aren't the story here, it's about patterns of performance and that pattern clearly is that Durrant struggles to maintain a really high level against the very best under the cosh. It's not really a criticism, it's just where his level is. It's why while he may consistently go pretty deep in events, he'll struggle to get over the line. I think he's a decent player. But the pattern is clear.
Rout, you clown!One off wins don't count but one off losses do. I thought we all knew this.
Yes the five one off wins are isolated incidents. The four losses were part of a pattern. My bad.
The averages in those games form a pattern. You seem to have trouble comprehending this. I wouldn't expect anything else from the man who claimed that Phil Taylor was the only difference between the codes.
Rout wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:21 pm
So it's just Wright now? It was "top players" a minute ago.
Since getting a card he has played 11 games that fit your definition, if we take best of 7 sets as equivalent of best of 19.
Beaten: Lewis, MVG, Wade, Clemens, M Smith, Dobey, Gurney
Lost to Barney, Price, Wright, M Smith
So "top players" I'd say he is 5-4 up.
Wright was an example. Top players are literally the very top players. The standard Durrant likely judges himself by. His level tends to be a respectable 93-95 average over that distance. That's sometimes good enough, but often isn't. 94 in the Matchplay semi was respectable but not enough. 94 in the world championship quarters. Not enough. 94 in the GSOD quarter final. Not enough.
One off wins aren't the story here, it's about patterns of performance and that pattern clearly is that Durrant struggles to maintain a really high level against the very best under the cosh. It's not really a criticism, it's just where his level is. It's why while he may consistently go pretty deep in events, he'll struggle to get over the line. I think he's a decent player. But the pattern is clear.
Rout, you clown!One off wins don't count but one off losses do. I thought we all knew this.
Yes the five one off wins are isolated incidents. The four losses were part of a pattern. My bad.
The averages in those games form a pattern. You seem to have trouble comprehending this. I wouldn't expect anything else from the man who claimed that Phil Taylor was the only difference between the codes.
You are going off averages in these matches. I am going off wins and losses. If he is winning more long format games against top players, what on earth does averages matter?
As for your last point, when and where did I supposedly state this?
Wright was an example. Top players are literally the very top players. The standard Durrant likely judges himself by. His level tends to be a respectable 93-95 average over that distance. That's sometimes good enough, but often isn't. 94 in the Matchplay semi was respectable but not enough. 94 in the world championship quarters. Not enough. 94 in the GSOD quarter final. Not enough.
One off wins aren't the story here, it's about patterns of performance and that pattern clearly is that Durrant struggles to maintain a really high level against the very best under the cosh. It's not really a criticism, it's just where his level is. It's why while he may consistently go pretty deep in events, he'll struggle to get over the line. I think he's a decent player. But the pattern is clear.
Rout, you clown!One off wins don't count but one off losses do. I thought we all knew this.
Yes the five one off wins are isolated incidents. The four losses were part of a pattern. My bad.
The averages in those games form a pattern. You seem to have trouble comprehending this. I wouldn't expect anything else from the man who claimed that Phil Taylor was the only difference between the codes.
You are going off averages in these matches. I am going off wins and losses. If he is winning more long format games against top players, what on earth does averages matter?
As for your last point, when and where did I supposedly state this?
Yes the averages only tell half the story, but he fell apart in some of these matches, namely the Price one. Why is it that Durrant can admit his shortcomings, but you can't? It's absolutely bizarre, like you feel compelled to whiteknight him, even from himself.
