2023 PDC Challenge Tour

[sennafan24]

I miss the BDO.

WDF is doing a fine job of replacing them

The WDF hasn't filled the void.

I want Warren Brown type fiascos, Des Jacklin messing up a draw, a pissed up champion taking the mick out of Bobby George, Will Mellor making a tit out of himself on stage, etc.

Trina lubing up
....

BigWorm having a meltdown over not receiving free tickets for Lakeside.

[Randall]

The snarling Russian

[sennafan24]

Free hot dogs.

[Randall]

Free coaches for county players

[sennafan24]

Martin Adams wearing his playing shirt at Lakeside on days where he wasn't even playing.

[The Thorn]

BDO had a charm that the WDF will not be able to capture again. But that was a different era. BDO had no rivals in the amateur sphere. WDF has a harder job.

But at the end of the day there are a lot of gems in the system. Jacques Labre won the Europe Cup and now has a tour card. Everyone was delighted when Dick Veenstra won his.

The PDC can't cover every part of the game. Yes Challenge Tour is great and money wise it's up there with anything amateur. But it's still a floor event. There is something different about the challenge of winning Lakeside. In front of a decent crowd and on TV. All the avenues in the amateur game should complement each other. The WDF is currently doing a job that no one else could take over at the moment.

[TheMalteseDart]

POST THE ENTRY LIST.



NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

[sennafan24]

Paula Jacklin's son threatening Oche on Facebook.

[Safc]

POST THE ENTRY LIST.



NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Think this is literally going to be only get to see when the Draw is up in the morning.

[Randall]

Paula Jacklin's son threatening Oche on Facebook.

Whoever it was touring the country visiting forum owners

[Zeyes]

My opinion is genuine. After the 64 cutoff maybe take the top 2 or 4 players from the 1 year ranking to also keep their cards. Yes I know Mitchell wouldn't have been part of that.

As a notorious jobber lover this would probably be a good thing for some of my favourites but I can’t agree with it. Why should they get extra privileges? Recycling the same players every year who aren’t good enough to make the top 64 after 2 years can’t be good for the game.

The logic would surely be that the players who just had a good year are the best bets to also have a good next year. Now, I don't actually know if that's actually true in the sense of being a good predictor.

FWIW, the list for last year, top players of 2022 who finished outside the main top 64:

50 Karel Sedlacek (Associate, main 68th)
53 Danny Jansen (first year TC, main 73rd)
54 Cameron Menzies (first year TC, main 74th)
55 Matt Campbell (first year TC, main 75th)
59 Nathan Rafferty (first year TC, main 76th)
61 Mickey Mansell (first year TC, main 77th)
63 Keegan Brown (top 64 TC, main 66th)
64 Geert Nentjes (second year TC, main 72nd, renewed TC through Dev Tour)
65 Niels Zonneveld (second year TC, main 69th)
67 John O'Shea (first year TC, main 85th)
71 Danny Baggish (second year TC, main 84th)
73 Scott Waites (first year TC, main 90th)
74 Jimmy Hendriks (first year TC, main 92nd)
75 Danny van Trijp (Associate, main 93rd, got TC through Challenge Tour)
76 Jeffrey de Zwaan (top 64 TC, main 86th)

That's all the players who won at least 25k last year.

Sedlacek would obviously have been a good recipient of a tour card this way. Kind of slim pickings after that, though - because of the ups and downs players suffer in that range of the rankings, most guys who had ONE good year among the last two are normally in the top 64 proper.

So here we'd have Keegan Brown as the second best candidate, barely a top 64 player in 2022 (and boosted massively by that one PC event he won, rest of the year was bleh) and lost his card mainly because 2021 was even worse. Then Nentjes as the first eligible player who actually ran out a 2-year card, but he managed to get a new card anyway. Nobody else had a top 64 quality single year, although Zonneveld missed it by just £250.

Honestly, I wouldn't hate it if they had a rule that, say, the top 2 one-year players who still need a card will get one, as long as they were top 64 on that one-year list. Just as a backup to the existing setup to avoid worthy candidates falling through the cracks. On the flipside, for someone like Sedlacek they could/should just expand the CT cards instead (he ranked 7th there, so 6th after Williams who got a top 64 card), since any Associate who won a lot on the Pro Tour probably finished high in the CT as well to get those Pro Tour opportunities in the first place. And the other possible candidates would probably be just as uninspiring in most years as they were this time.

Sedlacek, Brown and Zonneveld all have new cards through QS now anyway, and Baggish didn't try. Meh.

[The Thorn]

So removing all the first year card holders it's Sedlacek, Brown, Zonneveld and Baggish the top 4. I would say the fact the 3 of them won cards supports my point that they could have been awarded one. Baggish was a bit further off but he only really came to form during the end of the year. I don't think anyone would begrudge him a card he is definitely good enough to be on the tour. Brown and Zonneveld might be uninspiring but factually they are good enough to be on the tour clearly and will have a fair chance of making top 64 in 2 years. Had they not succeeded at Q School wouldn't change this, only force them to do Challenge Tour which again, with the current balance of just having 2 cards is extremely harsh

I don't define being good enough as being in the top 64. I think that's a bit harsh. That would mean half the field changes every 2 years which is clearly not how fast form changes. Because we will still see plenty of card holders instantly regaining their cards, why not award them on the basis of playing well for a full year anyway, instead of forcing Q School and potentially missing out. Taking 2 cards away from Q School on that basis changes nothing about the balance of the tour overall

[The Thorn]

30 cards at Q School usually. Give

4 more to Challenge Tour
2 more to Pro Tour on 1 year ranking
4 more to regional winners

Still 20 cards left would be the fair balance and this solves the main problem which is overseas players relying on Q-School instead of CT, since some of them would be guaranteed cards. Q School money wise would take a bit of a hit but 20 spots is still a fair golden ticket to go for

[The Thorn]

It's possible that I'm just bullshitting here. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with what I'm typing. But how can you ever be sure. Do you ever feel that way that you are not convinced in your own opinions?

[TheMalteseDart]

It's possible that I'm just bullshitting here. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with what I'm typing. But how can you ever be sure. Do you ever feel that way that you are not convinced in your own opinions?

Just feels like you're overcomplicating things. The current system isn't perfect but the only thing I feel needs to change is give a few more cards out to challenge tour. Brown and Zonneveld who've been listed as examples were 2 of the biggest favourites at Q School and won their cards back fairly comfortably, so haven't missed out anyway

[The Thorn]

It's possible that I'm just bullshitting here. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with what I'm typing. But how can you ever be sure. Do you ever feel that way that you are not convinced in your own opinions?

Just feels like you're overcomplicating things. The current system isn't perfect but the only thing I feel needs to change is give a few more cards out to challenge tour. Brown and Zonneveld who've been listed as examples were 2 of the biggest favourites at Q School and won their cards back fairly comfortably, so haven't missed out anyway

PDC want to do it as simple as possible. Even if it's not the optimal solution. Understandable but a man can dream

[Emulsfier]

It's possible that I'm just bullshitting here.

High level understatement there.

[Zeyes]

I don't define being good enough as being in the top 64. I think that's a bit harsh. That would mean half the field changes every 2 years which is clearly not how fast form changes. Because we will still see plenty of card holders instantly regaining their cards, why not award them on the basis of playing well for a full year anyway, instead of forcing Q School and potentially missing out. Taking 2 cards away from Q School on that basis changes nothing about the balance of the tour overall

The biggest boon for the perennial almost-top-64's like Zonneveld would probably be if the main Order of Merit switched to a one-year system, because that would necessarily involve the tour card cutoff going from 64 to 96-ish (maybe more like 90) since there's then no longer a need to make space for two QS intakes simultaneously.

[The Thorn]

I don't define being good enough as being in the top 64. I think that's a bit harsh. That would mean half the field changes every 2 years which is clearly not how fast form changes. Because we will still see plenty of card holders instantly regaining their cards, why not award them on the basis of playing well for a full year anyway, instead of forcing Q School and potentially missing out. Taking 2 cards away from Q School on that basis changes nothing about the balance of the tour overall

The biggest boon for the perennial almost-top-64's like Zonneveld would probably be if the main Order of Merit switched to a one-year system, because that would necessarily involve the tour card cutoff going from 64 to 96-ish (maybe more like 90) since there's then no longer a need to make space for two QS intakes simultaneously.

Should be a hybrid system with the last 12 month results counting more than the 12-24 month old results. Then again yourself and others have said the same many time. PDC won't be arsed to do anything that complicates it for them

[The Thorn]

It's possible that I'm just bullshitting here.

High level understatement there.

Thanks for contributing to the discussion