PDC World Championship 2024: Luke Littler beats Brendan Dolan to reach semi-fina

[Nearly Sane]

Early bid for SPOTY 2024 continues


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67858060

[Nearly Sane]

And into the final


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67868664

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

Didn't win but huge effect on darts already

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67875958

[Nearly Sane]

Huge record viewing for darts on Sky


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67884690

[ProfessorDavey]

Huge record viewing for darts on Sky


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67884690

Watched it myself - can't remember the last time I watched darts ... if ever!!

Not sure this will produce a longterm uplift in viewing figures, although I image there will be a temporary uptick in both playing and watching. Reminds me a bit of that curling olympics final a few years ago that attracted huge numbers of viewers who became instant 'experts' having never watched the sport before ... and largely never watched the sport again.

Great achievement from Littler even if he didn't win - and don't forget that he was playing the world number one and had beaten other highly ranked players on the way to the final. This wasn't a situation, which sometimes happens, where an outsider finds the draw opens up for them allowing progression without actually having to play a high ranked player.

Actually I felt a little sorry for Humphries - a great achievement for him and he is also relatively young for a world champion, but all the press was about Littler.

[Nearly Sane]

Darts is both considerably easier to play and watch than curling. I think Humphries will be happy with his £500,000 prize money. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Darts is both considerably easier to play and watch than curling.

Agree that darts is easier to play than curling. Whether an individual prefers to watch darts or curling is, of course, a purely subjective matter.

But that wasn't my point - the point was about 'event' fans - in other words viewers who would never dream of watching a particular sport 99% of the time, but tune in for an 'event', typically based on major media coverage of an (usually Brit) individual/team doing unexpectedly well. Their interest is an inch deep and once that 'event' is passed their interest wanes instantly. Very unlikely these 'event' fans will tune in to the next darts coverage, just as they didn't continue to follow curling once the Olympics was over.

I think Humphries will be happy with his £500,000 prize money.

True - but again missing the point. I think having won the title for the first time he may, quite reasonably, be a bit miffed to find the person he beat to the title plastered on both front and back pages of the papers and the news headlines all about Littler failing to win.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree that darts is easier to play than curling. Whether an individual prefers to watch darts or curling is, of course, a purely subjective matter.

But that wasn't my point - the point was about 'event' fans - in other words viewers who would never dream of watching a particular sport 99% of the time, but tune in for an 'event', typically based on major media coverage of an (usually Brit) individual/team doing unexpectedly well. Their interest is an inch deep and once that 'event' is passed their interest wanes instantly. Very unlikely these 'event' fans will tune in to the next darts coverage, just as they didn't continue to follow curling once the Olympics was over.
True - but again missing the point. I think having won the title for the first time he may, quite reasonably, be a bit miffed to find the person he beat to the title plastered on both front and back pages of the papers and the news headlines all about Littler failing to win.

The point about coverage is that for 'stickiness' of event fans, it's far easier for people to see darts on tv than curling. Therefore it's more likely to keep some of those fans.

As for Humphries, had it not been for the Littler effect, he wouldn't have been on any of those front pages, and very few of the back ones.

[ProfessorDavey]

The point about coverage is that for 'stickiness' of event fans, it's far easier for people to see darts on tv than curling. Therefore it's more likely to keep some of those fans.

Regardless very few of the 3.7m who tuned in to watch the final will be tuning in to watch the next big darts event. That's the point - and actually if darts is easier to find than curling it make the point even better as those 'event' fans who tuned in the other night but won't watch another darts match again for years, if ever, cannot use the excuse that it isn't available to watch. If they had sky to watch it the other night then I image the next event will also be on sky and available too. As you point out the same isn't true for the curling where the Olympics was on terrestrial tv but I doubt any other curling would be.

As for Humphries, had it not been for the Littler effect, he wouldn't have been on any of those front pages, and very few of the back ones.

But there would have been coverage of the final and the winner and normally that coverage will focus on the winner of the final, not the loser. Particularly given that both players were English.

Actually I think the press have recognised they made a bit of a mistake in airbrushing Humphries out of their Thursday morning coverage and focussing pretty well entirely on Littler, despite the fact that he'd just lost, rather than won. the final. So in the Times today there is pretty well a whole page article on Humphries focussing on his weight loss and how that has increased his performance.

[Nearly Sane]

Regardless very few of the 3.7m who tuned in to watch the final will be tuning in to watch the next big darts event. That's the point - and actually if darts is easier to find than curling it make the point even better as those 'event' fans who tuned in the other night but won't watch another darts match again for years, if ever, cannot use the excuse that it isn't available to watch. If they had sky to watch it the other night then I image the next event will also be on sky and available too. As you point out the same isn't true for the curling where the Olympics was on terrestrial tv but I doubt any other curling would be.
But there would have been coverage of the final and the winner and normally that coverage will focus on the winner of the final, not the loser. Particularly given that both players were English.

Actually I think the press have recognised they made a bit of a mistake in airbrushing Humphries out of their Thursday morning coverage and focussing pretty well entirely on Littler, despite the fact that he'd just lost, rather than won. the final. So in the Times today there is pretty well a whole page article on Humphries focussing on his weight loss and how that has increased his performance.

Your firsr paragraph seems to contrafict itself by using the comparison with curling, then admitting it's a crap comparison.

Your second then ignores that without the Littler effect the Times wouldn't have written up such an article on Humphries, so Humphries is not goung to be feelung miffed at all but happy that the Littler effect has given him much more publicity than winning in a normal year.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your firsr paragraph seems to contrafict itself by using the comparison with curling, then admitting it's a crap comparison.

It's not a crap comparison as I doubt the reason that most people who watched the Olympics curling have never watch another curling match isn't because you have to look it out - it would be because beyond the 'event' they have no interest in watching the sport. Same with I suspect millions of people who watched the darts on Wednesday.

Your second then ignores that without the Littler effect the Times wouldn't have written up such an article on Humphries, so Humphries is not goung to be feelung miffed at all but happy that the Littler effect has given him much more publicity than winning in a normal year.

How do you know. Sure darts has had major coverage this year due to Littler, but the world championship has always had reasonable coverage, similar to snooker. So rather than Humphries having no coverage had it no been for Littler, quite possibly we'd have seen exactly the same article that appeared three pages in from the back of the Times today, published in the same spot yesterday.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not a crap comparison as I doubt the reason that most people who watched the Olympics curling have never watch another curling match isn't because you have to look it out - it would be because beyond the 'event' they have no interest in watching the sport. Same with I suspect millions of people who watched the darts on Wednesday.
How do you know. Sure darts has had major coverage this year due to Littler, but the world championship has always had reasonable coverage, similar to snooker. So rather than Humphries having no coverage had it no been for Littler, quite possibly we'd have seen exactly the same article that appeared three pages in from the back of the Times today, published in the same spot yesterday.

It's a crap comparison because curling appears on a terrestrial channel as part of the Olympics as opposed to a pay per view channel on its own. Those watching darts already made more effort to watch by far, and then have it easier to warch. Further curling is a niche sport hard to participate in, darts is a manstream sport easy to participate in, and on tv regularly. That Humphries won half a million illustrates that darts is not like curling.

The world championship does get 'reasonable coverage', unlike curling, but nothing like this year. If you think that Humphries is not gettng way more coverage than Michael Smith did last year then you are showing you are naive, and don't follow darts at all.

[Nearly Sane]

Anyway here's Peter Kay on the true glory days of darts.


https://youtu.be/1cSYxG7inEQ?si=KE8qoNfvl5fLtiUa

[ProfessorDavey]

If you think that Humphries is not gettng way more coverage than Michael Smith did last year then you are showing you are naive, and don't follow darts at all.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pdc-world-darts-championship-final-michael-smith-beats-van-gerwen-after-greatest-leg-in-darts-history-d06tdw5nw

In The Times, so like for like comparison. Oh and that was the morning after the final, not the next day again.

I suspect most people didn't notice the darts final coverage last year, as they weren't interested. But it was there, and focussed (not unreasonably) on the winner.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a crap comparison because curling appears on a terrestrial channel as part of the Olympics as opposed to a pay per view channel on its own. Those watching darts already made more effort to watch by far, and then have it easier to warch. Further curling is a niche sport hard to participate in, darts is a manstream sport easy to participate in, and on tv regularly. That Humphries won half a million illustrates that darts is not like curling.

I'm beginning to think that you are deliberately failing to understand my point.

It isn't about how easy it is to play a sport or how easy it is to watch a sport.

Nope it is about the people who would never dream of watching a particular sport but suddenly get into it when there is a particular high profile 'event' - such as an Olympic final in a niche sport or a final involving a fairytale story of a 16 year old. Those are what I call the 'event' fans - no interest day to day, week to week, year to year but once in a blue moon, if 'event' circumstances' prevail they suddenly are interested. Happened on Wednesday night just as it happened with the curling at the Olympics a while back.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm beginning to think that you are deliberately failing to understand my point.

It isn't about how easy it is to play a sport or how easy it is to watch a sport.

Nope it is about the people who would never dream of watching a particular sport but suddenly get into it when there is a particular high profile 'event' - such as an Olympic final in a niche sport or a final involving a fairytale story of a 16 year old. Those are what I call the 'event' fans - no interest day to day, week to week, year to year but once in a blue moon, if 'event' circumstances' prevail they suddenly are interested. Happened on Wednesday night just as it happened with the curling at the Olympics a while back.

No, I got your pount at the start. I disagreed with it as being a valud comparison for the reasons laid out. Given that you are now just repeating yourself rather than addressing anything being written, I leave you to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence suggests otherwise.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pdc-world-darts-championship-final-michael-smith-beats-van-gerwen-after-greatest-leg-in-darts-history-d06tdw5nw

In The Times, so like for like comparison. Oh and that was the morning after the final, not the next day again.

I suspect most people didn't notice the darts final coverage last year, as they weren't interested. But it was there, and focussed (not unreasonably) on the winner.

Archived version of the report on the Smith v van Gerwen final


https://archive.vn/9sfOh

Archived version on the article on Luke Humphries


https://archive.vn/HRO55


One is a report of the match, one is a detailed piece on Humphries. So on a like for like comparison, Humphries gets a lot more direct attention this year than Smith did last year. Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly for me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Archived version of the report on the Smith v van Gerwen final


https://archive.vn/9sfOh

Archived version on the article on Luke Humphries


https://archive.vn/HRO55


One is a report of the match, one is a detailed piece on Humphries. So on a like for like comparison, Humphries gets a lot more direct attention this year than Smith did last year. Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly for me.

But it isn't like for like.

Let's look at like for like, in other words the report on the match from this years' final and last year.

https://archive.vn/9sfOh
Lead picture of the winner Smith. First paragraph focusses on Smith's victory:

'Michael Smith is the world champion at last. Via nine-dart perfection, in the sport’s greatest leg, “Bully Boy” put to bed two runner-up finishes in the darts showpiece and overcame a serial, usually relentless, champion. What can touch sport like this?'

Article mentions Smith, the winner, far more than Van Gerwen, the loser.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luke-humphries-wins-world-darts-championship-luke-littler-defeat-tk62pbtv7
Lead picture of the loser Littler Smith (and that's in addition to front and back page photos of Littler). First paragraph focusses on Littler's defeat:

'The kid could not quite do it. A tale for the ages, young and somehow younger, ended with defeat in the seventh chapter. Luke Littler, the 16-year-old wunderkind, is not the world darts champion. Luke Humphries is.'

Article mentions Littler, the loser, far more than Humphries, the winner.

Ah, but you claim Humphries got a follow up article the day after just about him, something that The Times would never have done last year for Smith ... except they did.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-smith-from-cattle-farm-via-eight-crushing-defeats-to-darts-world-champion-hvzvcsvsd

So in both cases the winner gets a biog piece, but the difference is this year the immediate coverage focussed on the loser Littler, while last year (and I suspect previous years) the focus was on the winner.

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly for me.

[Nearly Sane]

But it isn't like for like.
...
Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly for me.

In general, touché but just to note that the like for like that I put up was what you had said was like for like, and that I was disagreeing was. So you're right though you were wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

In general, touché but just to note that the like for like that I put up was what you had said was like for like, and that I was disagreeing was.

Nope - you claimed that Humphries had more coverage this year than Smith had last year - not in like for like (although you are wrong on that count too), that bit you added later. In your own words:

'If you think that Humphries is not gettng way more coverage than Michael Smith did last year then you are showing you are naive, and don't follow darts at all.'

I demonstrated that in terms of overall coverage the length of the reports on the match this year and last are similar, although there is a key difference. This year the main focus of the match report is clearly on the loser Littler, rather than Humphries, whereas the match report last year clearly focusses on Smith the winner.

In both cases there was a follow-up biog piece on the winner. But last year Smith was the focus of both the biog and the match report. This year although Humphries had his follow-up biog he clearly played second fiddle in the match report to the player he beat in the final.

But overall -  touché accepted.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - you claimed that Humphries had more coverage this year than Smith had last year - not in like for like (although you are wrong on that count too), that bit you added later.

I demonstrated that in terms of overall coverage the reports on the match this year and last are similar, although there is a key difference. This year the main focus of the match report is clearly on the loser Littler, rather than Humphries, whereas the match report last year clearly focusses on Smith the winner.

In both cases there was a follow-up biog piece on the winner. But last year Smith was the focus of both the biog and the match report. This year although Humphries had his follow-up biog he clearly played second fiddle in the match report to the player he beat in the final.

But overall -  touché accepted.

Pity you then put yourself in the wrong again. You referenced the article on Humphries, you then in the later post said the link to the report of Smith v Van Gerwen was like for like.

[ProfessorDavey]

Pity you then put yourself in the wrong again. You referenced the article on Humphries, you then in the later post said the link to the report of Smith v Van Gerwen was like for like.

Irrelevant - it was you that brought up 'like for like' in terms of article type (you are still wrong of course). When I mentioned like for like I clearly meant the publication - in other words both from The Times - hence, in my own words:

'In The Times, so like for like comparison.'

As it would clearly not be reasonable to compare coverage in The Times with, for example, Darts Monthly!

[Nearly Sane]

Irrelevant - it was you that brought up 'like for like' in terms of article type (you are still wrong of course). When I mentioned like for like I clearly meant the publication - in other words both from The Times - hence, in my own words:

'In The Times, so like for like comparison.'

As it would clearly not be reasonable to compare coverage in The Times with, for example, Darts Monthly!

You said a like for like comparison about the articles. You were wrong until I helped you out by being right in context but wrong overall.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said a like for like comparison about the articles.

No I didn't - stop lying. I said (very clearly) like for like source for the articles, in other words they were both from the Times. Which bit of:

'In The Times, so like for like comparison.'

are you struggling to understand.