So he won because of the throw then, thanks

You are a tit, 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 shit.

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.