Thursday 10 March 2016 20:17, UK
Michael van Gerwen's exceptional emergence as the world No 1 has lasted long enough that he might become even greater than Phil Taylor.
The Dutchman is just 26, whereas Taylor didn't throw his first competitive arrow until the same age. Van Gerwen broke Taylor's record for the highest ever televised average in this year's Premier League but does that mean he's overtaking the 16-time world champion?
Sky Sports expert Wayne Mardle ponders who is better...
Mardle said: It's not just the wins, it's the performances. Whenever he is pushed, he has an answer.
At the World Championship he lost with a 105 average. I don't ever remember Taylor having to deal with that during a World Championship. What I'm getting at, is that the quality Michael needs to play at to win week-in week-out is not what Taylor had to put up with.
I was world No 4 for a while. I was the equivalent of Adrian Lewis or Peter Wright. I couldn't beat Taylor, I only beat him once on the main stage. These guys can beat Van Gerwen or Taylor. Dave Chisnall is currently world No 10 - back in the day, that would have been Roland Scholten who has the very worst record of absolutely anyone against Taylor.
Scholten was in the world top eight for six years! Can you imagine someone in today's top eight playing Van Gerwen 28 times and losing 25? That wouldn't happen now, it's not possible.
The players today are of a standard where, in 25 times, they will play their best game which is good enough to beat Michael. Against Phil it wasn't possible. My record against Phil was dismal - I played him 29 times and won three, and I was one of the players gunning for him!
Phil didn't throw a competitive dart until he was 26. Michael, at 16, was ranked inside the BDO's top 10. I'm not taking anything away from Phil but the opposition were not good - and I include myself in that.
Mardle said: Phil could only beat what was in front of him. He was probably too good, before his time. He's a darting freak because he was always so much better than the rest.
He didn't have the opponents to push him which is actually more impressive because he still pushed himself on. The fact that he kept striving for another win, another hiding, is impressive.
I remember playing him in a Premier League game when you had to play all 11 legs. I was 8-0 down in Norwich and I remember thinking Phil really wanted to beat me 11-0 badly. I won two legs and he was devastated, you could see it in his eyes. I remember thinking he had something I didn't have - forget wins or talent - he had a special desire.
We have all these stats about averages but do you really need to average 103? If you average 93 against someone averaging 83, you will annihilate them. Averages are just a guide.
Deciding who is the best ever player shouldn't be subjective. You need a fact or a stat. Michael, before he packs up, needs to win six world titles. He can't have five, in the same bracket as Eric Bristow or Raymond van Barneveld, he needs six.
