Key performance insights
Driven by the final stat split and leg availabilityPaul Lim was the sharper finisher, clearing chances 5.0 percentage points better on doubles.
Jeffrey De Graaf set the tone earlier in legs, opening with a 5.7 point First 9 advantage.
Scoring summary
Power scoring and volumeFinishing summary
Checkout quality and conversionJeffrey De GraafCheckout %38.0%
Highest checkout108
Checkouts8/21
Paul LimCheckout %43.0%
Highest checkout100
Checkouts10/23
Momentum strip
Match flow by legL1Paul Lim
L2Paul Lim
L3Jeffrey De Graaf
L4Paul Lim
L5Paul Lim
L6Jeffrey De Graaf
L7Jeffrey De Graaf
L8Jeffrey De Graaf
L9Jeffrey De Graaf
L10Paul Lim
L11Jeffrey De Graaf
L12Paul Lim
L13Paul Lim
L14Paul Lim
L15Jeffrey De Graaf
L16Paul Lim
L17Jeffrey De Graaf
L18Paul Lim
Leg-by-leg table
18 legs capturedLegWinnerDartsCheckout
Set 1 · Leg 1
Paul Lim
16
20
Set 1 · Leg 2Streak of 2
Paul Lim
19
32
Set 1 · Leg 3
Jeffrey De Graaf
13Fast leg
16
Set 1 · Leg 4
Paul Lim
13Fast leg
16
Set 2 · Leg 1Streak of 2
Paul Lim
17
80
Set 2 · Leg 2
Jeffrey De Graaf
16
20
Set 2 · Leg 3Streak of 2
Jeffrey De Graaf
15Fast leg
108
Set 2 · Leg 4Streak of 3
Jeffrey De Graaf
14Fast leg
25
Set 3 · Leg 1Streak of 4
Jeffrey De Graaf
20
71
Set 3 · Leg 2
Paul Lim
21
100
Set 3 · Leg 3
Jeffrey De Graaf
20
45
Set 3 · Leg 4
Paul Lim
19
40
Set 3 · Leg 5Streak of 2
Paul Lim
17
71
Set 4 · Leg 1Streak of 3
Paul Lim
14Fast leg
78
Set 4 · Leg 2
Jeffrey De Graaf
14Fast leg
76
Set 4 · Leg 3
Paul Lim
12Fast leg
81
Set 4 · Leg 4
Jeffrey De Graaf
13Fast leg
16
Set 4 · Leg 5
Paul Lim
17
56
Match stats
2 player rows3-dart avg86.9
First 997.9
Checkout38.0% (8/21)
180s8
High checkout108
100+ checkouts1
3-dart avg86.5
First 992.1
Checkout43.0% (10/23)
180s2
High checkout100
100+ checkouts1
AI edge post-mortem
Work in progressPaul Lim closed this out 8–10, and the completed-match recap now has the right scaffolding to explain the result with more than a shrug.