Darts is supposed to be a game of nerve, precision and mental strength, but the controversy surrounding Mensur Suljovic at the Swiss Darts Trophy has raised an uncomfortable question: how far should a player go when trying to win? The Austrian’s behaviour during his dramatic encounter with Ross Smith was already under scrutiny. His comments afterwards have only made the situation more difficult to defend.
What makes this incident particularly interesting is that Smith has not simply blamed his opponent for losing. The Englishman admitted that he missed two match darts, accepting responsibility for his failure to finish the contest. Yet he also made it clear that he was unhappy with what happened behind him while he was trying to close out the match.
For many darts fans, that distinction matters. Competitive gamesmanship is one thing, but deliberately encouraging a hostile crowd while an opponent is throwing to win is another. And when Suljovic subsequently made a remark about women complaining, the argument moved beyond the original match incident.
The most damaging part of the story may not be the missed doubles. It could be what happened when Suljovic was given the opportunity to explain himself on stage.
The Match That Sparked the Controversy
The drama unfolded during the last-16 encounter at the Swiss Darts Trophy in Basel on Sunday, October 11. Smith and Suljovic were locked at 5-5 in a best-of-11-legs contest, leaving the match to be decided by a tense final leg.
Smith appeared to have the perfect opportunity to finish the job when he earned two match darts at double 18. However, as the Englishman prepared to throw, Suljovic gestured towards the crowd, encouraging the spectators to increase their noise.
Smith missed both attempts, and the Austrian eventually returned to hit double 10 with his final dart to secure a 6-5 victory.
There is no denying that Smith had opportunities to win the match. At this level, missing two match darts can be the difference between progressing to the next round and heading home disappointed.
But that does not automatically make the circumstances surrounding those misses irrelevant.
Darts is a game in which concentration matters enormously. Players routinely face hostile crowds, whistles and loud celebrations, but there is a difference between spectators making noise themselves and an opponent appearing to encourage that reaction while someone is throwing for the match.
That timing is what has made Suljovic’s actions so difficult for many fans to accept.
Ross Smith Makes His Feelings Clear
Smith did not attempt to pretend that Suljovic was solely responsible for his defeat. Instead, his response on social media made it clear that he understood his own mistakes while remaining furious about what he believed had happened.
“I don’t blame Mensur for me losing that game,” Smith wrote. “I missed two match darts. Simple as that.”
He then explained why the incident had bothered him, adding: “Obviously it’s impossible for me to know what he’s doing behind my back when I’m throwing apart from the crowd’s response.”
Smith finished with a pointed message: “Karma will come around.”
His frustration is understandable. Imagine practising for hours, fighting through a difficult match and getting within two darts of victory, only to find yourself dealing with additional distractions at the most important moment.
However, Smith deserves credit for acknowledging the missed opportunities. That admission gives his criticism more credibility than an outright attempt to blame the entire defeat on his opponent.
At the same time, calling Suljovic an “absolute helmet” was never going to calm the situation. It made the dispute more personal, even if Smith clearly wanted to express how angry he was.
The bigger issue remains whether players should be encouraging crowd hostility at precisely the moment their opponents are trying to finish a match.
Suljovic’s Response Makes Matters Worse
If Suljovic had simply explained that he wanted the crowd behind him and accepted that the timing might have been inappropriate, the controversy might have ended much sooner.
Instead, his post-match comments generated another wave of criticism.
Asked about Smith’s complaint after beating Dirk van Duijvenbode in the quarter-finals, Suljovic questioned why the Englishman was upset and said:
“Look, Ross Smith is one of the best players in the world. What is the guy complaining about? He has to play his game, otherwise he can go straight home.
“Women complain, sorry. You don’t do that.”
That remark was particularly unnecessary. Players can disagree over competitive behaviour without dragging women into the argument or using them as a comparison to dismiss an opponent’s complaint.
Suljovic was entitled to defend himself. He was entitled to point out that Smith missed his chances. But suggesting that complaining is somehow characteristic of women added nothing to his defence and risked turning a sporting disagreement into something much more unpleasant.
He also explained his motivation for encouraging the spectators, saying:
“Okay, I got the crowd going a little, just like in Germany. I need the support. I can’t do anything without you. Thank you.”
There is a reasonable point buried in that explanation. Home crowds can give players an enormous lift, and Suljovic is hardly the first professional to feed off the atmosphere.
The problem is that the situation was not simply about celebrating with supporters after winning a leg. Smith was attempting to hit the doubles that would have ended the contest.
Philip Brzezinski Steps In
The interview took a more uncomfortable turn when master of ceremonies Philip Brzezinski challenged Suljovic directly.
Brzezinski, who conducts interviews at PDC European Tour events, made it clear that he did not agree with the Austrian’s explanation.
“Mensur, we’ve known each other for a long time and we really like each other but to be perfectly honest I don’t agree with you on that.”
He continued:
“It’s OK to get the audience a little carried away but I thought the timing this afternoon – right when Ross Smith was throwing for the match – wasn’t right. That was too much.”
That intervention was important because it showed that the criticism was not limited to an angry opponent or disappointed supporters online.
Brzezinski acknowledged their longstanding relationship while still explaining why he believed Suljovic had gone too far. It was a direct challenge, but one grounded in the specific circumstances of the match.
Suljovic replied:
“I didn’t see that. It could be, okay. I’ll have to watch it back on video.”
He also defended the crowd’s freedom to react, saying:
“I encouraged the crowd behind me, but he has to understand that. The crowd can do what it wants, can’t it?”
That leaves room for debate over whether Suljovic fully understood the criticism. His willingness to watch the footage is notable, but it is not the same as accepting that his actions were inappropriate.
A Familiar Controversy for Suljovic
This is not the first time Suljovic has found himself at the centre of a dispute over his behaviour during a match.
During the World Darts Championship in December 2025, Joe Cullen accused the Austrian of cheating over his pace of play and celebrations during their contest. Suljovic rejected the suggestion that he was deliberately provoking opponents.
That previous incident does not automatically prove that every criticism of Suljovic is justified. Players have different routines, temperaments and approaches to competition, and not every irritating habit should be treated as misconduct.
Nevertheless, repeated controversy can affect how fans interpret a player’s actions. When an incident resembles an earlier dispute, people are naturally more likely to question whether it is part of a wider pattern.
The Professional Darts Corporation has confirmed that the matter involving Smith and Suljovic has been referred to the Darts Regulation Authority for review. No outcome should be assumed before that process is completed.
Suljovic’s Tournament Run Deserves Recognition
It would also be unfair to ignore what Suljovic achieved on the oche in Basel.
Before facing Smith, he eliminated Michael van Gerwen with a 6-4 victory. He then defeated Smith 6-5 before producing a commanding 6-1 quarter-final win over Van Duijvenbode.
His run ultimately ended in the semi-finals, where Luke Humphries recovered from an early deficit to win 7-4. Jonny Clayton went on to win the tournament.
Those results demonstrate that Suljovic was playing impressive darts throughout the weekend. His progress was not simply the result of controversy or crowd involvement.
That is precisely why the incident feels so unnecessary. Suljovic had already shown that he could compete with elite opposition and produce the performances required to reach the latter stages of a major European Tour event.
He did not need to make the contest with Smith about anything beyond the darts.
What Happens Next?
The most important question now is whether the incident leads to any disciplinary action and whether Suljovic reflects on the criticism he has received.
Crowd interaction is part of darts’ appeal. The noise, tension and emotional swings help create an atmosphere that makes the sport entertaining. Players should be allowed to celebrate, respond to supporters and show personality.
But there should also be a line between enjoying the atmosphere and deliberately trying to unsettle an opponent at a decisive moment.
Smith must accept responsibility for missing his doubles, just as every professional must take responsibility for mistakes under pressure. That does not mean his concerns should be dismissed.
Suljovic, meanwhile, has every right to defend his competitive approach, but the remark about women was an avoidable mistake that distracted from any legitimate argument he might have had.
Ultimately, the darts should be the main attraction, not arguments over what happened behind a player’s back or uncomfortable exchanges during a winner’s interview.
What do you think? Was Mensur Suljovic simply playing the crowd to gain an advantage, or did he cross the line by encouraging boos while Ross Smith was throwing for the match?