Quote ="gutterfax"The total number games is 5, the total number of fans at those games is 75,307 and the average attendance is 15,074. The only way to adjust the average is to add to the actual and factual number of fans who were in attendance or reduce the number of factual and actual games that took place. [u75,307[/u people have watched [u5[/u games of RL. If you want to dispute the 15,074 average you need to change one of the two [uFACTUAL AND ACTUAL [/u ">numbers.'" You seem determined to pollute every thread with this nonsense, what a coincidence it conveniently matches your agenda. Your daft model insists on counting unique customers at this one single event but happily then allows the same unique person to be counted multiple times if they attend other pair of game combinations. And all because they got into these two Cardiff events on a single ticket? Statistical straw man nonsense. If the argument rests on how many individual fans attended games, you'd need to de-dupe the other matches too. Clearly that'd be a nonsense. According to you if I buy a £70 combined ticket for the pair of matches in Cardiff, and then spend £30 on 2 x £15 tickets for the pair of PNG matches in Hull, I've only attended 3 games not 4? Even though the price of each game in Cardiff (£35) is more than double the price of each single game in Hull - so there's no withdrawing to the equally tenuous "you only paid for one match, the other was free" idiocy either... Average attendance (the clue is in the title...) includes the 2 x 45k gates, aggregate sales might perhaps at a stretch include the 45k once - but even then I'd argue to be consistent you should combine tickets bought in other bulk buy price promotions too (there are several running). Really not that complicated matey.

Quote ="gutterfax"The total number games is 5, the total number of fans at those games is 75,307 and the average attendance is 15,074. The only way to adjust the average is to add to the actual and factual number of fans who were in attendance or reduce the number of factual and actual games that took place. [u75,307[/u people have watched [u5[/u games of RL. If you want to dispute the 15,074 average you need to change one of the two [uFACTUAL AND ACTUAL [/u ">numbers.'" You seem determined to pollute every thread with this nonsense, what a coincidence it conveniently matches your agenda. Your daft model insists on counting unique customers at this one single event but happily then allows the same unique person to be counted multiple times if they attend other pair of game combinations. And all because they got into these two Cardiff events on a single ticket? Statistical straw man nonsense. If the argument rests on how many individual fans attended games, you'd need to de-dupe the other matches too. Clearly that'd be a nonsense. According to you if I buy a £70 combined ticket for the pair of matches in Cardiff, and then spend £30 on 2 x £15 tickets for the pair of PNG matches in Hull, I've only attended 3 games not 4? Even though the price of each game in Cardiff (£35) is more than double the price of each single game in Hull - so there's no withdrawing to the equally tenuous "you only paid for one match, the other was free" idiocy either... Average attendance (the clue is in the title...) includes the 2 x 45k gates, aggregate sales might perhaps at a stretch include the 45k once - but even then I'd argue to be consistent you should combine tickets bought in other bulk buy price promotions too (there are several running). Really not that complicated matey.

Quote ="William Eve"If we count Cardiff, Wembley and all the rest as events instead... RLWC2013 Aggregate Attendance = 457,133 Number of events = 26 Average Attendance = 17,582 RLWC1995 Aggregate Attendance = 265,609 Number of games = 15 Average Attendance = 17,707 The full-priced 1995 World Cup average attendance is still higher than the average attendance at the half-priced discount on the already heavily discounted 2013 World ">Cup.'" Let's just have a final instead then. That would surely be better. The average could then be just 74,500.

Quote ="William Eve"If we count Cardiff, Wembley and all the rest as events instead... RLWC2013 Aggregate Attendance = 457,133 Number of events = 26 Average Attendance = 17,582 RLWC1995 Aggregate Attendance = 265,609 Number of games = 15 Average Attendance = 17,707 The full-priced 1995 World Cup average attendance is still higher than the average attendance at the half-priced discount on the already heavily discounted 2013 World ">Cup.'" Let's just have a final instead then. That would surely be better. The average could then be just 74,500.

There's not a mathematician, a level maths student, GCSE maths student, 11year old of a normal iq who would divide 28 data points by 26 and call it an average. The fact there are only 2 people doing so, and those two people have spent months before the WC telling us all how terrible it would be and how nobody would attend pretty much tells us all we need to know.



Everyone else accepts it's either 26 data points divided by 26 or 28 data points divided by 28, if Gutterfax and William Eve need to redefine what an average is to rescue what they think is some level of credibility, let them.

Quote ="Shoe Shine Johnny"Thanks for [ufinally clearing up the events thing once and for all[/u. If we look at the breakdown between the two tournaments it provides a more realistic comparison. Final 1995 66500 (1 event) = Ave 66,500 2013 74,000 (1 event) = Ave 74,000 SF 1995 46000 (2 events) = Ave 23,000 2013 67500 (1 event) = Ave 67,500 QF 1995 No Events 2013 46,900 (4 events) = Ave 11,725 Pool Games 1995 152500 (12 events) = Ave 12,708 2013 269100 (20 events) = Ave 13,455 England Games/Events (All games) 1995 177,500 (5 events) = Ave 35,500 2013 184,500 (5 events) = Ave 36,900 England Games/Events (Pool Games) 1995 83,000 (3 events) = Ave 27,700 2013 94,500 (3 events) = Ave 31,500 Non-England Games/Events 1995 88,500 (10 events) = Ave 8,850 2013 272,500 (21 events) = Ave 12,976 Difficult to compare 28 game (26 event) tournament against a 15 game tournament with no QFs etc. but this seems to. Both great tournaments and should be ">celebrated.'" Excellent post putting this thread to bed.

Quote ="Shoe Shine Johnny"Thanks for [ufinally clearing up the events thing once and for all[/u. If we look at the breakdown between the two tournaments it provides a more realistic comparison. Final 1995 66500 (1 event) = Ave 66,500 2013 74,000 (1 event) = Ave 74,000 SF 1995 46000 (2 events) = Ave 23,000 2013 67500 (1 event) = Ave 67,500 QF 1995 No Events 2013 46,900 (4 events) = Ave 11,725 Pool Games 1995 152500 (12 events) = Ave 12,708 2013 269100 (20 events) = Ave 13,455 England Games/Events (All games) 1995 177,500 (5 events) = Ave 35,500 2013 184,500 (5 events) = Ave 36,900 England Games/Events (Pool Games) 1995 83,000 (3 events) = Ave 27,700 2013 94,500 (3 events) = Ave 31,500 Non-England Games/Events 1995 88,500 (10 events) = Ave 8,850 2013 272,500 (21 events) = Ave 12,976 Difficult to compare 28 game (26 event) tournament against a 15 game tournament with no QFs etc. but this seems to. Both great tournaments and should be ">celebrated.'" Excellent post putting this thread to bed.

Quote ="Mr Churchill"Excellent post putting this thread to ">bed.'" I doubt it icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" />

Quote ="Mr Churchill"Excellent post putting this thread to ">bed.'" I doubt it icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" />

Quote ="SmokeyTA"There's not a mathematician, a level maths student, GCSE maths student, 11year old of a normal iq who would divide 28 data points by 26 and call it an average. The fact there are only 2 people doing so, and those two people have spent months before the WC telling us all how terrible it would be and how nobody would attend pretty much tells us all we need to know. Everyone else accepts it's either 26 data points divided by 26 or 28 data points divided by 28, if Gutterfax and William Eve need to redefine what an average is to rescue what they think is some level of credibility, let ">them.'" Just to be a pedant icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" /> they're doing 26 data sets by 28 (otherwise they'd be getting a BIGGER average, and I'm sure they wouldn't want that!).

Quote ="SmokeyTA"There's not a mathematician, a level maths student, GCSE maths student, 11year old of a normal iq who would divide 28 data points by 26 and call it an average. The fact there are only 2 people doing so, and those two people have spent months before the WC telling us all how terrible it would be and how nobody would attend pretty much tells us all we need to know. Everyone else accepts it's either 26 data points divided by 26 or 28 data points divided by 28, if Gutterfax and William Eve need to redefine what an average is to rescue what they think is some level of credibility, let ">them.'" Just to be a pedant icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" /> they're doing 26 data sets by 28 (otherwise they'd be getting a BIGGER average, and I'm sure they wouldn't want that!).