Really?
45,052 rlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/live/match-report/36383/aussies-beat-battling-englandrl AND rlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/live/match-report/39671/italy-claim-wales-scalprl
7,481 rlhttp://www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-world-news/article/1235/france-hold-on-to-denyrl
13,965* rlhttp://www.rlwc2013.com/rugby-league-world-news/article/1237/kiwis-keep-their-cool-torl
8,872 rlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/live/match-report/36386/fiji-v-irelandrl

*I have seen the attendance at the HJ for the Kiwis and Samoa reported as 14,965 but am happy to use the figure reported on the official RLWC 2013 web site.....

75,370 people have attended 5 games so far. Because I choose to ignore your insane and inane ramblings about counting 45,052 TWICE, it doesn't change the fact that 75,370, going on the widely reported attendances, is the total number of people who have attended games so far.
The laws of mathematics state that to find an average, you add the numbers up and divide by the number of games.....15,074 is therefore the average attendance.

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.

Excellent post putting this thread to bed.

I doubt it

Just to be a pedant 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!).