It's not the numbers being argued.

It's the technical description. Some people are insistant on counting games. But you can't count the number of games as some games have been merged into one event.

If there was no double header, we have no way of knowing how many would turn up to the England match and the Wales match separately. Some would have attended both and so would have been counted twice others would not. So it's pointless to count the attendance at both games.

I understand why it's done, but trying to do it is in effect futile.

It is better to call it a Rugby event count the attendance once. It's an acurate description. It's a rugby event, if there had been 2/3 or 4 games it's still one event on one day.

I'm not comparing to other codes, sure if they count twice then we must, when comparing to other codes. But when comparing to other RLWC's with no double headers, you can't just count the number of games, you have to talk about the number of events. If there were only 16 events at previous WC's the fact they are single games, means that comparing this WC with double headers does not work. The closest you can get is counting double headers as one event and dividing by the number of events, dividing by the number of games becomes meaningless.

in the end it does not matter as all the events so far have been fabulously attended.

:clap:

Finally, some people that actually understand.

He can keep saying 45,052 attended each game until the cows come home. It doesn't make it a fact and he has no evidence to back it up because it simply isn't true. Counting an event attendance as two game attendances does not give you an accurate attendance figure and never will.

Quote: Wellsy13 "And neither are you. You have assumed that because 45k tickets were sold that 45k attended both games. They didn't. It would be like arguing 85,000 attended the Year 7 Champion Schools Boys final every year. It simply isn't true.'" No, im not assuming anything. Im saying that becaue 45k were sold thats the figure we use. People who didnt bother to turn up, those who got lost on the way, those got up to get a pie are irrelevant. We dont discount them from any other game, why would we for this? Quote: Wellsy13 "You don't have the data for both games. You only have the data for one event. You can't just make assumptions that they attended both games if a hell of a lot of them left. It wouldn't give you an accurate reading. You wouldn't get a credible statistic by adding 90,000 to the aggregate attendance for the World Cup.'" No, there are two data-sets. Here is a match report on the wales game giving the attendance for the Wales game. im not spinning anything. Im all those reported to have attended the games and dividing them by all the games played. It is you who needs to 'merge' games to make them fit. Quote: Wellsy13 "Again, utter rubbish. Normally, you'd be comparing like for like in that a rugby league match is being held in a stadium where tickets are sold and people are then counted as they enter. That process doesn't change depending on the team or the stadium so why you've mentioned it I haven't a clue?'" Erm, because the amount of tickets sold is often dependent on when, where and who is playing. Quote: Wellsy13 "And yes, the double header may have increased the attendance. England vs Australia at one stadium may have got a 30,000 crowd and Wales vs Italy at another may have gotten 5,000, overall making 35,000 attendees at two events compared to 45,000 at one more attractive event. I have counted that. What I haven't done is multiplied it by two to make it seem like it was more than it is. Nor have I halved it to make it seem like less. Both wouldn't paint an accurate picture at all. Skewing a statistic was not the aim of getting more attendees. Selling more tickets was the aim of getting more attendees.'" Nobody but you, gutterfax and William Eve is trying to skew the statistics. Nearly everyone else is simply taking all those who attended the games and dividing it by the games played. Quote: Wellsy13 "You say you like to deal in facts Smokey, so here is the one fact that is known. Fact It isn’t fiction. 45k attended game 1. 45k attended game 2. If you have any evidence to the contrary provide it. Quote: Wellsy13 "To say 45,052 attended game one and 45,052 attended game to makes an aggregate attendance of 90,104. There were not 90,000 attendees altogether (whether some were the same people or not). It simply isn't true. Just like saying 30,000 watched any one game of the Magic Weekend. Absolute fiction. Thousands left.'" So now you are trying to move your argument on to saying these people shouldn’t be counted because even though they bought tickets they weren’t there. Why haven’t you done the same for any other games? Some may have not turned up or left early at other games. Season ticket holders are counted even if they don’t turn up. Why are you treating this differently? Quote: Wellsy13 "If you think it's statistically accurate to skew the overall attendance of SL by adding over 200k for the Magic Weekend then that's pretty worrying!'" so you are you trying to say the average attendance for MM was around 8k? you’re a moron if so. 30k bought a ticket to match 1. 30k bought a ticket to match 2, 30k bought a ticket to match 3 and 30k bought a ticket to match 4. That they bought them as one is irrelevant, that they may have left is irrelevant. The same principle applies to MM and the double header as it does to every other match. If you buy a ticket and get lost on the way, decide not to go, leave half way through. Doesn’t matter. You count. Quote: Wellsy13 "Err... no, it's not. That's how many people attended both games overall. Not how many attended each game.'" no, its the amount who attended both www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ter-defeat and www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ales-scalp hth

Quote: Wellsy13 "And neither are you. You have assumed that because 45k tickets were sold that 45k attended both games. They didn't. It would be like arguing 85,000 attended the Year 7 Champion Schools Boys final every year. It simply isn't true.'" No, im not assuming anything. Im saying that becaue 45k were sold thats the figure we use. People who didnt bother to turn up, those who got lost on the way, those got up to get a pie are irrelevant. We dont discount them from any other game, why would we for this? Quote: Wellsy13 "You don't have the data for both games. You only have the data for one event. You can't just make assumptions that they attended both games if a hell of a lot of them left. It wouldn't give you an accurate reading. You wouldn't get a credible statistic by adding 90,000 to the aggregate attendance for the World Cup.'" No, there are two data-sets. Here is a match report on the wales game giving the attendance for the Wales game. im not spinning anything. Im all those reported to have attended the games and dividing them by all the games played. It is you who needs to 'merge' games to make them fit. Quote: Wellsy13 "Again, utter rubbish. Normally, you'd be comparing like for like in that a rugby league match is being held in a stadium where tickets are sold and people are then counted as they enter. That process doesn't change depending on the team or the stadium so why you've mentioned it I haven't a clue?'" Erm, because the amount of tickets sold is often dependent on when, where and who is playing. Quote: Wellsy13 "And yes, the double header may have increased the attendance. England vs Australia at one stadium may have got a 30,000 crowd and Wales vs Italy at another may have gotten 5,000, overall making 35,000 attendees at two events compared to 45,000 at one more attractive event. I have counted that. What I haven't done is multiplied it by two to make it seem like it was more than it is. Nor have I halved it to make it seem like less. Both wouldn't paint an accurate picture at all. Skewing a statistic was not the aim of getting more attendees. Selling more tickets was the aim of getting more attendees.'" Nobody but you, gutterfax and William Eve is trying to skew the statistics. Nearly everyone else is simply taking all those who attended the games and dividing it by the games played. Quote: Wellsy13 "You say you like to deal in facts Smokey, so here is the one fact that is known. Fact It isn’t fiction. 45k attended game 1. 45k attended game 2. If you have any evidence to the contrary provide it. Quote: Wellsy13 "To say 45,052 attended game one and 45,052 attended game to makes an aggregate attendance of 90,104. There were not 90,000 attendees altogether (whether some were the same people or not). It simply isn't true. Just like saying 30,000 watched any one game of the Magic Weekend. Absolute fiction. Thousands left.'" So now you are trying to move your argument on to saying these people shouldn’t be counted because even though they bought tickets they weren’t there. Why haven’t you done the same for any other games? Some may have not turned up or left early at other games. Season ticket holders are counted even if they don’t turn up. Why are you treating this differently? Quote: Wellsy13 "If you think it's statistically accurate to skew the overall attendance of SL by adding over 200k for the Magic Weekend then that's pretty worrying!'" so you are you trying to say the average attendance for MM was around 8k? you’re a moron if so. 30k bought a ticket to match 1. 30k bought a ticket to match 2, 30k bought a ticket to match 3 and 30k bought a ticket to match 4. That they bought them as one is irrelevant, that they may have left is irrelevant. The same principle applies to MM and the double header as it does to every other match. If you buy a ticket and get lost on the way, decide not to go, leave half way through. Doesn’t matter. You count. Quote: Wellsy13 "Err... no, it's not. That's how many people attended both games overall. Not how many attended each game.'" no, its the amount who attended both www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ter-defeat and www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ales-scalp hth

Again, well said.

There is a complete failure in the methodology if anyone tries to compare 30,000 attending two Magic Weekend days each, calling that 210,000 aggregate attendees (which is what you're doing if you say 30,000 attended each game) and saying that that's an increase on if 20,000 attending 7 SL games for a total of 140,000. The two just aren't comparable that way and paints a completely false picture.

by excluding a game from your results

no, 5 attendances at 5 games have been given. If you like i can show you them if you like..

I can tell the difference between 1 game and 1 event. I have not at any stage failed to differentiate them .

This is correct. The fact it happened is what makes it true.

So what if people left? People leave many games early, they are counted. Some don’t turn up, they are counted.

Why are you only questioning one reported attendance and not the other 3? If we accept that the reported attendances are correct we accept they are all correct. If we don’t accept they are correct we can’t trust any of them.

Im working with the reported figures. Conspiracy theories about inflation of figures are the property of the trolls and morons.

Some people are being stupid.

An average of the attendances is calculated by adding all of the official attendance scores up and dividing by the number of games.

All that matters is the official attendance score. Like complaining about a try scored from a possible forward pass, it doesn't actually matter if you disagree with the official account, that account stands and your opinion is only an opinion.

As the official attendance for England v Australia is 45,052 and the official attendance for Wales v Italy is 45,052 then the average attendance for the first 5 games would be:
(45,052 + 45,052 + 13,965 + 7,481 + 8,872 ) / 5

Giving an average attendance of: 24,084.4

Your problem is that a like for like comparison with other tournaments on ‘averages’ is meaningless anyway because of the difference in format, more people could attend every game in this WC and we still end up with a lower average because of the structure in the tournament. So if we are going to get an average we should use the actual average i.e all the people who attended divided by all the games which were played.

there is no other way to get an average attendance than divided the attendance for each game bu the number of games, I cannot believe any one is questioning that?

Have you really not got anything better to do than plait fog on here all day?
Same few people on every single thread just boring the living **** out of everyone.

I don't post much at all but i used to read this forum every day, often several times a day. In the last few weeks that's become once every few days and for much less time meaning less advertising revenue for RLFans.

Not every event counts tickets sold in the attendances. It's not standard practice.
To be an attendee, the definition lends itself to suggest you should actually have to attend! If you're not in attendance, you're not an attendee, and if someone says that you are then they are lying.

Let's say London Broncos decide to sell me 12,000 tickets at the Stoop for £1.
For some reason, I can't sell many of them on. 2,000 people go through the turnstiles to watch the game.

Is the attendance 12,000?

Every other game in the RLWC has used the same principle. Why would we change it just for this game?
Yes, both. I.e TWO. You are almost there. Keep trying.
Why would sporting life lie about it? You are getting like AP now where anything reported that doesn’t fit your bias is a lie. The RFL are liars, the BBC are liars, the RFU when they do it are liars. You sound like a child.

You seem to have forgotten the context in which that comment was made which is in relation to comparing like for like. I was saying we aren’t comparing like for like, we are comparing different games, between different teams, in a different location at a different time in a tournament with a different structure.

Everyone is wrong, everyone is a liar. Are you going to stamp your feet next?

Unless you are going to do the same investigation into the reported attendance of all 28 games then no, it is irrelevant.

It is standard practice, not just in sports but in any venue. If it a ticket as sold, whatever package it is sold from it is sold. It cannot be sold again. The money has been received. It is also the practice used in the last WC and the rest of this one.

Those who attended bought a ticket for both games. Why they did that doesn’t in any way effect the fact that they did that.

We can, very easily work out the average attendance for MM. Take the cumulative reported attendances and divide it by the number of games. That’s how you find an average.

But seemingly only for this game. Not every other game that has ever been played (bar MM for some reason) If you want to use that principle then you need to use it for every game. So before you put any trust in any of the 3 other figures being reported you will need to do you, Billy and Gutterfax can sit, watch a replay of the game and try and count every single person there, remembering to factor in those who went for a pie/wee etc.

Surprisingly enough, im not the sporting life website.

Yes, what seem to forget is that figure would then be divided by 7 before being included in the averages of each club. If you didn’t you would be saying that the attendance for that game was 8k, when it was 30k.