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.

In the words of the great Monty Python team “is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?”

As anyone got any aspirins??

Anyways. I've had my say. Some people agree, some people disagree.

To summarise my standpoint:
To be counted in the attendance, you should actually have to be in attendance.

Using the attendance of one event to mean the same as the attendance at both games is incorrect because people leave before or arrive after certain games and are therefore not always in attendances (see above).

Aggregating your attendance at one event to being the same as two games and summing it up with events with only one game is a completely and utterly flawed methodology and proves nothing so it shouldn't be done. Yes you are technically in attendance at two games, but it is not a like-for-like comparison. If you want to do this, it is even more pointless to pretend that the number of people in overall attendance of an event is the same as for each game, therefore making an even greater statistically incorrect statement.

I'll let someone else have a go!

(As for those complaining about this thread, it's not hard to avoid it, just like I avoid as many of the threads continually whinging about Nigel Wood and the RFL!)

I've tried to explain that you cannot use the total attendance for a double header twice as the individual attendance for each game. I've also explained that you can't halve this figure and use it twice, either.

Again using Magic as a comparison. If you are working out the total average attendance of a full SL campaign, using Smokey's method this would add 210,000 to the cumulative total, when in reality it is 60k.

It is the same with this, if you take the 45k twice and say Wembley will get 75k, the total attendance figures would be inflated by 120k. The only fair way to average out this tournament is to take the total attendance from the 26 events and divide it by 26. This is the true average. It is not saying that 2 games did not occur, just that 4 games took place at 2 events.

I know people won't agree, but using any other method scews the final figures.