You can't divide 67k by 2 because theres 2 games. You are then saying there was only 33.5k at the england nz game, when there was clearly nearly 70. And there was clearly more than that at the start of the aus fiji game.

Only way is to treat it as one game one event.

Whoever is dividing it by 2 if a ******* k**t and is doing it purely for their agenda, to draw people into a argument they know they can't win.

Yay for boring, relentless, repetitive trolls!

If only the RFL had staged a quadruple header along with a triple header on the same weekend instead?

The RLWC2013 attendances could have then been fudged 4 times on the Saturday at Cardiff and 3 times on the Sunday at Wembley to arrive at a smokeycalc-induced attendance of approximately ((45,052 x 3) + (67,545 x 4)) "Half-Priced Coded Discount Applied To Already Heavily Discounted World Cup Tickets Magic Attendance Double Big Hit Weekend of the Extraordinary!"[/i That's one way of ensuring the average attendance is higher than the full-priced 1995 or full-priced 2008 World Cup

OTOH, they could calculate the total aggregate attendance and divide by the number of games played in order to arrive at the average. That's how it's always been done in previous full-priced RLWC's.

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.

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!).