Why don't we take the average of the two averages?
(12995+14483)/2 = 13719

(Only Joking!!!)

Judean People's Front? We're the People's Front of Judea!

Well so far 302344 have attended 23 events

That's pretty good going.

With 3 World cup events left to go. We could be looking at near 450,000 to attend all events.

Which will push the average at all events over the 17k figure.

(I've taken the attendance at the first warrington match as the lower figure as that is what the independent jurno's have published. But what is 1 thousand between friends)

[i...The pre-tournament target was 500,000, and although the end figure for sales was 458,463, World Cup organisers claim that the target was always taking into account individual games for the double-headers at Cardiff and Wembley, rather than the event as a whole. In that case, the final figure surpassed 550,000,... [/i www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... -world-cup

[i...The pre-tournament target was 500,000, and although the end figure for sales was 458,463, World Cup organisers claim that the target was always taking into account individual games for the double-headers at Cardiff and Wembley, rather than the event as a whole. In that case, the final figure surpassed 550,000,... [/i www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2 ... -world-cup

We now have 3 different thread all about averages.
Can you all stick to this one and stop spoiling other threads.
Thanks in advance.

It was quite happily going to drop off the front page until you piped up



460/28= 16,428 up .03% and resulting in a healthy 10% increase in profits
570/28 = 20,357 up 25% and resulting in a disappointing 10% increase in profits

Which is it gonna be?

Given the price of many tickets, I would go with the second choice and focus on the increased attendances! But thats just me.

ah...the 167,000 extra fans who attended? Good stuff......because if they hadn't, those 10 extra games would have been a worry

Hold on...

I admit to not having read through all the pages of this enthralling argument so may have got something wrong.

Were your two choices either half the double headers or to count crowds twice?

I thought we would have gone for the more sensible 'count each double header as one event'. I really dont want to go into it but halving crowds or doubling them just seems silly. I await 'Well ignoring games is even worse' but ah well.

It's not doubling them. The attendance for Australia v Fiji was 65,000. The attendance for England v NZ was 65,000. 2 games. 2 attendances. It's the generally accepted way of working out crowds.
When I buy a season ticket to Leeds my attendance is counted at 13 games, not just 1.

Each double header is indeed one event. With 2 games.

Ask yourself this: How many people were in attendance for England vs New Zealand? How many people were in attendance for Aus vs Fiji? Each game had an attendance that counts for that game alone. You're not doubling the attendance, you're looking at the number of people that attended each individual game. Which is how crowds are measured across the known world.

It matters not that they were on the same day in the same venue: each game had an attendance.

The number of tickets purchased for each 'event' is clearly another matter.

Yep......there were 67000 there for Australia v Fiji and 45,000 there for Wales v Italy..





The organisers of RLWC 2017 have decided on 4 x weekend quad-headers at ANZ for the pool stages delivering 1,280,000 fans in the pool stages alone next year......another quad-header for the qf's delivering 320k......double header for semis and then the final adds 240k....1.84 million attendance on the back of 7 events and 540k ticket sales.....simplez!!!!!!

They will then have RLWC 2021 hosted in North Korea using the same counting system and schedule at the 150,000 seat Rungnado May Day Stadium delivering 600,000 a weekend over 4 weekends followed by another 600k then 300k then 150k delivering a 3.5 million attended RLWC and triggering calls for SoO to be played in Pyongyang to further assist the games global growth



To claim anything other than 460/28 smacks of insecurity and desperation.....to claim a 20k average shows a worrying need to be take seriously as an international sport and to claim there were 67,000 in attendance for Australia v Fiji points towards senile dementia coupled with blindness.

More double headers......that's the way ahead...it gives the impression that we're making progress and that's all that matters.

Of course it was!

[uComparative RLWC Attendances[/u
=#FF0000RLWC2013: Total Attendance 457,133/28 games = Average 16,326
RLWC2008: Total Attendance 293,965/18 games = Average 16,331
RLWC2000: Total Attendance 263,921/31 games = Average 8,514
RLWC1995: Total Attendance 265,609/15 games = Average 17,707

There is either 28 games with 28 attendances or 26 events with 26 attendances.

Only a retard or a troll would try and work out an average of 28 games using 26 attendances.

You and Mr Eve can decide which you would like to be, I know how precious you get when you are called out on your trolling.

I'm absolutely delighted with the RLWC attendances in 2013. I did have my doubts that the modern day fan of discounted Super League would turn up in sufficient numbers but they did thankfully buy into the concept of international RL in the end.

The late avalanche of half price discount codes when applied to the already-discounted RLWC ticket prices was the clincher. How can any modern day fan of discounted Super League turn down prices of £5 and £7.50 for the rare opportunity to witness bona fide world class players in action?

Will the alleged legacy of the RLWC and it's attendances have a positive influence on Super League attendances which were 10.4% down last year? We shall have to wait and see.

You've got some nerve showing your face here again. No one wants you here. A repetitive, dull, irritating troll.

I reckon the RLWC legacy will be a 200 page thread debating this very question. Can't wait!

460,000ish divided by the 26 events, giving an average around 17,500 - it's the only fair and most accurate way to calculate it

Well that at least gives an average, it may not be an average per game, rather an average per event but it at least qualifies as an average of something.

That is at least better than 460k/28 which doesn’t even pass the most basic test of being an average of anything at all.

My guess is that any potential positives emanating from the alleged RLWC legacy shall disappear down the porcelain bowl faster than a senokot-engineered turd during the off-season, as the trials and tribulations of an increasingly discredited Super League takes over the news feeds.

More seriously, it won't be possible to confirm/deny any legacy in terms of effect on SL attendances. For example, should they fall, how much further might they have fallen minus the RLWC legacy? And equally, should they increase, there won't be a shred of evidence that this is down to the RLWC.

What the RLWC has done is to reinvigorate the national game. I suspect, and hope, that it is there that any legacy will best manifest itself.

It was definitely more than zero!

Btw, from that picture you was sat near me, you could have bought me a beer!

The total attendance for the two semi final fixtures was 67,545.


I'd have been more than happy to buy you a beer but I'd have insisted you queued for it.

Why then did you include other sports double headers in your list on the other thread?
You can't have it both ways. Incidentally, it's the way attendances are counted across the sporting world these days. It seems there's only you and William Eve determined to prove that RL is somehow different.


What's wrong with you? You claim you want RL to be like other sports with event games. They do so, and yet you want RL to count the attendances differently to every other sport by either bizarrely halving the attendance or omitting certain games. Why?




No, to only count the attendances at 26 games and then divide it by 28 is not only mathematically illiterate but smacks of a desperation to paint RL in a more negative light. Why would you do that? Unless of course you have an agenda. We all know what AP's is, what's yours?
You gave Leeds Rhinos average attendance on your other thread (it was wrong, but hey ho), how did you (or the website you got it from) arrive at that figure? I assume by adding the attendances of the Leeds Rhinos home games for that year and then dividing by the number of games?


You yourself said that we should have more double headers.



Are you really that upset at your predictions being proved so disastrously wrong that you have to resort to distorting figures and averages to try and prove it wasn't a successful tournament?