Thanks for [ufinally clearing up the events thing once and for all[/u. If we look at the breakdown between the two tournaments it provides a more realistic comparison.

Final
1995 66500 (1 event) = Ave 66,500
2013 74,000 (1 event) = Ave 74,000

SF
1995 46000 (2 events) = Ave 23,000
2013 67500 (1 event) = Ave 67,500

QF
1995 No Events
2013 46,900 (4 events) = Ave 11,725

Pool Games
1995 152500 (12 events) = Ave 12,708
2013 269100 (20 events) = Ave 13,455

England Games/Events (All games)
1995 177,500 (5 events) = Ave 35,500
2013 184,500 (5 events) = Ave 36,900

England Games/Events (Pool Games)
1995 83,000 (3 events) = Ave 27,700
2013 94,500 (3 events) = Ave 31,500

Non-England Games/Events
1995 88,500 (10 events) = Ave 8,850
2013 272,500 (21 events) = Ave 12,976

Difficult to compare 28 game (26 event) tournament against a 15 game tournament with no QFs etc. but this seems to. Both great tournaments and should be celebrated.

Let's just have a final instead then. That would surely be better. The average could then be just 74,500.

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!).