the point is people paid double the price of a normal single group game at other venues so the attendance should be counted for each game....

It was a clever ploy for once by the organisers to boost the crowds for both games by combining them at the same venue....

If you've not noticed, the elements on the other threads about this have been moved into one new thread to stop it flooding the other threads.

That doesn't mean each game was half the value of the ticket, so no I don't agree.

Does anyone remember the days when this forum used to be full of people talking about a sport that they care passionately about, rather than a bunch of maths geeks arguing about the best methodology and Excel formulae for counting empty seats?

It is a strawman because you're attempting to make me say something I'm not in an effort to make you sound superior and have an easier argument to win.

I have not ignored the Wales/Italy game. I have merged it with the England/Australia game into one event because in effect that is what happened. I'm not pretending one wasn't there. When you're not comparing like-for-like, you have to pick the way which paints the most accurate picture of your data, otherwise it's meaningless.

Pretending that 90,000 watched both games is statistically incorrect. At the same time, pretending that 22,500 watched each game is also incorrect. Merge then together as one event (which it was) will give you the most accurate statistic.


I don't know why you'd say it's because I don't like the results. I'd love for it to be true! But I'd be hypocritical to scoff at rugby union doing it and then agree with it when league does it.

And yes, I can counteract that. Quite easily. It's impossible to say how many attended each game when they've got a ticket for one event. There were definitely not 45k in attendance at Wales vs Italy as many left after the England game. That is why it would be unfair to say 90,000 attended both games. Just like it would be unfair to say 120,000 attended 4 games of the Magic Weekend. There is no way to tell how many are at each game.

No one has said that as far as I can see, 45,000 people watched both games, which if you can't see the difference then theres no point having the debate.

Did they? Or did half of them go home after game one?

Jezzzzzzzzzzzzus Christ Wellseh

What a shocking argument. Are you really comparing that to what I'm saying?

You're saying that I'm calling two games one game by using that analogy. I'm not and never have (again, another straw man). I've called them an event. So no, I wouldn't say "I have one chicken nugget", I'd say I have one box of chicken nuggets, one (box) being the quantity of items I bought, just like one ticket to one event was sold. Not two tickets to two games. That wasn't an option.

If there was a survey about the number of chicken nuggets eaten, I wouldn't expect to be included 6 times of I only ate one. Just like someone shouldn't be included twice in an attendance statistic if they only watched one game. There is no accurate way to tell who stayed for both games.

Merge them

You didn’t merge them, you just pretended one didn’t happen. 28 games were played, 28 games had attendances. If you only count 26 whether through merging, mating, amalgamating, ignoring or whatever you want to call it. You aren’t dealing with the full dataset.

We aren’t comparing like for like. The same teams aren’t involved, the games aren’t held at the same stadiums with the same capacity and we put it as double header for the reason of increasing attendance. You are basically saying you aren’t counting the increase in attendance because we did things to increase attendance.
Not one person has ever pretended that 90k watched both games at any stage. Everyone bar a few readily accepts that 45k watched the 1st, and 45k watched the 2nd. A figure of 90k is as irrelevant as Gutterfax’s made up figure of 22.5k and as ridiculous as you just simply ignoring the game happened at all.

Nobody has said that 90k attended both games. However many times you accuse people of it, it still wont be true. That is, what you like to call ‘a straw man’. Similarly no-one has argued that 120k attended the 4 games of MM, this again is one of your beloved straw man, this one is even wearing a hat.

All I, or anyone else has said is that 45k watched game 1, 45k watched game2. 45k watched both. The same with MM. 30k watched game 1, 30k watched game 2, 30k watched game 3, 30k watched game 4. 30k watched all 4

And it certainly isn’t impossible for you to know how many people attended each game, we know the figure, it is 45052.

I'm hungry now.

Off to McDonald's

Big Mac?

You are saying one game was played, that’s why you only have 4 data samples but 5 games have been played. You can call them whatever you like, 5 games have been played, and 5 attendances have been given. I can show them.

Are you really saying that if someone asked you how many chicken nuggets you had you would say ‘a box’ rather than actual number you had? Of course you wouldn’t. You would sound like a moron.

And if there were a survey about number of chicken nuggets eaten, and you ate 6. You would be counted 6 you would be counted 6 times. Even if you bought you 6 chicken nuggets from McDonalds, in a box of 6, even if you only intended to eat 3, even though you couldn’t leave some and come finish them off later.

Get two. As long as you don’t leave and come back again it only counts as one. So you will get a bargain.

Just a Le Big Mac I reckon.

Thought about getting fries too, but that messed up my mind too much wondering how many I'd actually get.

But if you buy two and it only counts as one, it only counts as one’s calories as well. So you could buy 2(for the price of one), leave 1 then in effect you have only had half and bingo you have got yourself a relatively low fat big mac.

In fact, im converted, I like this principle. I’m going to go buy a crate of 24 lagers, drink ten, leave 14 for another day and in effect I will have drunk an average of -4 beers. No hangover and in fact ill wake up healthier tomorrow than I did today. Jackpot.

Wowzaz.

Just had to make a comment on the greatest debate.

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.

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.

Any way you try and spin it, it wouldn't paint a proper picture.


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?
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.

You say you like to deal in facts Smokey, so here is the one fact that is known.
Fact: 45,052 attended the double header.
Fiction: 45,052 attended game one and 45,052 attended game two for an aggregate attendance of 90,104.


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.

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!


Err... no, it's not. That's how many people attended both games overall. Not how many attended each game.

Arguing about words doesn't get to the core point, which is to understand how well or badly attendances are doing.

For argument's sake, let's say each round of Superleague was played on a single day, at a single venue, like a super bum-numbing magic weekend crammed into one day. If each one of these days was attended by just 10k people (say), we'd be kidding ourselves to say that RL was in great shape because our attendances 'averaged 10k per game' - even though I accept there's a semantic argument to be made where that is technically the case. The point is, it can be as technically true as you like, but it wouldn't represent good attendance figures. 10k attending a whole day is plainly not the same as different groups of 10k people going to multiple games. One says that RL attracts 10k fans, the other says we attract 70k fans. By the same logic, it's a little misleading to say that we sold 45k tickets for Eng-Aus and 45k tickets for Wales-Italy. We didn't. We sold 45k tickets for a double header. In terms of tracking attendances, measuring performance, planning finances, etc. etc. you have to discount the attendances somewhat - I think halving it to 22.5k is probably too much, but recording it as two lots of 45k is misleading too, because we all know that if the games were played separately they wouldn't get 45k each. The only case where I'd change my mind on that is if the double-header cost twice as much as a normal single game event (or close to twice as much anyway, taking into account the cost savings in venue, policing, admin, etc. - two games on the same day are presumably slightly cheaper to stage)

Wellseh, if you post again on this subject, I'm going to staple my eyelids shut.

You'll have that on your conscious.

Where?


4 attendances at 4 events have been given.

If you cannot tell the difference between one event and one game, there is not hope for you here. You can try and divert the argument all you like by mocking a strawman, all it is doing is showing how desperate you are to find a way to win an argument you're losing.

You can keep repeating that 45,052 attended both games all you like. It just doesn't make it true!


I wouldn't say I have one chicken nugget if I had six. Just like I wouldn't say I attended two games if I attended one. And just like I wouldn't say 45,052 attended one game and 45,052 attended another game if I know for a fact that thousands left.


If they didn't know how many I'd eaten, they wouldn't assume I'd eaten six just because I have a box of six. There'd be a complete and utter failure in the methodology. Just like there is a complete and utter failure in your methodology that 45,052 was the event attendance which means 45,052 attended game one and 45,052 attended game two. There is a huge flaw in the logic, and that is there weren't 45,052 people in attendance at game two!

I actually want to see that



Ironically, you wouldn't be able to see that