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

It's not the numbers being argued.

It's the technical description. Some people are insistant on counting games. But you can't count the number of games as some games have been merged into one event.

If there was no double header, we have no way of knowing how many would turn up to the England match and the Wales match separately. Some would have attended both and so would have been counted twice others would not. So it's pointless to count the attendance at both games.

I understand why it's done, but trying to do it is in effect futile.

It is better to call it a Rugby event count the attendance once. It's an acurate description. It's a rugby event, if there had been 2/3 or 4 games it's still one event on one day.

I'm not comparing to other codes, sure if they count twice then we must, when comparing to other codes. But when comparing to other RLWC's with no double headers, you can't just count the number of games, you have to talk about the number of events. If there were only 16 events at previous WC's the fact they are single games, means that comparing this WC with double headers does not work. The closest you can get is counting double headers as one event and dividing by the number of events, dividing by the number of games becomes meaningless.

in the end it does not matter as all the events so far have been fabulously attended.

:clap:

Finally, some people that actually understand.

He can keep saying 45,052 attended each game until the cows come home. It doesn't make it a fact and he has no evidence to back it up because it simply isn't true. Counting an event attendance as two game attendances does not give you an accurate attendance figure and never will.

Quote ="Wellsy13"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.'" No, im not assuming anything. Im saying that becaue 45k were sold thats the figure we use. People who didnt bother to turn up, those who got lost on the way, those got up to get a pie are irrelevant. We dont discount them from any other game, why would we for this? Quote 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.'" No, there are two data-sets. Here is a match report on the wales game giving the attendance for the Wales game. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ales-scalp and here is a match report for the England game. 2 data sets. 2 games. 2 attendances. Quote Any way you try and spin it, it wouldn't paint a proper picture'" im not spinning anything. Im all those reported to have attended the games and dividing them by all the games played. It is you who needs to 'merge' games to make them fit. Quote 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?'" Erm, because the amount of tickets sold is often dependent on when, where and who is playing. Quote 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.'" Nobody but you, gutterfax and William Eve is trying to skew the statistics. Nearly everyone else is simply taking all those who attended the games and dividing it by the games played. Quote 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.'" It isn’t fiction. 45k attended game 1. 45k attended game 2. If you have any evidence to the contrary provide it. Quote 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.'" So now you are trying to move your argument on to saying these people shouldn’t be counted because even though they bought tickets they weren’t there. Why haven’t you done the same for any other games? Some may have not turned up or left early at other games. Season ticket holders are counted even if they don’t turn up. Why are you treating this differently? Quote 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!'" so you are you trying to say the average attendance for MM was around 8k? you’re a moron if so. 30k bought a ticket to match 1. 30k bought a ticket to match 2, 30k bought a ticket to match 3 and 30k bought a ticket to match 4. That they bought them as one is irrelevant, that they may have left is irrelevant. The same principle applies to MM and the double header as it does to every other match. If you buy a ticket and get lost on the way, decide not to go, leave half way through. Doesn’t matter. You count. Quote Err... no, it's not. That's how many people attended both games overall. Not how many attended each game.'" no, its the amount who attended both www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ter-defeat and www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ales-scalp hth

Quote ="Wellsy13"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.'" No, im not assuming anything. Im saying that becaue 45k were sold thats the figure we use. People who didnt bother to turn up, those who got lost on the way, those got up to get a pie are irrelevant. We dont discount them from any other game, why would we for this? Quote 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.'" No, there are two data-sets. Here is a match report on the wales game giving the attendance for the Wales game. www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ales-scalp and here is a match report for the England game. 2 data sets. 2 games. 2 attendances. Quote Any way you try and spin it, it wouldn't paint a proper picture'" im not spinning anything. Im all those reported to have attended the games and dividing them by all the games played. It is you who needs to 'merge' games to make them fit. Quote 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?'" Erm, because the amount of tickets sold is often dependent on when, where and who is playing. Quote 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.'" Nobody but you, gutterfax and William Eve is trying to skew the statistics. Nearly everyone else is simply taking all those who attended the games and dividing it by the games played. Quote 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.'" It isn’t fiction. 45k attended game 1. 45k attended game 2. If you have any evidence to the contrary provide it. Quote 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.'" So now you are trying to move your argument on to saying these people shouldn’t be counted because even though they bought tickets they weren’t there. Why haven’t you done the same for any other games? Some may have not turned up or left early at other games. Season ticket holders are counted even if they don’t turn up. Why are you treating this differently? Quote 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!'" so you are you trying to say the average attendance for MM was around 8k? you’re a moron if so. 30k bought a ticket to match 1. 30k bought a ticket to match 2, 30k bought a ticket to match 3 and 30k bought a ticket to match 4. That they bought them as one is irrelevant, that they may have left is irrelevant. The same principle applies to MM and the double header as it does to every other match. If you buy a ticket and get lost on the way, decide not to go, leave half way through. Doesn’t matter. You count. Quote Err... no, it's not. That's how many people attended both games overall. Not how many attended each game.'" no, its the amount who attended both www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ter-defeat and www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... ales-scalp hth

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.