It most definitely is lovely but it's also relevant because when you earlier said...
SmokeyTA wrote:
The current attendance difference between 2011 and 2013 is only36k and that doesn’t include Wakefield v Leeds game which was postponed or Leeds v Widnes which was rescheduled as per the WCC in 2013.. Those two games will get between 22k and 26k. Making up 10k in cumulative attendance over 2/3rds of the season is barely an issue. We are talking about adding less than a hundred a game
That's incorrect because... 1. The current attendance difference between 2011 and 2013 is not only 36k, it's actually 38,489 which represents a current decrease of -6.09%. 2. The 2013 figures thus far (68 fixtures played) don't include the postponed Wakey V Leeds or rescheduled Leeds V Widnes fixtures, HOWEVER the 2011 figures (68 fixtures) don't include the two extra related fixtures either therefore there is no 22k to 26k to easily "make up". 3. The 2013 figures will still require a +38k boost from somewhere to catch up. 4. 38,489/121 remaining SL fixtures = 318. That's 318 extra customers per remaining SL game for 2013 attendances to just break even with the 2011 attendance figures. 5. Oh, and for comparison purposes to date, 68=68... HTH
SmokeyTA wrote:
You can add in, take out, swap, in whatever way you want. We dont need to count fixtures played in august 2011 now, or compare games played in july 2011 to games played in february 2013. None of your fudging and cherry picking is relevant.
The only cherry picking fudger here is you Mr. Five percent below my original assertion that 2013 SL attendances are on course to be the 2nd best in history.
SmokeyTA wrote:
Come the end of the season 14 teams will have played 27 games of RL and we will know how many people went to watch them.
Could you provide the source for your total SL attendance figure of 2011?
was watching an nfl doco. on one of their teams and they used the term bomb to describe those long high passes from quaterback to running back and i think gibson took that idea, realized you cant throw the ball forward in RL and adapted it to a "bomb" kick we have
eels fan wrote:
You poor poor obsessed fat ex vichyballin potato thieving stoaway.
According to my current stats, Saints home attendances are currently down this year compared to the last season at Knowsley Rd in 2010 albeit by a small margin of -1.18% and they are up this year compared to the 2009 Knowsley Rd season by an even smaller margin of +0.16%.
Fixture............... 2013... 2010... 2009 Saints V Hudds...... 12003... 9034... 8078 Saints V Hull....... 11257... 12142... 13684 Saints V Leeds... 12228... 11048... 13966 Saints V Wakey... 12105... 10717... 8651 Saints V Salford... 5348... 7728... 9723 Saints V Cas....... 10943... 13978... 9680
TOTALS........... 63884... 64647... 63782 % decrease V 2010 = -1.18% % increase V 2009 = +0.16%
I'd hardly say the Salford and Cas figures are fair comparisons..
It most definitely is lovely but it's also relevant because when you earlier said... That's incorrect because... 1. The current attendance difference between 2011 and 2013 is not only 36k, it's actually 38,489 which represents a current decrease of -6.09%.
Nope, it still isn’t relevant.
2. The 2013 figures thus far (68 fixtures played) don't include the postponed Wakey V Leeds or rescheduled Leeds V Widnes fixtures, HOWEVER the 2011 figures (68 fixtures) don't include the two extra related fixtures either therefore there is no 22k to 26k to easily "make up".
632k people watched the 70 games which made up the first 10 rounds of SL in 2011. 595k watched the 68 games which have been played in 2013. What you have swapped in/out and shook all about is irrelevant.
3. The 2013 figures will still require a +38k boost from somewhere to catch up.
Those two extra games we have to play will help
4. 38,489/121 remaining SL fixtures = 318. That's 318 extra customers per remaining SL game for 2013 attendances to just break even with the 2011 attendance figures.
Good job the difference is likely to be closer to 10k then isnt it.
5. Oh, and for comparison purposes to date, 68=68... HTH
You need to look up the meaning of 'average' and stop confusing yourself.
i recommend you look up the numerous meanings of average, familiarise yourself with them, read what i put again and you should understand. If you Still dont. i cant help you.
i recommend you look up the numerous meanings of average, familiarise yourself with them, read what i put again and you should understand. If you Still dont. i cant help you.
I am not sure if you are a WUM.
You must be, because every single post you make contradicts a previous one. You say that magic weekend is traditionally well attended, when someone pick you up on it you give a lecture (which i did find hilarious, i didnt need explaining how when certain teams play at home it either helps or hinders the overall figures) about how certain fixtures mean we will get higher/lower figures.
Then in your last but one post you say that in the first 10 rounds were watched by X amount of people in 2011, then compare that to this year.
In one post you are expressing the importance of looking at the fixtures involved, in the next you are completely ignoring this to support your argument. In fact you even go as far to tell somebody else that looking at the fixtures is irrelevant when you have just lectured me about how important it is.
Now lets talk about your 'Average' confusions. Because I assure you it is you that is confused.
If the magic round is bang on the average as you say, then it cannot possibly be a 'well attended round'. It is 'bang on' the mean average, meaning that it neither highers, nor lowers, the mean. Talking about any other type of average is much less important, especially the mode. there is some sense in looking at the median, but it is much less relevant (when talking about the final total figure) than the mean.
As I say, I cannot tell if you are a WUM or someone who is getting themselves seriously confused. But I am certain it is one of the two, I do however await your retort in which you completely ignore anything you cant possibly handle and concentrate on which ever small insignificant part you think you can make yourself look good from (ironically you have accused someone of exactly this in your last post, yet it is a constant of all your posts throughout this thread)
So, averagely attended, or traditionally well attended? Do the fixtures involved in the figures matter or not? you flip flop more than a politician. Stop trying to wriggle out of everything and getting yourself confused.
You must be, because every single post you make contradicts a previous one. You say that magic weekend is traditionally well attended, when someone pick you up on it you give a lecture (which i did find hilarious, i didnt need explaining how when certain teams play at home it either helps or hinders the overall figures) about how certain fixtures mean we will get higher/lower figures.
Then in your last but one post you say that in the first 10 rounds were watched by X amount of people in 2011, then compare that to this year.
In one post you are expressing the importance of looking at the fixtures involved, in the next you are completely ignoring this to support your argument. In fact you even go as far to tell somebody else that looking at the fixtures is irrelevant when you have just lectured me about how important it is.
I didn’t stress the importance of looking at the teams involved at all. I said it was understandable that we had such a wide difference in round attendances when we had such a wide difference in home attendances clubs get and gave an example of that. The fact that all I did was compare the amount of people who watched 10 rounds in 2011 and 10 rounds in 2013 supports that. The teams and fixtures in the first 10 rounds of 2011 and 2013 were different. Because they are irrelevant. Because when we have a full set of results all teams will have played all other teams home and away.
God knows how you managed to grab on to the wrong end of the stick so tightly there
Now lets talk about your 'Average' confusions. Because I assure you it is you that is confused.
If the magic round is bang on the average as you say, then it cannot possibly be a 'well attended round'. It is 'bang on' the mean average, meaning that it neither highers, nor lowers, the mean. Talking about any other type of average is much less important, especially the mode. there is some sense in looking at the median, but it is much less relevant (when talking about the final total figure) than the mean.
Which is why i answered your original question with it depends on what you mean by average. The magic weekend isnt bang on exactly the average. It is slightly higher. If you want to change traditionally well attended to traditionally not poorly attended and slightly higher than average thats fine. It would be pointless but fine.
As I say, I cannot tell if you are a WUM or someone who is getting themselves seriously confused. But I am certain it is one of the two, I do however await your retort in which you completely ignore anything you cant possibly handle and concentrate on which ever small insignificant part you think you can make yourself look good from (ironically you have accused someone of exactly this in your last post, yet it is a constant of all your posts throughout this thread)
So, averagely attended, or traditionally well attended? Do the fixtures involved in the figures matter or not? you flip flop more than a politician. Stop trying to wriggle out of everything and getting yourself confused.
They have already been answered, if you actually read what was said rather than what you wished was said you would have known that. But to help you out.
Magic Weekend attendances are typically slightly higher than the mean attendance of SL, They are higher again than the modal attendance. They aren’t the highest attendances, but far from the lowest. You want to call that traditionally average attendance, well attended, poorly attended I don’t mind. But there will be more attendances lower than the magic weekend, than higher in the rest of this season. As there was in 2011.
The fairly obvious answer to your inane repetition of your own misunderstanding if you are comparing one round to another or one game to another of course the attendances are relevant because you aren’t comparing like for like. if you are comparing season on season, then no, they aren’t relevant, not a little bit. Because they will be the same, the same 13 home games, 13 away games, 1 magic weekend.
Warrington led 16-2 in Saturday's Grand Final, but their joy was short-lived as Wigan roared back to win the Super League title and extend the Wire's 58-year wait to be champions
UPDATE... SL Round 11 attendances - comparison to same fixtures last year
Castleford V Huddersfield in 2013 = 3,222 Castleford V Huddersfield in 2012 = 5,012 % decrease = -35.71% Castleford V Huddersfield in 2011 = 5,992 % decrease = -46.23%
London V Bradford in 2013 = 1,441 London V Bradford in 2012 = 2,844 % decrease = -49.33% London V Bradford in 2011 = 4,253 % decrease = -66.12%
54 out of 70 SL fixtures in 2013 have now registered a fall in attendance compared to the same fixtures between the same teams last year.
Total SL attendance for 70 SL fixtures in 2013 = 598,597 (Avg: 8,551) Total SL attendance for same 70 SL fixtures in 2012 = 682,387 (Avg: 9,748) % decrease = -12.28% Total SL attendance for same 70 SL fixtures in 2011 = 642,668 (Avg: 9,181)** % decrease = -6.86%
** Widnes fixtures for SL 2011 replaced by equivalent Crusaders fixtures against same opposition.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...