The Mongrel Punt is greedy as hell

[MagpieExcalibur]

they don't allow a single article to be accessed for freeand all are behind a paywall useless money-hungry business model

 

[Mr Cheese]

they don't allow a single article to be accessed for freeand all are behind a paywall useless money-hungry business model

Has an excellent product so charges for it, no reason why it should be free. We've become accustomed to getting things for nothing; media, music, etc. when historically these things were paid for. Journalism standards have plummeted as more media becomes free, good writing takes time - what should that time not be charged for?

 

[MagpieExcalibur]

Has an excellent product so charges for it, no reason why it should be free. We've become accustomed to getting things for nothing; media, music, etc. when historically these things were paid for. Journalism standards have plummeted as more media becomes free, good writing takes time - what should that time not be charged for?

if i'm a member why shouldn't i have access to the product for free i get it if your not signed up for a member but giving members on the free plan nothing that the standard non member would get is pathetic

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Call the AFP.

 

[PhatBoy]

if i'm a member why shouldn't i have access to the product for free i get it if your not signed up for a member but giving members on the free plan nothing that the standard non member would get is pathetic

How much is your membership if you don’t mind me asking, and what does it normally entitle you to?

 

[Piggy Smalls]

they don't allow a single article to be accessed for freeand all are behind a paywall useless money-hungry business model

Imagine wanting to be paid for your work. Entitled much?

 

[Mr Cheese]

if i'm a member why shouldn't i have access to the product for free i get it if your not signed up for a member but giving members on the free plan nothing that the standard non member would get is pathetic

That's more marketing faux pas than anything else. If you've subscribed (free plan, given email), it would make sense to include something, even if just symbolic, but equally no real advantage to them in terms of monetising it (can't see a limited emailing list generating much revenue). They have a Tiered system, clearly communicated what you get, not sure what the complaint is to be honest.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

It's not even true either. Their free content is better than the regurgitated, biased opinions of Fox Footy and AFL.com 'experts' that exist solely to dig in on their 'die on this hill' opinions and spread propaganda respectively.

 

[MagpieExcalibur]

It's not even true either. Their free content is better than the regurgitated, biased opinions of Fox Footy and AFL.com 'experts' that exist solely to dig in on their 'die on this hill' opinions and spread propaganda respectively.

they have too many paywalls

 

[Piggy Smalls]

they have too many paywalls

Are you paying for your membership/subscription?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I'd pay for quality journalism that's better than the dross I see on the usual media. For those that are paid subscribers to the Mongrel, is it worth it?

 

[Headless]

BigFooty should employ a similar model.

$1.99 per thread. Chief no doubt is crunching the numbers as we speak.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Whereas demanding free stuff isn't greedy at all.

 

[HTPunter]

The AFL, a mega rich organisation, is slowly stripping the game away from fans going to paid viewing models preferred , and bowing down to the rich corporates like bookies, and you complain about a small private journalist website?

I mean, unless HB Meyers is Craig Hutchinson, I’m happy for them to charge whatever they think their product is worth. I don’t pay for it but it’s a better model of journalism than Nafan Brown with his mouldys or Kane Cornes having a whinge about a player having a life outside of footy.

 

[rye]

pretty creative way to get some free advertising op

 

[Orange crush]

I'd pay for quality journalism that's better than the dross I see on the usual media. For those that are paid subscribers to the Mongrel, is it worth it?

Quality journalism? I thought we were talking about mongrel punt?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Quality journalism? I thought we were talking about mongrel punt?

Can't say I've read their articles to know, that's why I'm asking if it's worth it. I'm just saying I would pay for good quality AFL analysis if it existed.

 

[Roy Kent]

I don't wanna be a ****ing football journalist, sat on a ****ing computer in a dumb ****ing suit like a know-it-all twat. It's a shit job for shit people. I'd rather shit out my own ****ing mouth than do that ****ing shit.

 

[Peters_Nuts]

I don't wanna be a ****ing football journalist, sat on a ****ing computer in a dumb ****ing suit like a know-it-all twat. It's a shit job for shit people. I'd rather shit out my own ****ing mouth than do that ****ing shit.

 

[Cleric]

It's a scam, same as all the other papers in Australia. They put the link up on social media and then when you click the link it gives you the message to pay up. The scam comes from the fact that it registers as a page view so they can get the money from the advertisers on the page, regardless of the fact you couldn't read the page.

 

[PhatBoy]

Journalism in footy, as much as I love numbers and figures, is so based around nothing more than clearances and stoppages and looking for patterns first and then trying to build a narrative rather than using the eye first and then finding a couple of things to back it.

David King is the biggest c**t for this.

His journalistic MO is looking at a teams result, win or lose, seeing a stat that stands out, and then finding one edit that highlights it. And yes I realise he’s an ‘analyst’ not a journalist as such but it’s set a template from which almost every media outlet works now, broadcast and print.

Watch the game d**khead then at the end of it see if there’s a few things that stand out.

I have no doubt that often it will correlate, but it’s the wrong way around to produce decent material. Yeah he’s not a journalist he’s an analyst but it’s all media, and because he’s everywhere, others have followed his lead and every report now is just choc a block with the same sort of shit. Profile pieces are stacked with numbers about how so and so is ‘great Round the stoppages and ranked 5th for clearance’ which is not even grammatically sound.

I don’t care. I want to read about Jesse Hogan

23

Jesse Hogan

Age

30

Ht

196cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

15.0

4star

K

9.3

4star

HB

5.7

4star

M

6.4

5star

T

1.4

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

10.3

3star

K

6.0

2star

HB

4.3

3star

M

5.3

5star

T

0.0

1star

G

0.0

1star

D

13.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

4.0

3star

M

6.4

5star

T

1.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

simply being too smart, strong, and good for his opponents, and why.

I want to read about how Jamie Elliott just knows how to be where he is supposed to be, and when, and almost always manages to complete his work like he’s got a seventh sense.

I have no problem whatsoever with people or pages charging.

How else should they make money for their work.

I do have a problem with halfwitted regurgitation masquerading as actual analysis just because it’s convoluted and full of numbers when often ‘he’s bigger and stronger and more talented than the people he plays against’ will do and they could just extrapolate on that.

 

[Big Blood]

Really good website with good footy content and no BS. Absolutely reasonable business model. You get access to some stuff as a non-paying member, a whole lot of stuff as a paying member. With the decline of the big media in the last 20 years the only future for journalism is in independent media. If you care about footy journalism, subscribe.

 

[Aido97]

I don’t care. I want to read about Jesse Hogan simply being too smart, strong, and good for his opponents, and why.

I want to read about how Jamie Elliott just knows how to be where he is supposed to be, and when, and almost always manages to complete his work like he’s got a seventh sense.


I do have a problem with halfwitted regurgitation masquerading as actual analysis just because it’s convoluted and full of numbers when often ‘he’s bigger and stronger and more talented than the people he plays against’ will do and they could just extrapolate on that.

Being too smart, strong and good isnt analysis and there is only so many times you can read such and such has a good "footy brain". Neither of those examples are particularly good

 

[PhatBoy]

Being too smart, strong and good isnt analysis and there is only so many times you can read such and such has a good "footy brain". Neither of those examples are particularly good

Sigh. No, it isn’t good analysis and a one paragraph story won’t keep readers entertained for long, will it.

But good journalism isn’t “GWS won the game because they won clearance 35-26.”

For starters, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s not a sentence. Clearance on that context is not a word. It’s clearances. Secondly it would merely be a regurgitation of a number.

My point is, I would rather see a journalist put some remote modicum of effort into saying “The Giants have a weapon no other team currently has, and that’s a forward who takes contested marks as well as Thilthorpe or Max King (or whoever they want to cite) but can break free of an opponent nearly as well as Jeremy Cameron. As such, regardless of where the ball may be on the field they know that if they can simply find a way to extract it from traffic, find a man in space and work it downfield as quickly as possible whether it be through their famed if somewhat cliched ‘orange tsunami’ or simply with a couple of quick kicks, they have a player stationed close to goal who has taken more marks when isolated than anyone else in the competition this season simply because he is, right now, the most valuable player any team has. (I have no idea if that stat is true or not it’s just an example) and then use a straightforward metric to back it up. Explain why Hogan is good.

Stop crapping on about the ‘orange tsunami’ because every team does it - there’s literally no team that doesn’t like to get the ball on turnover and run and handball through the middle of the ground in numbers quite a bit. Hell even we do it and that’s despite also relying heavily on Holmes and Smith kicking and running heaps.


There are so many games where a team will be getting belted and you look at the team stats and you actually notice that some of the stats that people like King live and die on, like clearances and centre clearances, are actually fairly even, and you wonder why anyone gives a toss about them.

Instead you would think that a good report or analysis would focus on what happens once the ball comes out. Ok, so both teams are winning a decent share of it. But one particular player when HE is getting it, is using it better than anyone else on the field. Why is that? Is his vision simply better than anyone else’s on a particular day?

From a Geelong perspective - and I’ll happily admit I don’t focus on a lot of other teams closely enough - I’d say that at a guess, we don’t win a lot of those stats. But what is important is that when we do, we find players like Holmes or Smith who are too fast for the opposition so we get away, and in turn, we find players like Miers who is close to the best ball user in the competition. He almost never makes a bad decision.

I’d rather read about that and why he’s so good at what he does despite barely being able to kick over a thimble than ‘the cats don’t win a lot of clearances’ because to be honest, it’s not very relevant. We still win a lot of games. There would be other teams in the same boat.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Sigh. No, it isn’t good analysis and a one paragraph story won’t keep readers entertained for long, will it.

But good journalism isn’t “GWS won the game because they won clearance 35-26.”

For starters, it’s grammatically incorrect. It’s not a sentence. Clearance on that context is not a word. It’s clearances. Secondly it would merely be a regurgitation of a number.

My point is, I would rather see a journalist put some remote modicum of effort into saying “The Giants have a weapon no other team currently has, and that’s a forward who takes contested marks as well as Thilthorpe or Max King (or whoever they want to cite) but can break free of an opponent nearly as well as Jeremy Cameron. As such, regardless of where the ball may be on the field they know that if they can simply find a way to extract it from traffic, find a man in space and work it downfield as quickly as possible whether it be through their famed if somewhat cliched ‘orange tsunami’ or simply with a couple of quick kicks, they have a player stationed close to goal who has taken more marks when isolated than anyone else in the competition this season simply because he is, right now, the most valuable player any team has. (I have no idea if that stat is true or not it’s just an example) and then use a straightforward metric to back it up. Explain why Hogan is good.

Stop crapping on about the ‘orange tsunami’ because every team does it - there’s literally no team that doesn’t like to get the ball on turnover and run and handball through the middle of the ground in numbers quite a bit. Hell even we do it and that’s despite also relying heavily on Holmes and Smith kicking and running heaps.


There are so many games where a team will be getting belted and you look at the team stats and you actually notice that some of the stats that people like King live and die on, like clearances and centre clearances, are actually fairly even, and you wonder why anyone gives a toss about them.

Instead you would think that a good report or analysis would focus on what happens once the ball comes out. Ok, so both teams are winning a decent share of it. But one particular player when HE is getting it, is using it better than anyone else on the field. Why is that? Is his vision simply better than anyone else’s on a particular day?

From a Geelong perspective - and I’ll happily admit I don’t focus on a lot of other teams closely enough - I’d say that at a guess, we don’t win a lot of those stats. But what is important is that when we do, we find players like Holmes or Smith who are too fast for the opposition so we get away, and in turn, we find players like Miers who is close to the best ball user in the competition. He almost never makes a bad decision.

I’d rather read about that and why he’s so good at what he does despite barely being able to kick over a thimble than ‘the cats don’t win a lot of clearances’ because to be honest, it’s not very relevant. We still win a lot of games. There would be other teams in the same boat.

I don't know what you're reading or watching, but analysis went beyond basic stats about a decade ago.
The analysts now talk about stats such as post clearance ground ball, forward 50 turnovers, D50 transition for scores, etc because they are relevant in determining if a team has its game in good order.
There's obviously no right or wrong way to enjoy your footy analysis, but I'd say that plenty of people appreciate the opportunity to see the game through the same lens as the coaches do.