194 replies to this topic

[elf]

you are describing Barlow 

That's not barlow. Just because he has size does not mean he is good in the air.

[RedBullScouse]

That's not barlow. Just because he has size does not mean he is good in the air.

He's no Tim Cahill, but he's 72nd percentile in aerial battles won, so he's far better than average

[elf]

He's no Tim Cahill, but he's 72nd percentile in aerial battles won, so he's far better than average

We had a lot of set pieces this year. How many goals did he score in set pieces?

[iced1776]

Barlow was 4th in MLS among strikers in aerial duels won with 73, although his win rate stinks at 43% so it probably means we just play a ton of long balls. Personally I think his hold up play is overrated, his size doesn't even matter much cause he has trouble tracking it in the air.

 

Interesting looking at the rest of the list... Third on the list is Kamara with 81, Teal Bunbury second with 82. First is Benteke with 241(!) and a win rate of 66%.

[JBigjake54]

He's no Tim Cahill, but he's 72nd percentile in aerial battles won, so he's far better than average

What comes from this supposed success? A rare goal? Don't recall many won headers leading to chances, no real impression that he can find a teammate.

[Arsenal14]

He's no Tim Cahill, but he's 72nd percentile in aerial battles won, so he's far better than average

But 51st percentile among forwards in percentage of aerials won. Exactly average.

[elf]

Barlow was 4th in MLS among strikers in aerial duels won with 73, although his win rate stinks at 43% so it probably means we just play a ton of long balls. Personally I think his hold up play is overrated, his size doesn't even matter much cause he has trouble tracking it in the air.
 
Interesting looking at the rest of the list... Third on the list is Kamara with 81, Teal Bunbury second with 82. First is Benteke with 241(!) and a win rate of 66%.

He has not been able to transfer that skill to goals on set piece or crosses

[MetroFanatic]

Barlow was 4th in the league in npxG/Shot this year: .22 (He was 5th with .18 last year). Which means that he was expected to score on 1/5 of shots he took. Let's say that he didn't.

 

He was 4th worst in the league in G-xG (-3.9), which pretty much goes along with the above.

 

Manoel was 12th and Burke was 15th! Ugh.

[defendyourself]

Barlow was 4th in the league in npxG/Shot this year: .22 (He was 5th with .18 last year). Which means that he was expected to score on 1/5 of shots he took. Let's say that he didn't.

 

He was 4th worst in the league in G-xG (-3.9), which pretty much goes along with the above.

 

Manoel was 12th and Burke was 15th! Ugh.

I was done with Burke when he scored his goal against Montreal.  One of the worse finishes i ever saw.  dude has whole goal to shoot at and puts ball only place defender or goalie could get it.  when you are a striker that cant really "hit a ball" that well you dont have the margin of error to mess around like that.  Manoel a little different because he can actually shoot and hits the post enough you'd think its on purpose

https://www.newyorkr...ls-38th-minute?

[iced1776]

He has not been able to transfer that skill to goals on set piece or crosses
 

 

Yeah all it means to win an aerial duel is that you got a touch on it before the other guy, it says nothing about what direction you sent it or whether it found a teammate. I would imagine trying to measure any of those intangibles for Barlow would paint a far less favorable picture than raw total of duels won.

 

We don't really need stats for this though, anyone who has two eyes and has watched Barlow play will tell you that he's not an effective "set up" guy. He constantly looks like an outfielder who has lost the ball in the sun. He has trouble tracking it in time to actually post up against the defender, let alone win the ball while maintaining possession. He's lucky to get a glancing head on it.

 

If there is one stat to tell you how good of a target striker Barlow is, maybe its that his first career assist came in his 109th appearance...

[67% Class]

I wonder how much of Barlow's deficiencies are due to being coached poorly at the youth level. 

The guy cannot track aerial balls, and has a dead fish of a first touch, and not great spatial awareness.  

 

I suspect youth coaches let him relay on his physical attributes, while they should have been focusing on the technical skills that some smaller, less athletic, forwards are simply required to learn to compete. 

[SatansHockey]

The only stats I care about in regards to Barlow is 2024 - 0 games played for the Red Bulls.

[JBigjake54]

I wonder how much of Barlow's deficiencies are due to being coached poorly at the youth level. 
The guy cannot track aerial balls, and has a dead fish of a first touch, and not great spatial awareness.  
I suspect youth coaches let him relay on his physical attributes, while they should have been focusing on the technical skills that some smaller, less athletic, forwards are simply required to learn to compete. 

I would not throw his coaches under the bus.
Barlow attended a prep school and the U of Wisconsin. I cannot imagine a lack of technical coaching at either. I can imagine him being what he is, even then.
"The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

[RedBullScouse]

But 51st percentile among forwards in percentage of aerials won. Exactly average.

Our offense aspires to average

[RedBullScouse]

I wonder how much of Barlow's deficiencies are due to being coached poorly at the youth level. 

The guy cannot track aerial balls, and has a dead fish of a first touch, and not great spatial awareness.  

 

I suspect youth coaches let him relay on his physical attributes, while they should have been focusing on the technical skills that some smaller, less athletic, forwards are simply required to learn to compete. 

Tracking balls in the air, first touch, and spatial awareness are all over-rated, as is scoring.   Clearly, you haven't been paying attention.