Michael Barlow

[mattyc75]

was a great first up game,after a few more will be back to pre injury form.

 

[Righteo]

LOL. Those who just so happen to be the top three in CD rankings. Bet you didn't even watch the game, did ya Wallsy?

I doubt he's ever watched a game of AFL before, bases everything off of CD stats.

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Stagnating under a shit coach - still will be a gun

Would take Hams over Barlow, no idea why he can't crack a game

Nice of you to look my threads up...stalker much?

Look up what? You're on record as being a muppet. Read this site long enough to discern.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

Impressed with his return. Lacked polish but his ability to attract the footy hasn't diminished in the slightest.

He could have finished with a bag of 4-5 if he made the most of his chances, that will come with time. Pretty remarkable to come in and be Freo's best after the injury he had. Well done Mick.

His teammates should be ashamed though. They were deplorable.

 

[Damon_3388]

I doubt he's ever watched a game of AFL before, bases everything off of CD stats.

I mention stats frequently, and often use them to refute or support ideas or theories on the game that myself or others may have, but they are by no means my only source of analysis or the only way I look at a game. They are simply an interesting aside which has value when used in context, and not just thrown out there as baseless, irrelevant displays of numbers.

I've been watching the game almost obsessively for nearly 18 years, and regularly view at least 5-6 matches a week. I probably watch more football than you do.

 

[Confuscius]

I did watch it, as I watch most games each week. Might have been flicking over to the Carlton-Sydney game periodically towards the end of this game, but I definitely watched it. If the stats confirm my assertions, so be it.

Barlow got a lot of the ball, but didn't use it particularly well, got caught flat-footed a number of times, and generally looked a step slow. That's why I didn't rate his game as highly as the others.

I think also there is a little bit of a trap at play, Barlow seems like such a good bloke I don't think there was anyone in the country who didn't want to see him do well. I know myself watching the first half I was drawn to his disposals and saw what he was doing more so than other players, as I was watching and hoping he would get it cos of wanting to see him succeed. That in itself means you're less likely to see what others were doing. Might have just been how I was watching it though.

I'm not certain about the other two you mentioned, but Fyfe definitely seemed more influential with his disposals throughout the game than Barlow. He honestly looked a little rusty and cautious, completely expected, hopefully he's back to his best in a few weeks.

 

[DockerA]

I agree Barlow was a little rusty, however thought must be given to what has already been stated above and the fact that with Grover getting subbed off very early and Crowley getting injured early in the third Fremantles rotations were significantly limited - meaning whatever Barlows planned TOG and rotations were meant to be were not executed.

Barlow gained 25 possessions must have had close to 5 shots on goals and did it all playing predominately as a high half forward not venturing into the middle. Add to this the fact he was dirty on his own game and I think in a few weeks time some posters opine this thread will be made to look foolish

 

[The Passenger]

Stagnating under a shit coach - still will be a gun

Would take Hams over Barlow, no idea why he can't crack a game

Nice of you to look my threads up...stalker much?

one of the best midfielder's in the league over a tackling half forward who can't get a game at the moment?? hmmmmmm.....

good to see barlow back. was a great story last year. he's not the best user of the ball but he's by no means a ball butcherer. his ball use is pretty par for the course for the top level midfielders.

didn't see much of the game today. was working unfortunately.