Is Galileo any better than Kepler?

In his chapter on Kepler, Cohen is very critical of the astronomer's method of investigation. He likens Kepler to a "sleepwalker" and says that he merely "stumbled onto his discoveries in a weird groping." Furthermore, he says that unlike Newton and Galileo, Kepler remained "enmeshed in Aristotelian physics." However, after reading about Galileo, it seems to me that he was just as influenced by Aristotle as Kepler. For instance, Cohen says that Galileo was exceedingly close to articulating the law of inertia. However, Cohen admits that one factor prevented Galileo from taking the leap that Newton would later make: "One of the reasons why Galileo would have found the principle of inertia in its Newtonian form objectionable is that it implies an infinite universe." Cohen goes on to say that Galileo followed the tradition of his predecessors in considering all motion to be local motion. Thus, it seems that Galileo was likewise incapable of breaking away completely from Aristotelian physics. Indeed, he can only go so far before he turns back to the traditions of the past.