[翻譯] ZonalMarking: Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal

看板Arsenal作者jehannn (jehannn)時間13年前 (2011/10/30 03:07)推噓29(29推 0噓 48→)

留言77則, 17人參與討論串1/2 (看更多)

原文：http://tinyurl.com/3dzhqtl 前言：開始翻譯這篇文章前，要先提一下本文作者在週中的另一篇文章 - The effects of Chelsea’s pressing game in 2011/12 (http://tinyurl.com/5v5oxwu ) 內容大略提到Chelsea在AVB到來之後，打法有很大的改變，強調全場的壓迫反搶與控球，在這樣的邏輯思維底下，後防線壓上也變得很自然。統計了Chelsea本賽季的前幾場比賽的數據，他有以下幾點發現 1. 對手的越位次數變多了 – 因為後防線壓上 2. 球隊犯規次數變多，因為全場壓迫，並因此導致最近幾張紅牌的發生 – Bosingwa的紅牌來自於防線壓上在身後留下的空檔，Torres與Drogba則是由於壓迫對手，以不熟練的鏟球動作拿到紅牌。 3. 對手射門次數降低 – 因全場壓迫，以及強調控球，讓對手拿到比較少的射門機會，但要注意的是，由於身後的空檔很大，對手一旦拿到機會通常都很棒 4. 到目前為止，Chelsea是英超球隊裡控球率最高的以上提到的這些特色對本場比賽的結果影響很大，有興趣的朋友可以點原文進去看。 Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal: Chelsea's high line ripped to shreds in amazingly open game 兩隊先發陣容與站位/跑位 http://tinyurl.com/3lozps8 Chelsea had a clear weakness coming into the game – their defence plays high up the pitch and are prone to pace in behind – and Arsenal exploited it to great effect. 這場比賽前，我們就提過本賽季Chelsea有個明顯的弱點 – 防線壓得很靠前(請參考前言所提的文章)，容易在身後留下空檔，而Arsenal在這場比賽利用這個弱點取得很好的效果 Andre Villas-Boas brought Branislav Ivanovic into the side for David Luiz, who was poor at QPR. Jon Obi Mikel played rather than Raul Meireles in the holding role – the rest of the side was as expected. 少帥AVB讓Ivanovic取代David Luiz(打QPR時表現得很糟糕)打首發，並選擇Mikel當防守中場而非選擇Meireles，其他的位置就如預期並無甚特別。 Arsene Wenger continued with Johan Djourou at right-back and Thomas Vermaelen was fit only for the bench. Wenger繼續讓Djourou踢右後衛，並讓剛剛傷癒復出的Vermaelen坐板凳。 This was a game with plenty of chances and some terrible defending – Arsenal were better at exploiting the weaknesses of their opponent. 這場比賽出現非常多的好機會，並且有一些很糟糕的防守 – 但Arsenal在利用對手的弱點上有更好的發揮。 Change in roles 角色互換 The most interesting feature of the game was the difference in pattern from the usual matches between these two. For the last two or three seasons, the storyline was predictable: Arsenal dominated possession and Chelsea sat back, then played on the break (and often won). 本場比賽最有趣的地方是，兩隊在先前幾次交手展現出的風格在這場比賽互換了，過去兩、三季的交手中，Arsenal掌握住控球權，而Chelsea後撤防守，並尋找快攻的機會(通常都能獲勝) Here, the roles were reversed. Chelsea had the majority of the ball, Arsenal were more direct. Wenger admitted in his pre-game interview that Chelsea had ‘a little more creativity’ than his side due to the presence of Juan Mata, which would have been unthinkable at any point over the last few years. Villas-Boas has clearly changed how Chelsea play. 但這場比賽兩者的風格互換，Chelsea掌握較多的控球權，而Arsenal打得更直接。在賽前的訪談中，Wenger承認現在的Chelsea因為有Mata而比Arsenal更具創造力，這在前幾年是不可能從Wenger口中聽到的，少帥AVB真的改變了Chelsea近年來的踢法。 High line 防線壓上 That brings us to the second point, and the key factor in the scoreline – Chelsea’s high defensive line, which ZM looked at in midweek. Chelsea防線壓上 – 正如本網站先前所提(http://tinyurl.com/5v5oxwu )，是本場比賽的關鍵。 This was always going to be a problem – Arsenal exploited this continually throughout the match, and whilst it wasn’t responsible for all five goals, Arsenal could have had five goals based solely upon knocking the ball in behind and using the pace of Theo Walcott and/or Gervinho. The Ivorian’s first half miss at 0-0, for example, was shocking. 防線壓上永遠會是個問題，Arsenal整場比賽一直在利用這點，雖然Arsenal進的五球不全是因為這個問題，但他們藉由塞身後球，並利用Walcott與Gervinho的速度得到的機會，也夠讓他們進五球了，舉例來說，Gervinho在上半場0-0時的那個放槍，實在令人錯愕。 It was a a continual problem – the first goal came with Gervinho slipping through unchecked, Walcott’s came when he had space to exploit by bursting through. Individual mistakes contributed to the second goal (Daniel Sturridge not tracking Andre Santos) and the fourth (Florent Malouda’s poor pass and John Terry’s stumble), whilst Villas-Boas wrote off the fifth one, saying that his side were pushing forward to get a fourth game and therefore were always going to concede space at the back, a plausible explanation. Chelsea靠前的防線在比賽中持續地製造問題 - Arsenal的第一個進球就來自Gervinho的反越位，而Walcott進的那球來自於讓他有空間跑起來。一些個人的失誤也導致Chelsea掉了兩球，被進的第二球是Sturridge沒有跟好Santos，而第四個球是由於Malouda糟糕的回傳與Terry腳下打滑。第五球與AVB脫不了關係，讓球隊向前壓，試圖追平比賽，因此在防線後面留下太多空間。 Still, it can’t be refuted that the majority of Arsenal’s chances came by exploiting space in behind, and working a one-on-one with Petr Cech. There is, really, no further analysis needed of such an obvious issue in the match, and something that was covered in great depth in midweek. 要再次強調，Arsenal拿到的大多機會都是來自於Chelsea壓上的防線，並取得與Cech單對單的機會，而這就是Chelsea本場比賽所遭遇的最大問題，正如同前一篇文章所提，在此無須贅述。 Chelsea movement 切爾西的進攻 It shouldn’t be forgotten that Chelsea created a lot themselves – in addition to the three goals, they wasted other chances – particularly at 0-0. It would appear that Villas-Boas knew the threat of Arsenal’s pace from their wingers, but rather than deciding to defend deeper (more on why he didn ’t do that later), he instead tried to aggressively push Gervinho and Walcott back. 我們不能忘記Chelsea在這場比賽也創造出一拖拉庫的機會，不只進的那三球，他們也浪費許多機會，尤其是比賽仍是0-0時。AVB知道Arsenal在邊路的威脅，但他並沒有要求隊員後撤防守，而是試著積極進攻，逼迫Gervinho與Walcott後撤。 A key feature of the matches between these two in recent years has been Ashley Cole tearing past Arsenal’s right-winger to stretch the play and provide crosses. It happened twice in the first five minutes – Djourou looked lost at full-back, Walcott switched off and two Cole cut-backs were intercepted by Arsenal centre-backs. 在這兩隊過去的交手中，Ashley Cole在Arsenal右路製造的威脅一直都是決定比賽很重要的因子，在這場比賽的前五分鐘就發生了兩次，Djourou看起來在右後衛這個位置踢得很迷惘，連帶也使得Walcott被限制住。Cole比賽初段的兩次回敲傳中後來都被Arsenal的中衛化解。從下面的統計圖我們可以看出Ashley Cole在左路造成的威脅。 Ashley Cole在比賽前五分鐘的傳球統計: http://tinyurl.com/6lywuzj There was a further subtlety to pushing the full-backs forward, though – Jon Obi Mikel often dropped into the defence to form a back three, allowing the full-backs higher up. To as not to lose the 3 v 3 in midfield, Juan Mata moved inside. On the other wing, Daniel Sturridge moved higher up and got in behind Arsenal – Andre Santos’ positioning is very suspect, and Sturridge had two good chances. Santos was also at fault for Frank Lampard’s goal, being beaten too easily by Mata when the Spaniard moved to that flank. In fact, it’s difficult to say that any of the full-backs got the better of their respective winger – the Arsenal full-backs were poor positionally, Chelsea’s were outpaced. Chelsea將兩個邊後衛向前推導致一些微妙的變化 – Mikel通常都後撤較深，使得後防線上有三個人，而為了不讓中場失去3對3的平衡，Mata會往中間移動，而在Sturridge那側則推得比較靠前，並在後衛的身後尋找機會，Santos的防守站位出了很大的問題，讓 Sturridge拿到兩次非常好的機會，而Santos也要為Lampard的進球負起一些責任，他太容易讓Mata起腳傳中了。兩隊的邊後衛在跟各自對手邊鋒的較量中都落於下風，Arsenal容易失位，Chelsea則容易被超車。 The midfield battle wasn’t particularly crucial in getting the upper hand. As already mentioned, Chelsea had more possession but lost the game. 中場的較量看起來不是這場比賽的關鍵，如先前所提，Chelsea有較多的控球率，但輸掉比賽。 Progression of the game 比賽進行的情況 How did the game change over time? From 0-0 to 2-3, not much. Part of the reason for the openness was the relentless speed at which the game was played – only when Arsenal were ahead (and even then only in brief spells) did Aaron Ramsey and Mikel Arteta put their foot on the ball and try and control the tempo. The rest of play was frantic, direct and goal-hungry. 比賽的進行如何隨時間改變呢？從0-0到2-3，並沒有花太多時間，有部分原因是這場比賽的節奏快速與開放，直到當Arsenal領先時，Ramsey與Arteta將球留在腳下，試著控制住節奏，剩下的比賽時間都很瘋狂、直接且渴望進球。 The situation did change at 2-3, though – the longest the game remained at any particular scoreline. Villas-Boas made three positive substitutions and Chelsea moved the ball a little quicker. How much did the changes actually impact the match? Looking purely at the way the goals went in, hugely: Chelsea got back in it, yet made themselves susceptible to Arsenal breaks. 當比賽在2-3時情況的確有些變化 – 這是本場比賽中比數凍結最長的一段時間，AVB用了三個積極的換人，並讓Chelsea更快速的導傳，這個改變對比賽造成多大的影響？看看接下來的進球，Chelsea追平了，但也讓他們自己容易被Arsenal反擊。 Yet in reality, Chelsea didn’t create much at 2-3 until Mata’s long-range effort – and Arsenal only scored their crucial fourth due to an individual mistake, at a time when removing Walcott for Tomas Rosicky looked like they may have lost their attacking thrust and consigned them to getting men behind the ball. Amongst all the tactical problems and substitutions, Malouda’s misplaced pass was crucial. 事實上，Chelsea在2-3之後也沒有創造出太多機會，直到Wenger用Rosicky替換Walcott上來，Mata的世界波追平比數，但就在Arsenal看起來因為這個換人失去一些進攻動能時，卻又利用對手的一次失誤進了一球超前比數。在討論這些戰術與換人時，Malouda的失誤看起來非常地關鍵。 Conclusion 結論 Arsenal’s defensive problems are still evident. They conceded three goals and this is still an issue that must be addressed. But they won, and they won intelligently. Pace was going to be a factor, they played direct football and created plenty of excellent openings, enough to win any game of football. Arsenal的防守問題仍然非常明顯，他們掉了三個球，是值得重視的問題，但他們贏了，贏的很聰明。跑位是關鍵，他們更踢得更直接，並創造出許多很棒的機會 - 夠讓他們贏得任何足球比賽。 This is potentially a very important win for Arsenal, because of the nature of the goals they’ve scored. So far this season there hasn’t been the obvious, logical move towards a more direct style of football that should come when you go from being based around passers like Cesc Fabregas and Samir Nasri, to quick wide forwards like Walcott and Gervinho. 這可能是對Arsenal而言很重要的一勝，因為這些進球背後所隱含的意義 – 本季到目前為止，Arsenal從未像這場比賽一樣，踢出如此直接、有效率的足球 – 特別是現在球隊的進攻模式已由圍繞著優秀的傳球手如Fabregas與Nasri，轉變成利用兩個邊路球員Walcott與 Gervinho的速度與突破 Too often in 2010/11, even when they have won, Arsenal have built up play too slowly and been rescued by van Persie. This is surely the answer – a cohesive, quick style of play that suits all their forwards. A return to more of a tiki-taka approach in the next game would be a disappointment (although of course, most sides will play much more negatively against them, and it may not be possible to be so counter-attacking). 在2010/11賽季發生過許多次，就算是贏球的比賽，Arsenal還是踢得太慢，最後都靠RVP 來拯救球隊(譯註:上一場對Stoke City也是很好的例子..)。這場比賽是很好的回應 – 快速、同步地壓上的打法非常適合Arsenal的前鋒，如果下一場比賽他們又開始回去踢「tiki-taka」球風(譯註:即類似Barcelona球風)，那將會令人非常失望。(當然，多數球隊遇到Arsenal都會比較保守，因此他們也不可能有太多反擊的機會) Villas-Boas will defend his high line. On the basis of this game, it’s a ludicrous decision. But consider his long-term goal at Chelsea – to bring in a more positive, proactive, aggressive style of football – and he’ll argue, with some justification, that such an overarching change in ideology is not compatible with suddenly switching to a more defensive mindset for a one-off occasion. Chelsea have suffered from short-termism in recent years and lacked finesse. Villas-Boas wants to give them more of an identity, and for that he should be praised. AVB將會替自己防線壓上的戰術辯護，雖然從這場比賽來看，這個決定非常糟糕，但考慮他在Chelsea長期的目標，是要為球隊帶來更正面，更積極且更具技術的球風，因此，他會辯解說:由於Chelsea的足球戰術思維有如此大的改變，因此不可能為了一場比賽再突然轉變成注重防守的戰術。Chelsea在過去幾年已因為短視近利吃了不少苦頭，也較缺乏細膩的技術，AVB想讓球隊更有特點，至少在這點，他值得被鼓勵。 That said, one has to question whether the individuals in his backline can cope with this strategy. A side cannot be so amazingly prone to one particular approach that it’s possible to accurately identify where they’ll lose in the days before the game. Villas-Boas has a great vision for Chelsea, but he can’t be blind to his players’ failings. 但有人還是會問，後防線上的這些球員是否能習慣這樣的策略，AVB在Chelsea有很棒地遠見，但他還是不能忽視這些球員的情況。 ------- 譯後記: 這場比賽我們能夠反敗為勝有一部分要歸功於AVB的戰術造成的漏洞，以及教授這場比賽的策略正確，讓我們找到許多好機會。但我覺得防線的問題還是很大，定位球仍持續讓我們頭痛，對手簡單的跑位就掩護Terry衝進來導致被進第二球，M4看起來還需要一些時間適應英超的節奏，我相信他的身高對於防高空球還是有用的，而他也有不錯的傳球技術。除了定位球的防守，兩個邊後衛的防守也不及格，Djourou踢右後衛不可以是常態，否則遲早被打爆，Santos則是站位有問題，幸好W14會積極回來協防右邊，而Santos在進球後就爆氣，左路幾次單對單都成功守住對手，希望日後也能維持這樣的狀態。本仗還有一個無名英雄，A8，整場他傳了79球，只有失敗6次，還有1次助攻，更難得的是在Wilshere受傷時，他補上Song身邊的防守角色，整場有4次嘗試抄截都成功，是全隊最高的，因為他控制了節奏，使得Chelsea最後時刻的大舉壓上沒有太多效果，還貢獻了鎖定勝局的助攻！最近幾場有感覺到中場三人組的默契逐漸提升，三人不斷地輪換位置，Ramsey 這兩場比賽也都貢獻出關鍵的傳球，希望他能越踢越好！「騎牛范大將軍」連線儼然形成，接下來就要期待小老虎與牛的「動物園」連線啦！本場比賽有一次機會，可惜牛放槍了 Orz 這場比賽大家士氣很高昂，結果也給我們最棒的回饋，希望能擺脫去季的一些陰影，從此扶搖直上~ Go! Go! Arsenal!!!!! -- My Blog, My Dream http://twgosport.blogspot.com/ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.169.38.103 ※ 編輯: jehannn 來自: 118.169.38.103 (10/30 03:14)

推