[情報] Chelsea 2-0 PSG:穆鳥險中求勝
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2014/04/09/chelsea-2-0-psg-mourinho-takes-risks-late-on/
Chelsea recorded the 2-0 victory they required to progress on away goals.
車車憑藉客場進球3-3獲勝
Jose Mourinho welcomed back Samuel Eto’o upfront, although was without
Nemanja Matic and Ramires in the centre of midfield. Eden Hazard started on
the left, but lasted only a quarter of the game before being replaced by
Andre Schurrle.
穆鳥讓愛偷突前，中場缺少馬蒂奇和拉米，左路的球王18分鐘就因傷被換下。
Laurent Blanc was without Zlatan Ibrahimovic, so moved Edinson Cavani upfront
and brought on Lucas Moura down the right, which promised more
counter-attacking thrust.
布蘭科的王牌伊布因傷缺陣，因此卡瓦尼打中鋒、盧卡斯在左，增加反擊質量。
This was a tense but poor quality game for this level, and the major tactical
interest was how Chelsea became more attacking late on.
考慮到歐冠八強的等級，這是一場張力很大但精彩程度稍顯不足的較量，主要的戰術重點
在於車車下半場變得更具攻擊性。
Chelsea slow in possession
車車有球權時過於緩慢
Chelsea’s major problem for the first hour was their inability to lift the
tempo of the game. They started very slowly, seemingly surprised at being
pressed high up the pitch by PSG, and therefore took a while to settle down
and control the game. Even when they did manage to assert their possession
dominance, the passing tempo was extremely slow in the midfield, with PSG
able to shuffle back into a deep defensive block easily.
車車前30分最主要的問題是沒辦法提速，他們似乎不適應巴黎的前場壓迫使得開場緩慢而
被動，因此花了一段時間融入比賽節奏，即使他們成功掌握球權，中場的傳遞還是非常慢
，巴黎的後防因此能沉退來輕易化解車車的前場進攻。
Once Chelsea found themselves trying to break down the opposition, a
secondary problem was how few genuine attacking threats the home side
possessed. The front four were all dangerous, of course, but were being
denied space. In that kind of situation, you need players from deep capable
of bring the ball forward, ‘provoking’ the opposition forward and out of
their deep position towards the ball, creating space for a player higher up
the pitch.
車車次要的進攻問題是真正創造的威脅太少，前場四人個人能力都很強，但防守端留下的
空間很小，這時需要後方球員向前輸送砲彈，促使巴黎的防守前移，使得前場球員有更多
空間。
This never really happened. Gary Cahill and John Terry are competent passers
but not genuinely playmaking centre-backs. The full-backs didn’t overlap
sufficiently, partly because Cesar Azpilicueta is on the ‘wrong’ flank and
Branislav Ivanovic is a centre-back who’s been shoved out wide in his
Chelsea career – they rarely got into the final third, as the diagram below
shows. Lampard and Luiz are good players technically, but neither is a proper
playmaker. PSG could concentrate on denying the front four space – even
Cavani sat back, very deep, with no need to press the centre-backs.
但這種情形並未發生，特里和卡希爾的傳球中規中矩但不是真正的組織型中衛，邊後衛前
壓不夠，部分是因為AZP被拿來打左後衛、一萬原本也是中衛，如場上位置圖他們很少到前
場接應，LP和滷一隻技術夠但也非組織型中場，巴黎可以專心應付車車前場四人組，連卡
瓦尼都可以退回來而不需去壓迫對方中衛。
Chelsea’s opener came from an Ivanovic throw and a Schurrle finish, a very
simple goal. Schurrle’s forced introduction, however, lifted the home side
because he collected the ball in deep positions and ran powerfully at the PSG
defence. He prefers playing on the left flank, but has been denied
opportunities there because of Hazard’s fine form. It was extremely
surprising Mourinho switched Schurrle and Wilian in the second half – this
didn’t seem to have any great effect on Chelsea’s attacking play.
車車首粒進球來自一萬的手榴彈--非常簡單，許爾勒被迫替換球王意外幫車車提速，他回
到很深的地方拿球然後快速突破巴黎的防線(原本喜歡打左路的德國人被球王壓在板凳上)
，穆鳥令人意外的讓許爾勒和威廉在下半場換位--雖然效果並不明顯。
PSG counters
巴黎的防守反擊
In truth, PSG weren’t much better. They pressed high in the early stages but
then sat deep and played on the counter-attack. The breaks themselves weren’
t particularly impressive, with only a couple of decent moments from Lavezzi
and Lucas. The positive aspect of Chelsea’s defensive players offering so
little going forward, of course, was that they were in a position to get back
and defend against these breaks.
說實話巴黎沒有打得比較好，他們在開場防線前壓，後來往回收試圖打反擊，效果也不好
--只有幾個拉維奇和盧卡斯的突破，這是因為車車的防守球員並沒有壓得很靠前，反而
達到抑制對方防反的正面效果。
A more peculiar feature of PSG’s play was the lack of urgency when the
midfielders found themselves in space, with the Chelsea defence unprotected.
At times in the first half there were huge gaps in midfield, and
opportunities for Thiago Motta and Blaise Matuidi to run at the defence – or
feed attackers – but they turned back and played square passes. They wanted
to slow the tempo of the game, certainly, but there were genuine gaps for
them to break into.
一個特別的地方在於巴黎的中場球員並沒有利用身前廣大的空間，車車在上半場防守很大
問題是給了巴黎中場很大的突破空間，特別是莫塔和馬徒弟，但他們並沒有好好利用而更
傾向傳水平球，布蘭科試圖放緩節奏收著打，但其實車車的中場是有漏洞的。
Mourinho changes 穆鳥換牌
The game’s key feature was Mourinho’s attack-minded substitutions. He
steadily increased the pressure by introducing two strikers for two
midfielders. On 66 minutes he brought on Demba Ba for Frank Lampard, and
moved Oscar a little deeper – although it was basically a 4-1-3-2, with
David Luiz protecting the defence solo. Chelsea immediately hit longer passes
to Ba.
本場的關鍵在於穆鳥打出的攻擊牌，他換上兩個正前鋒代替中場增強攻擊力度，66分等爸
爸換LP、奧斯卡往後撤，陣型像4132，滷一隻單獨打防守後腰，往前長傳找等爸爸。
On 81 minutes he went further, bringing on a third striker, Fernando Torres.
Oscar made way, with Schurrle behind the three strikers, and Torres playing
from the right flank.
81分鐘時上了第三個中鋒托托換奧斯卡，許爾勒打前腰，托托跑到右路。
Clearly, you can’t increase numbers in one part of the pitch without taking
them away from another part, and therefore Mourinho’s strategy was a
calculated risk. He decided to leave all four defenders on the pitch,
probably as he was scared of PSG counter-attacks – whereas he often removes
a full-back in these situations, and moves to a back three.
當然你不可能在不放棄任何球員的情況增加進攻人數，因此穆鳥的策略是個計算過後的險
棋，他把四個後衛留在場上(可能是為了堵巴黎的反擊)，即使他常常撤下一個邊後衛變
三中衛。
PSG chances 巴黎的機會
Chelsea’s area of weakness was now in midfield, and therefore Luiz was
completely overrun. He battled manfully, charging after opponents to attempt
to win possession, but the fact remains that Matuidi plus substitutes Javier
Pastore and Yohan Cabaye were all getting space in front of the Chelsea
defence, and in the period after Mourinho’s attacking shift, PSG had their
best two opportunities, created from this zone.
車車的這套陣型弱點在中場特別明顯，滷一隻單獨拖後被巴黎的中場夾擊，他英勇的承擔
這個任務，但馬徒弟、帕斯托雷和卡巴耶仍然利用了這一大片空檔，就在穆鳥這個冒險的
換人舉動之後，巴黎在這個區域創造出他們全場最好的兩次機會。
Matuidi chipped the ball over the defence for Cavani to blast over from the
left channel, then Cabaye played an even better ball, for an even better
Cavani chance – he failed to take advantage of the game’s best opportunity.
馬徒弟挑傳給左前方的卡瓦尼，卡巴耶也來了一腳，不過卡瓦尼兩球都放槍...
Chelsea plan B & C 車車的B計畫、C計畫
That was the risk. But, clearly, Chelsea now had more attacking firepower. As
ever, the impressive thing with Mourinho isn’t the substitutions he made in
themselves (any manager can chuck on a striker or two), but the fact nothing
is left to chance in terms of organisation.
冒了很大的風險，但車車在前場擁有更強大的火力，一如既往最令人深刻的不是穆鳥的換
人本身，而是他總是打出計劃內的排兵部陣。
As he said after the game, Mourinho had worked on the alternative shapes in
training – the variation with two strikers, and the variation with three
strikers. This was obvious, in the way Chelsea retained balance despite three
strikers on the pitch – they weren’t fighting for the same balls.
穆鳥賽後說他在訓練時已經模擬了不同的陣型--雙前鋒、三前鋒等等，因此當車車上三前
鋒時，實質的比賽內容便跟著改變。
“We trained yesterday with the three different systems we used, the one we
started with, the one without Lampard and finally the one with Demba and
Fernando in, and the players knew what to do.” The key wasn’t the changes,
it was the preparation he’d made for the changes.
''我們昨天訓練就演練了今天三種不同的系統--首發陣容、缺少LP的情況和等爸爸托托都
上的情形，因此球員知道該怎麼做。''關鍵不在於換人，而是事前有計畫的部署。
When Ba hit the winner, Mourinho darted down the touchline ‘in celebration’
, but afterwards he claimed he was primarily running to tell Torres and Ba
their positional instructions for the remaining six minutes of the contest,
which is backed up by the pictures. Ba’s job was to sit in front of the
defence and mark Alex if he ventured forward, Torres’ to man-mark Maxwell.
當等爸爸進球後，穆鳥邊線跑百米慶祝，但賽後他聲稱他主要是要提醒托托和等爸爸
最後六分鐘的站位，等爸爸之後突前防止阿萊士上前，托托到右邊盯左後衛Maxwell。
PSG 巴黎
It’s also worth saying a word about PSG, who retreated into a very deep
defensive shape in the final 10 minutes, introducing an extra centre-back,
Marquinhos, to play just ahead of the other four defenders. Lavezzi and Lucas
had also been removed.
巴黎有值得批評的地方，他們最後10分鐘回徹非常深，增加了一個中衛Marquinhos在後防
線前面，但拉維奇和盧卡斯都已經回到板凳了。
Blanc will be criticised for being too defensive and reactive, but in the
situation his strategy wasn’t wrong, as such, it was just poorly executed at
both ends. Cavani missed the game’s best chance, while the PSG defence
looked surprisingly uncomfortable playing very deep, probably because they’
re completely unaccustomed to playing this way in Ligue 1. They completely
failed to deal with the pressure.
布蘭科被批評過於保守，但當時的情況他的決策沒有問題，只是在進攻防守兩端的執行出
現瑕疵，卡瓦尼放槍、防線對於後撤太深並不習慣，可能是因為在法甲他們很少這麼踢，
在壓力之下沒能頂住。
Conclusion 結論
Anyone can make attacking changes by introducing two extra strikers, but
Mourinho’s “brilliance” wasn’t the changes he made, but the fact his side
were prepared for them, and understood their new roles clearly.
任何教練都可以多上兩個前鋒，但穆鳥成功在於事前的充分準備和執行。
Managers are often criticised for not having a Plan B, but equally
unforgivable is a Plan B which is sprung on the players midway through a
match, with strikers on top of each other fighting for the same balls. This
was a controlled, pre-determined Plan B and, indeed, Plan C.
教練總是被批評沒有B計畫，但如果B計畫讓球員無所適從、仍打得跟原先差不了多少那也
沒好到哪去，這場是穆鳥精心設計的B計畫、還有C計畫。
It’s the preparation, attention to detail and communication that makes
Mourinho such an effective tactician, rather than the tactical decisions
themselves.
充分的準備和注意細節、溝通讓穆鳥成為好的戰略家，而非戰術本身。
--
作者 bons2 (就是現在) 看板 NBA
標題 [討論] James Harden在雷霆為什麼不能打先發?
時間 Mon Mar 10 13:16:08 2014
噓
03/10 13:43,
03/10 13:43
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 140.112.218.127
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Chelsea/M.1397113759.A.08C.html
推
04/10 15:16, , 1F
04/10 15:16, 1F
推
04/10 16:44, , 2F
04/10 16:44, 2F
→
04/10 20:56, , 3F
04/10 20:56, 3F