[討論] ZonalMarking:Chelsea 3-1 United

看板ManUtd作者simonohmygod (曼聯魂)時間10年前 (2014/01/26 17:01)推噓15(15推 0噓 8→)

留言23則, 13人參與討論串1/1

好讀版:http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/ManUtd/M.1390726884.A.6B6.html Chelsea 3-1 Man United: Moyes’ use of Januzaj proves clever, but United sloppy at the back 雙方先發&陣型圖: http://imgur.com/WxzS9yV

Samuel Eto’o scored a hattrick as Chelsea convincingly defeated Manchester United without playing particularly well. Jose Mourinho welcomed back Branislav Ivanovic, meaning Cesar Azpilicueta reverted to left-back and Ashley Cole was dropped. Nemanja Matic was on the bench, while Eto’o got the nod over Fernando Torres upfront. David Moyes brought Phil Jones into his midfield and played Ashley Young on the left, moving Adnan Januzaj central and dropping Shinji Kagawa. Manchester United actually started very well, but an unfortunate concession and sloppy set-piece defending let them down. Eto'o的帽子戲法讓沒有踢得特別好的切爾西擊敗了曼聯。 Mourinho本場迎來Ivanovic, 這也代表Azpilicueta被調去打左後衛, 而A.Cole則沒有上場。Matic被放在替補席；而得到Mourinho認同的Eto'o則取代了Torres。 Moyes把Jones放在中場以及讓Young打左路, 並且捨棄了Kagawa, 把Januzaj放在中路。曼聯的開場踢得很好, 但是由於一顆運氣不佳的進球以及懶散的定位球防守讓他們輸掉這場比賽。 Moyes’ strategy quite effective On one hand, there’s no need for Moyes to be significantly criticised after this defeat. Manchester United were clearly unfortunate with the first goal, while the second and third were because of poor defending at set-pieces. In those situations, individuals must surely take responsibility for positional errors, poor decision-making and a loss of concentration. On the other, if the sign of a good side is ‘winning while playing badly’, presumably the sign of a poor side is ‘losing while playing well’. United’ s heads inevitably dropped when they found themselves two or three goals behind, but they started the game much better than Chelsea, and in open play were arguably the better side for long periods. Moyes的戰術有起到效果曼聯在這場失利後, 並不需要對Moyes有太大的批判。第一個進球對於曼聯來說很明顯是運氣不佳, 而第二和第三球則肇因於貧弱的定位球防守。在這個情況下, 每一個球員都必須對自己站位的錯誤, 糟糕的判斷以及注意力不集中等問題負責。對切爾西而言, 如果"踢的比較糟糕卻贏球"就算是好的一方的話, 那"踢的比較好卻輸球"就可以算是糟糕的一方了。曼聯的鬥志在落後對手兩至三顆進球時無法避免的降低了, 但是他們開場比切爾西好很多, 而且在對戰上以長期來看(應該是說90分鐘內)算是更好的一方。 United shape Moyes showed great faith in Adnan Januzaj by handing him the central attacking role behind Danny Welbeck. It would have been easy for Moyes to excuse the youngster from such a big game and instead play the more experienced Shinji Kagawa, but Januzaj’s form deserves to be rewarded with constant starts, and he was effectively United’s key player in this shape – both on paper, and on the pitch. The most interesting feature of the game was the roles of Januzaj and Welbeck. Although the former is a midfielder and therefore you’d expect to see him dropping back and helping with the numbers game in midfield, Welbeck is the player renowned for his work rate. Therefore, it was usually Welbeck dropping back to pick up David Luiz (or Ramires), and Januzaj remained further forward – not really as a second striker, but as United’s most advanced player. 曼聯的隊形 Moyes把Januzaj放在中路扮演進攻的角色並待在Welbeck身後, 展現了對他極大的信任。對Moyes來說, 在這種大比賽他大可以派經驗更豐富的Kagawa上場, 不過Januzaj的狀態是值得一個固定先發位置的, Januzaj在曼聯的隊形中很有效的扮演的一個關鍵球員的角色, 無論是在球場上或是戰術上。本場比賽最令人感興趣的特點在Januzaj扮演的角色和Welbeck本身。儘管前者是一個中場球員, 也因此你會期待他回到中場增加人數上的優勢, 而後者則是出了名的很努力。特別之處在於是由Welbeck後撤來對抗Luiz(或是Ramires), 而Januzaj則留在前場 - 不完全算是一個第二前鋒, 但卻是曼聯陣型下最突前的球員。 Januzaj drifts left Januzaj was the most dangerous attacking player in the match, for two separate reasons. First, he was allowed too much space between the lines by Chelsea. Neither Ramires nor Luiz are proper holding midfielders, and Chelsea’s centre-backs prefer to depend deep – John Terry, for example, wouldn’t have wanted sprints against Welbeck if United knocked the ball in behind. At one point, Mourinho could be seen screaming at Luiz to remain deep and protect the back four, such was the danger of Chelsea allowing Januzaj space. Second, Januzaj constantly drifted towards the left flank. In United’s previous match against Swansea he rotated positions with Kagawa: sometimes left, sometimes central. Here, although Ashley Young came inside a couple of times, Januzaj was more focused on creating overloads down the left, and he constantly picked up the ball in the inside left-channel, before attempting to play the ball into the middle. He set up Welbeck for a good chance – although the striker got the ball stuck under his feet under pressure from Azpilicueta – and then hit a ball across the face of the box, with no-one arriving at the far post. Januzaj的位置左移兩個理由證明Januzaj在本場比賽中是最有威脅性的攻擊球員: 一, 切爾西的中場線和後衛線之間給了他太多的空間。即使是Ramires或Luiz都沒有適當的控制住中場, 而且切爾西的中衛 - Terry習慣後撤較深(或說靠後)。舉個例子, 如果曼聯往前送出身後球, 他不會想要跟Welbeck去比速度。這一點可以從Mourinho在本場比賽中對Luiz要求佔位靠後來保護四個後衛卻造成給了Januzaj太多空間看出來。二, Januzaj持續向前推進到左邊的空檔。在曼聯上一場對上天鵝海的比賽中, 他和 Kagawa交叉換位，有時出現在左路，有時在中路。本場比賽中, 儘管Young有時候會前插到禁區, 但Januzaj更注重於在左路堆積人數, 並且在嘗試把球送到中間之前持續到禁區內左側拿球。他幫Welbeck作了一個好球, 雖然Welbeck在Azpilicueta的壓迫下拿到了球且把球踢到橫過過球門正面的遠門柱(並且沒人在那)。 Januzaj和Welbeck傳球示意圖 http://imgur.com/DmK35Cu

or that, Antonio Valencia must take some of the blame – United were constantly attacking down the left, but Valencia never provides a second goalscoring option at the far post. In stark contrast, when United attacked down the right at Aston Villa (all ten chances were created down that side), Januzaj started on the left but continually supported Welbeck by charging into the box, which was crucial in United’s first two goals that afternoon. Even if Januzaj wasn’t directly involved, United’s best moves came down the left. The first chance of the game was when Young moved inside to receive a ball from Michael Carrick, played a one-two with Welbeck, and Petr Cech made a fine save. Later, Patrice Evra stormed forward to get into some good positions, putting a decent ball into the box and firing into the sidenetting. 基於以上兩點, Valencia必須為此承擔一些責任 - 曼聯持續從左路進攻, 但Valencia 在遠門柱卻沒有提供第二個射門的選擇。相較於此, 在曼聯對上維拉那場比賽中, 曼聯從右路發起攻擊並在此路創造了10次機會, 那場Januzaj從左路先發但是持續的插入禁區來幫助Welbeck, 曼聯在那場的前兩顆進球都與此極其相關。即使Januzaj沒有直接參予, 曼聯本場最好的配合都來自左路。第一次機會來自於Young 移動到禁區接到Carrick的傳球並且跟Welbeck作了一個二過一, 讓Cech作出一個很好的撲救。之後Evra前壓到一些不錯的位置，向禁區送出一個好球並且還有一腳到邊網的射門。 Chelsea attacks Oscar played a very disciplined tactical role in this game, trying to stop Carrick and Phil Jones playing forward from midfield, but he had little creative influence. Instead, Chelsea’s attacks generally came from wide positions – Eden Hazard had a couple of great moments when Nemanja Vidic was dragged towards the touchline, where he looked uncomfortable, but Willian was the home side’s brightest midfielder, getting through his defensive tasks but then charging inside towards goal. In the headlines was Eto’o, for his hattrick, yet his all-round contribution wasn’t particularly crucial. The first goal – against the run of play, like in the European Cup final of 2009 against United – saw him sidestep Phil Jones nicely, while the second and third were neat but simple finishes. Mourinho said he elected for Eto’o rather than Torres because of his skill and trickiness, in comparison to Torres’ raw pace and power (which is actually an interesting evaluation of both players current’ style – both around four years since their peak) but whether this was a significant factor in the game is questionable. Eto’o poaching quality, rather than his all-round game, was the key factor. 切爾西的進攻 Oscar在本場扮演的角色在戰術上非常有紀律性, 嘗試阻止Carrick和Jones從中場向前推進, 但沒什麼創造力。因此, 切爾西的主要進攻來自於更廣泛(寬度?)的位置 - Hazard, 他在Vidic被拖至邊線時有一些非常棒的跑位/過人, 讓Vidic看起來非常的不自在。不過, 切爾西主場本次最亮眼的中場是Willian, 做好他的防守任務並向前插入進攻。因為拿了一個帽子戲法, 新聞的頭條都是Eto'o。儘管他的貢獻沒那麼特別重要。他的第一顆進球 - 他的跑位就像09年歐冠決賽對曼聯一樣 - 非常好的晃過了Jones。而第二和第三顆進球都是乾淨又簡單的臨門一腳。 Mourinho說比起Torres他更頃向於選擇Eto'o是因為他的技術和技巧, 相較於Torres的生猛的步伐(我亂翻QQ)和力量(由於這兩個球員的球風, 這是個令人感興趣的評價 - 對於這兩個巔峰過後的四年來講), 在比賽結果難於預測時, Eto'o的搶點/跑位( poaching不太會翻..)在整場比賽來說是一個很關鍵的因素。 Eto'o的傳球/射門示意圖 http://imgur.com/nxxs9Pg

Chelsea slow the tempo What was more impressive about Chelsea, however, was the manner in which they killed the game at 3-0 up. Mourinho gradually shifted to an entirely defensive XI, first by introducing John Obi Mikel for Oscar, and Chelsea moving to 4-3-3 to plug the gap between the lines. Later, Nemanja Matic made his second Chelsea debut in place of Willian, with Ramires moving right. Chelsea now had four cautious midfielders – Mikel, Matic, Luiz and Ramires, plus Hazard to break forward from the left, joining Torres – who replaced Eto ’o. Manchester United did get a goal back, through Javier Hernandez (he’d replaced Young, with Januzaj going left) but this was probably their only decent chance of the second half in open play. They’d created much more in the first period, but had lacked someone with Hernandez’s (or Eto’o’s, for that matter) poaching qualities. 切爾西嘗試減慢節奏切爾西更令人印象深刻的是在他們3-0領先後陣型的調整的方式。Mourinho漸漸的轉移成一個防守型的陣容, 第一個就是用Mikel換下Oscar, 轉換成4-3-3去堵住後衛線, 中場線等之間的漏洞。之後再用為切爾西第二次首秀的Matic換下Willian, 並把Ramirez 移至右路。至此, 切爾西現在有了四名保守型的中場球員 - Mikel, Matic, Luiz和 Ramires, 另加上Hazard從左路突破去會合換下Eto'o的Torres。曼聯最後還是透過Hernandez進了一球回來, (替換下Young, 讓Januzaj去左路)但這可能只是在下半場進攻時的唯一亮點。曼聯在上半場創造了很多的機會, 但是缺少 Hernandez這類球員的搶點/跑位能力。(就是在講你拉Welbeck) Conclusion The result here wasn’t a great reflection of the tactical battle – Chelsea won the game by being more efficient at both ends, rather than by Mourinho’s strategy being more effective. Eto’o has proved a useful penalty box striker since his arrival, and he played a crucial role here. Manchester United created some good situations in the first half, and while Chelsea were increasingly content to be dominated as the game went on, Mourinho would have been concerned in the first half at the number of decent chances United created in the final third, shown by his forceful instructions to Luiz to sit deeper. It’s somewhat surprising that Manchester United lost the game in such a manner. The widely acknowledged problem with their squad is in midfield – yet here, they were let down in both penalty boxes. 結論本場的結果並不完全的反應出戰術上的對抗 - 相較之下切爾西因有著比曼聯更高的機會/進球轉換效率而贏得比賽，而不是因為Mourinho的戰術更有效。Eto'o自從到了切爾西之後已經證明了他是一個非常有用的禁區前鋒, 並扮演著很關鍵的角色。曼聯在上半場創造了一些不錯的機會, 但同時隨著比賽進行, 切爾西漸漸掌控了全場；從上半場Mourinho對Luiz下的一些強制性的指令去讓Luiz回撤這點可以看出來。曼聯本場輸掉比賽的方式有點令人驚訝。大家都知道他們的陣容的問題出在中場，但其實他們在禁區的把握度也是一個問題。 http://www.zonalmarking.net/2014/01/20/chelsea-3-1-man-united-moyes-use-of-januzaj-proves-clever-but-united-sloppy-at-the-back/ 縮:http://tinyurl.com/qdjqfx9 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 76.171.91.115 ※ 編輯: simonohmygod 來自: 76.171.91.115 (01/26 17:02)

→

simonohmygod

01/26 17:15, , 1^F

01/26 17:15, 1^F

推

Tatsuhiko

01/26 17:23, , 2^F

01/26 17:23, 2^F

推

football

01/26 17:34, , 3^F

01/26 17:34, 3^F