原文：http://tinyurl.com/3dzhqtl 前言： 开始翻译这篇文章前，要先提一下本文作者在周中的另一篇文章 - The effects of Chelsea’s pressing game in 2011/12 (http://tinyurl.com/5v5oxwu ) 内容大略提到Chelsea在AVB到来之後，打法有很大的改变，强调全场的压迫反抢与控球， 在这样的逻辑思维底下，後防线压上也变得很自然。 统计了Chelsea本赛季的前几场比赛的数据，他有以下几点发现 1. 对手的越位次数变多了 – 因为後防线压上 2. 球队犯规次数变多，因为全场压迫，并因此导致最近几张红牌的发生 – Bosingwa的红 牌来自於防线压上在身後留下的空档，Torres与Drogba则是由於压迫对手，以不熟练的铲 球动作拿到红牌。 3. 对手射门次数降低 – 因全场压迫，以及强调控球，让对手拿到比较少的射门机会， 但要注意的是，由於身後的空档很大，对手一旦拿到机会通常都很棒 4. 到目前为止，Chelsea是英超球队里控球率最高的 以上提到的这些特色对本场比赛的结果影响很大，有兴趣的朋友可以点原文进去看。 Chelsea 3-5 Arsenal: Chelsea's high line ripped to shreds in amazingly open game 两队先发阵容与站位/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. 这场比赛前，我们就提过本赛季Chelsea有个明显的弱点 – 防线压得很靠前(请参考前言 所提的文章)，容易在身後留下空档，而Arsenal在这场比赛利用这个弱点取得很好的效果 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. 少帅AVB让Ivanovic取代David Luiz(打QPR时表现得很糟糕)打首发，并选择Mikel当防守 中场而非选择Meireles，其他的位置就如预期并无甚特别。 Arsene Wenger continued with Johan Djourou at right-back and Thomas Vermaelen was fit only for the bench. Wenger继续让Djourou踢右後卫，并让刚刚伤癒复出的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. 这场比赛出现非常多的好机会，并且有一些很糟糕的防守 – 但Arsenal在利用对手的弱点 上有更好的发挥。 Change in roles 角色互换 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). 本场比赛最有趣的地方是，两队在先前几次交手展现出的风格在这场比赛互换了，过去两 、三季的交手中，Arsenal掌握住控球权，而Chelsea後撤防守，并寻找快攻的机会(通常 都能获胜) 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. 但这场比赛两者的风格互换，Chelsea掌握较多的控球权，而Arsenal打得更直接。在赛前 的访谈中，Wenger承认现在的Chelsea因为有Mata而比Arsenal更具创造力，这在前几年是 不可能从Wenger口中听到的，少帅AVB真的改变了Chelsea近年来的踢法。 High line 防线压上 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防线压上 – 正如本网站先前所提(http://tinyurl.com/5v5oxwu )，是本场比赛 的关键。 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. 防线压上永远会是个问题，Arsenal整场比赛一直在利用这点，虽然Arsenal进的五球不全 是因为这个问题，但他们藉由塞身後球，并利用Walcott与Gervinho的速度得到的机会， 也够让他们进五球了，举例来说，Gervinho在上半场0-0时的那个放枪，实在令人错愕。 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靠前的防线在比赛中持续地制造问题 - Arsenal的第一个进球就来自Gervinho的 反越位，而Walcott进的那球来自於让他有空间跑起来。一些个人的失误也导致Chelsea掉 了两球，被进的第二球是Sturridge没有跟好Santos，而第四个球是由於Malouda糟糕的回 传与Terry脚下打滑。第五球与AVB脱不了关系，让球队向前压，试图追平比赛，因此在防 线後面留下太多空间。 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. 要再次强调，Arsenal拿到的大多机会都是来自於Chelsea压上的防线，并取得与Cech单对 单的机会，而这就是Chelsea本场比赛所遭遇的最大问题，正如同前一篇文章所提，在此无 须赘述。 Chelsea movement 切尔西的进攻 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. 我们不能忘记Chelsea在这场比赛也创造出一拖拉库的机会，不只进的那三球，他们也浪 费许多机会，尤其是比赛仍是0-0时。AVB知道Arsenal在边路的威胁，但他并没有要求队 员後撤防守，而是试着积极进攻，逼迫Gervinho与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. 在这两队过去的交手中，Ashley Cole在Arsenal右路制造的威胁一直都是决定比赛很重要 的因子，在这场比赛的前五分钟就发生了两次，Djourou看起来在右後卫这个位置踢得很迷 惘，连带也使得Walcott被限制住。Cole比赛初段的两次回敲传中後来都被Arsenal的中卫 化解。从下面的统计图我们可以看出Ashley Cole在左路造成的威胁。 Ashley Cole在比赛前五分钟的传球统计: 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将两个边後卫向前推导致一些微妙的变化 – Mikel通常都後撤较深，使得後防线 上有三个人，而为了不让中场失去3对3的平衡，Mata会往中间移动，而在Sturridge那侧则 推得比较靠前，并在後卫的身後寻找机会，Santos的防守站位出了很大的问题，让 Sturridge拿到两次非常好的机会，而Santos也要为Lampard的进球负起一些责任，他太容 易让Mata起脚传中了。两队的边後卫在跟各自对手边锋的较量中都落於下风，Arsenal容易 失位，Chelsea则容易被超车。 The midfield battle wasn’t particularly crucial in getting the upper hand. As already mentioned, Chelsea had more possession but lost the game. 中场的较量看起来不是这场比赛的关键，如先前所提，Chelsea有较多的控球率，但输掉 比赛。 Progression of the game 比赛进行的情况 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. 比赛的进行如何随时间改变呢？从0-0到2-3，并没有花太多时间，有部分原因是这场比赛 的节奏快速与开放，直到当Arsenal领先时，Ramsey与Arteta将球留在脚下，试着控制住节 奏，剩下的比赛时间都很疯狂、直接且渴望进球。 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. 当比赛在2-3时情况的确有些变化 – 这是本场比赛中比数冻结最长的一段时间 ，AVB用了三个积极的换人，并让Chelsea更快速的导传，这个改变对比赛造成多大的影响 ？看看接下来的进球，Chelsea追平了，但也让他们自己容易被Arsenal反击。 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. 事实上，Chelsea在2-3之後也没有创造出太多机会，直到Wenger用Rosicky替换Walcott上 来，Mata的世界波追平比数，但就在Arsenal看起来因为这个换人失去一些进攻动能时， 却又利用对手的一次失误进了一球超前比数。在讨论这些战术与换人时，Malouda的失误看 起来非常地关键。 Conclusion 结论 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的防守问题仍然非常明显，他们掉了三个球，是值得重视的问题，但他们赢了 ，赢的很聪明。跑位是关键，他们更踢得更直接，并创造出许多很棒的机会 - 够让他们赢 得任何足球比赛。 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. 这可能是对Arsenal而言很重要的一胜，因为这些进球背後所隐含的意义 – 本季到目前为 止，Arsenal从未像这场比赛一样，踢出如此直接、有效率的足球 – 特别是现在球队的进 攻模式已由围绕着优秀的传球手如Fabregas与Nasri，转变成利用两个边路球员Walcott与 Gervinho的速度与突破 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赛季发生过许多次，就算是赢球的比赛，Arsenal还是踢得太慢，最後都靠RVP 来拯救球队(译注:上一场对Stoke City也是很好的例子..)。这场比赛是很好的回应 – 快速、同步地压上的打法非常适合Arsenal的前锋，如果下一场比赛他们又开始回去踢 「tiki-taka」球风(译注:即类似Barcelona球风)，那将会令人非常失望。(当然，多数球 队遇到Arsenal都会比较保守，因此他们也不可能有太多反击的机会) 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将会替自己防线压上的战术辩护，虽然从这场比赛来看，这个决定非常糟糕，但考虑他 在Chelsea长期的目标，是要为球队带来更正面，更积极且更具技术的球风，因此，他会辩 解说:由於Chelsea的足球战术思维有如此大的改变，因此不可能为了一场比赛再突然转变 成注重防守的战术。Chelsea在过去几年已因为短视近利吃了不少苦头，也较缺乏细腻的技 术，AVB想让球队更有特点，至少在这点，他值得被鼓励。 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. 但有人还是会问，後防线上的这些球员是否能习惯这样的策略，AVB在Chelsea有很棒地远 见，但他还是不能忽视这些球员的情况。 ------- 译後记: 这场比赛我们能够反败为胜有一部分要归功於AVB的战术造成的漏洞，以及教授这场 比赛的策略正确，让我们找到许多好机会。 但我觉得防线的问题还是很大，定位球仍持续 让我们头痛，对手简单的跑位就掩护Terry冲进来导致被进第二球，M4看起来还需要一些 时间适应英超的节奏，我相信他的身高对於防高空球还是有用的，而他也有不错的传球技 术。 除了定位球的防守，两个边後卫的防守也不及格，Djourou踢右後卫不可以是常态， 否则迟早被打爆，Santos则是站位有问题，幸好W14会积极回来协防右边，而Santos在进球 後就爆气，左路几次单对单都成功守住对手，希望日後也能维持这样的状态。 本仗还有一个无名英雄，A8，整场他传了79球，只有失败6次，还有1次助攻，更难得的是 在Wilshere受伤时，他补上Song身边的防守角色，整场有4次尝试抄截都成功，是全队最高 的，因为他控制了节奏，使得Chelsea最後时刻的大举压上没有太多效果，还贡献了锁定胜 局的助攻！ 最近几场有感觉到中场三人组的默契逐渐提升，三人不断地轮换位置，Ramsey 这两场比赛也都贡献出关键的传球，希望他能越踢越好！ 「骑牛范大将军」连线俨然形成，接下来就要期待小老虎与牛的「动物园」连线啦！ 本场比赛有一次机会，可惜牛放枪了 Orz 这场比赛大家士气很高昂，结果也给我们最棒的回馈，希望能摆脱去季的一些阴影，从此 扶摇直上~ Go! Go! Arsenal!!!!! -- My Blog, My Dream http://twgosport.blogspot.com/ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.169.38.103 ※ 编辑: jehannn 来自: 118.169.38.103 (10/30 03:14)