设为首页收藏本站

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

楼主: Alex2011
打印 上一主题 下一主题

11-12 ZM专贴(拜仁1-1蓝军:客队赢得点球大战)

[复制链接]
526#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-15 13:54:40 | 只看该作者
zm分析板鸭和英格兰友谊赛,也捎带着说了一下梅西在阿根廷所遇到的困境
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

527#
发表于 2011-11-17 07:07:27 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2011-11-17 07:16 编辑

Ireland: defensive, and no reason to change
November 16, 2011


Ireland's most common starting XI during the qualifiers

Giovanni Trapattoni has guided Ireland to their first major tournament for a decade, yet there are still questions about his tactics.

His basic approach barely needs further explanation from the diagram on the left. There’s a standard back four, two hard-working central midfielders, two wingers who run with the ball, with a support player dropping off a main striker. It’s a 4-4-2, a 4-4-1-1 if you like, but near enough the most basic system imaginable in modern football.

Trapattoni’s success has come because he’s accepted the limitations of his side. With Barcelona and Spain dominating club and international football the game has, more than ever, become based around technical quality in the centre of midfield. Good passing when you have the ball, positivity when you don’t have it, and a preference for an open game have become the qualities to aspire to.

Ireland, frankly, don’t have a great deal of technical quality in their midfield. They have a fine goalkeeper, some good defenders, tricky wingers and a good deal of options upfront. In the centre they have Keith Fahey, Keith Andrews, Glenn Whelan, Darren Gibson and James McCarthy. Fahey and Andrews are Championship players, Whelan plays for a club that barely look to pass the ball, Gibson has (slightly harshly) become a figure of fan for non-stop ambitious shooting, whilst McCarthy is talented but barely established in the squad.

Defensive base

Trapattoni, then, has decided upon a negative approach based around getting two banks of four behind the ball, then breaking fairly directly through the wide players and sometimes longer balls to the front two. It has proved successful – Ireland qualified losing only one game from 12 (to group winners Russia), whilst enjoying a particularly good defensive record, with six clean sheets from those 12 matches.

He’s faced criticism for being too defensive, but it’s difficult to see how he can be more proactive given the lack of quality. Aiming for passing game for the sake of it would surely see Ireland undone even against relatively modest sides, and would essentially be shifting the battleground to a zone where Ireland are not particularly strong. Andrews and Whelan are unlikely to scare many opponents, whilst a two-man midfield can often be passed around easily by sides boasting both greater quality and quantity of central midfielders.

Formation

He could change formation to one boasting three central midfielders, of course, and move to a three-man midfield. However, this would mean dropping either Robbie Keane – unlikely, since he’s the captain – or Kevin Doyle, which would Keane to play alone upfront, a role that doesn’t suit him at all.

If the 4-4-2 is your ‘natural’ shape yet you don’t want to be outmanoeuvred easily in midfield, the natural option is to drop deep to prevent space between the lines, or in behind the defence. Whichever way you look at it, playing more attacking football looks suicidal.

The main problem is creativity – the wingers have been inconsistent, but that’s what you have to accept from wide players in a defensive side. They’re starved of the ball, and therefore players are always judged based upon one or two actions. It’s difficult to see how this situation can be improved in terms of he formation or selection; the simple response of ‘playing more attacking’ is more likely to expose the central midfielders than benefit the wide midfielders.

Ireland have a different type of squad to usual. As Miguel Delaney outlines, they don’t have a top-class footballer amongst their ranks but do have decent strength in depth, meaning that asking the side to work well functionally rather than relying on one or two individuals is the right way to go, and probably the only way they can perform above expectations. They don’t have many stars – even Keane and Damien Duff don’t have the pace and spark they did the last time Ireland qualified for a tournament.

“For a start, Messi and Ronaldo don’t have Irish passports,” says winger Stephen Hunt. ”We no longer hit is as high as we can, but we do have a direct style of play. We have good effective players at it…it can come across sometimes from the media that we don’t have a fancy style of play, but we never had. Never, ever had. We had Liam Brady, who was talented. Apart from that, you tell me who has been Ronaldo or Messi for the last 20 years in Ireland?”

Tournament approach

There seems to be an argument that now Ireland have qualified for Euro 2012, they need to break out of their shell and be more positive. In aesthetic terms? Well, that’s down to personal taste. In terms of getting results? Almost certainly not. If anything, the challenge for a defensive-minded team is to pick up enough wins to get through the qualification group, especially against opponents looking to play roughly the same type of football. A side based around ‘keeping things tight’ is more suited to a major tournament – certainly the knockout stages, and Ireland have shown in the past that it’s possible to draw your way out of a group.

In modern times, it’s difficult to remember an outsider cause a surprise at a major tournament by playing anything like open, attractive football. South Korea in 2002 were fairly defensive, Senegal were occasionally exciting but inherently counter-attacking, and Greece in 2004 were the ultimate examples of a defensive-minded side excelling through organisation and opportunism at set-pieces. 2006 and 2008 largely went to form, and 2010 saw surprise packages Uruguay, Ghana and Paraguay all based around organisation rather than creativity.

Look at this year’s Copa America, where the first knockout round saw the four reactive sides (Venezuela, Peru, Uruguay, Paraguay) progress past the four sides who wanted to play good football (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia). For various reasons, proactive football isn’t particularly successful at international level – the fact that Spain are the World Champions shouldn’t dominate the debate too much; overall trends are more important than one-offs, whilst Spain have the unique advantage of being able to field the majority of a settled, highly successful club side.

So not only does Trapattoni possess little quality to attempt to outwit opponents in an open game of football, he’d also be going down a route which has few, if any, notable recent success stories.

That’s not to say Ireland can’t offer more going forward. Small aspects can and should be worked on – Andrews broke forward more away in Estonia, and if Ireland are to make more of an attacking impact, transitions from defence to attack must be quicker. The overall structure and approach, however, should change as little as possible to maximise the chance of a shock.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

528#
发表于 2011-11-17 07:07:55 | 只看该作者
527楼参考译文
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

529#
发表于 2011-11-17 07:11:46 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2011-11-17 07:26 编辑

Portugal 6-2 Bosnia: Portugal better all over the pitch (and Bosnia’s complete reshuffle at half-time doesn’t help)
November 16, 2011


The starting line-ups

Paulo Bento’s side wobbled midway through the match, but overall deserved to progress to Euro 2012.

Bento made no changes from the first leg, persisting with a 4-3-3 formation with Helder Postiga upfront.

Safet Susic kept his midfield and attack in tact, but made suspension-related changes at the back. Sasa Papac was available again so started at left-back to replace Sejad Salihovic.

This was a completely different match from the first leg – much more open and also much quicker.

Portugal passing

With the benefit of a decent pitch, the passing quality from Portugal’s midfield trio was clear. Miguel Veloso sat in front of the back four and generally got time to spray passes to the full-backs, whilst Joao Moutinho circulated the ball well and Raul Meireles moved forward slightly.

The home side’s midfield was much more compact than Bosnia’s, which featured Zvjezdan Misimovic high up the pitch and consequently difficult for the other two midfielders to locate, whilst Haris Medunjanin dropped very deep, as usual, to get the ball from the centre-backs. As a result, Portugal kept the ball better.

Midfield battle

The midfield battle was interesting, because Merieles was much keener to close down Medunjanin than in the first leg, happy to leave Veloso and Moutinho further back protecting the defence. This meant Medunjanin didn’t get time to distribute the ball intelligently, he often misplaced passes, and therefore Bosnia’s play was slow and predictable when trying to build play fro the back.

The one problem with Portugal’s midfield being so tight in the first half was that there was, as usual, no real link between the midfield and the forward trio through the centre of the pitch, and therefore little creativity. Portugal still managed two goals in the first half, but these came from thumping long-range strikes from Ronaldo and Nani, rather than following any defence-splitting passes. The midfield won the possession battle, but didn’t win the actual game.

Nani

Incidentally, Nani’s positioning was more central than in Bosnia, which helps Portugal’s play. He can shoot with either foot which makes him very difficult to defend against, whereas in the first leg he was stationed wide on the touchline, never in a position to shoot and always likely to go down the line.

Elsewhere, the formation match-ups were very similar to the first half, although the one newcomer – Papac in at left-back – was perhaps the key individual. Bosnia created little in the first half, but the two chances they did fashion came from decent crosses from Papac. The first was headed onto the underside of the bar by Edin Dzeko, the second resulted in the penalty after Fabio Coentrao handled Senad Lulic’s header. On both occasions, Nani stood off Papac rather than getting tight, and turned his back and swung a hopeful right leg at the ball, rather than blocking the cross with his body.

Sweeping Bosnia changes


Susic's amazing half-time changes saw eight outfield players change positions. This shows the starting line-ups, and the arrows towards their position for the second half - only Pjanic and Dzeko stayed in the same role

The start of the second half saw the most complete overhaul of a side ever seen in a match covered by ZM – eight of the ten outfield players changed positions, effectively in a chain including the entire side with the exception of Dzeko and Miralem Pjanic. Medunjanin became the closest player to Dzeko, whilst Lulic was presumably supposed to give more thrust from left-back.

The changes didn’t work particularly well – an understandably uncomfortable backline was opened up easily for Ronaldo’s goal, Portugal’s third, and in the aftermath Lulic was sent off, meaning Susic had to change his side even further. Darko Maletic came on for Elvir Rahmic and went to left-back, with Medunjanin moving deeper again in a 4-4-1 system.

Having dominated possession at 11 v 11, Portugal were even more on top after the red card. Bosnia briefly got back into the game at 3-2 with a goal from a set piece, but Portugal were able to play around them. The away side needed a goal, and had to come out and press Portugal, but this left gaps at the back. Ruben Micael came on for Meireles and found space well, setting up Postiga with a rare through ball. At 4-2 the contest was over, and Veloso and Postiga added two more to make it a rout.

Conclusion

The red card (for dissent rather than sporting transgressions) rather ruined the second half – it would have been interesting to see if Susic’s overhaul had worked, but they ended up getting thrashed.

Portugal were impressive, particularly with their ball retention in midfield, but there are still big question marks about whether they can turn dominance into goals. They still lack a top-class striker and will probably play without a designated playmaker, and the quality in wide areas can probably only compensate for one of these problems. A plan B, perhaps involving Danny, should be tried before next summer.

Still, Portugal’s pressing here was impressive and they defended well at the back during both legs, and they should provide tactical interest at Euro 2012.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

530#
发表于 2011-11-17 07:27:18 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2011-11-20 15:59 编辑

529楼参考译文
-----------------

葡萄牙6-2波黑:葡萄牙在各方面都做得更好(波黑半场时的彻底调整没能凑效)


首发阵容

保罗-本托的队伍在比赛中途曾有反复,但最终有惊无险地打入2012年欧锦赛。本托没有对上一回合的阵容作出改变,坚持了4-3-3阵型,波斯蒂加顶在前面。

萨菲特-苏西奇沿用了上一回合的中场和锋线阵容,在后卫线上因为停赛而作了调整。帕帕奇可以再次出场,因此顶替了萨利霍维奇出任左后卫。

这是一场和第一回合完全不同的比赛:这场比赛节奏更快,场面更开放。

葡萄牙的传球

由于场地的改善,葡萄牙中场三人的传球质量一目了然。维罗索站在4个后卫身前,基本上有足够的时间将球分给边后卫们。穆蒂尼奥保证了球的流畅运转,梅勒莱斯则略微提前。

主队的中场要比波黑紧凑。波黑主将米西莫维奇站位很靠前,结果让其他两名中场在站位方面很难和他呼应。和往常一样,梅顿亚宁和往常一样回撤很深,接应中后卫的传球。总而言之,葡萄牙在控球方面做得更好。

中场的较量

中场的较量很有意思,相比第一回合,梅勒莱斯更多地对梅顿亚宁进行压迫,放心地把维罗索和穆蒂尼奥留在他身后保护防线。这意味着梅顿亚宁没有足够的时间将球合理地分出去,出现了很多失误。因此当波黑试图从后面发起进攻时,他们显得缓慢且容易被看穿。

上半场葡萄牙中场的紧凑告诉我们一个问题:与往常一样,中场和前场三叉戟在中路并无实质性的连接,导致创造力的缺失。葡萄牙在上半场取得了两个进球,但依靠的是C罗和纳尼的远程轰炸,而不是瓦解防线的传切配合。主队的中场赢得了控球,却没有赢得真正的比赛。

纳尼

巧合的是,纳尼的位置比在波黑的时候要靠中,从而帮助了葡萄牙的表现。他是个很难防守的球员,因为左右脚都能够射门。在第一回合的时候他被限死在边路,从未处在射门的位置,拿球之后也总是沿边线带球下底。

其他球员在上半场的对位情况大多类似。唯一的新面孔左后卫帕帕奇也许是个关键球员。波黑在上半场鲜有机会,仅有的两次机会都要归功于帕帕奇的传中。第一次的传中被哲科顶到,击中了横梁下方;第二次则间接造成了点球:科恩特劳在防守卢利奇的头球时手球犯规。两次情况下都是纳尼没有对帕帕奇上前进行逼抢,相反,他转过身希望伸脚挡球,而不是用自己的身体阻挡传中。

波黑的乾坤大挪移



下半场一开始,波黑在阵型上来了个乾坤大挪移-可能是ZM分析过的所有比赛里,一支队伍有过的最大的位置调整:场上10名球员(除守门员外)里有8个球员以链式的方法改变了位置,除了哲科和皮亚尼奇。梅顿亚宁成为了最接近哲科的球员,卢利奇似乎是被要求在左后卫的位置上前插。

这些变化并没有收到很好的效果:后卫之间的配合变得很别扭,理所当然地为C罗的第二球,也就是葡萄牙的第三球留出了空档。结果卢利奇被罚下,意味着苏西奇还得继续调整他的球队。马莱蒂奇替换拉西米奇上场,填补左后卫的空缺,梅顿亚宁再次后撤,形成了4-4-1阵型。

葡萄牙在11打11的时候就主宰了控球,更不用说在红牌之后了。波黑用定位球短暂地把比分扳成3-2,但还是被葡萄牙玩弄于股掌之上。客队需要一个进球,只能上前逼抢葡萄牙,但这样一来就在后方留出了空档。米凯尔换下梅勒莱斯,找到了这个空档,用一个少见的直塞助攻了波斯蒂加。4-2的比分宣告了比赛的结束,维罗索和波斯蒂加随后又在伤口上砍了两刀,波黑溃败。

总结

红牌(还是由于争执而非竞技上的错误)多少让下半场有些失色,我们还没看到苏西奇的乾坤大挪移到底有没有凑效,他们就被完爆了。

葡萄牙令人印象深刻,尤其是在中场拿球方面,但是,在把控球优势转化为进球方面还要打上一个大问号。他们仍然缺少一个顶级中锋,也没有一个明确的组织核心,而优秀的两翼只能弥补其中之一。在明年夏天之前,用丹尼打造一套备用方案也许不失为一个尝试。

无论如何,葡萄牙这场比赛在逼抢方面很出色。防守方面,两场都做得不错。在2012年的欧洲杯上,他们会采用何种战术让人很感兴趣。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

531#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-17 09:48:39 | 只看该作者
葡萄牙6-2大胜波黑,是值得分析的

zm专家或者写家,肿么对葡黑主客场2战都很关注的
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

532#
发表于 2011-11-18 11:00:16 | 只看该作者
看了一下上半场,C罗任意球和纳尼的远射都无解,葡萄牙这种球队,别让他们打兴奋, 打兴奋了很恐怖。


不过遇到西班牙这种四两拨千斤的太极高手,葡萄牙必败无疑。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

533#
发表于 2011-11-18 11:58:58 | 只看该作者
看了一下上半场,C罗任意球和纳尼的远射都无解,葡萄牙这种球队,别让他们打兴奋, 打兴奋了很恐怖。


不过遇到西班牙这种四两拨千斤的太极高手,葡萄牙必败无疑。 ...
小豆丁梅西 发表于 2011-11-18 11:00


说得好,葡萄牙肿么屠杀朝鲜队,也会肿么屠杀波黑

不过貌似阿根廷队06年也屠杀过波黑国家队前身吧?
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

534#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-19 11:58:13 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2011-11-19 12:04 编辑

Germany use one friendly to thrash a rival, the other to experiment with a new formation
November 18, 2011


Germany's formation in the 3-0 win over Holland

Germany played two games this week – 3-3 draw away in Ukraine, followed by a convincing 3-0 win over Holland.

The games were completely different – in nature, in scoreline and in purpose. The friendly with Holland was treated as a ‘proper’ game, against a side who are both traditional rivals, and a serious competitor. The Ukraine game was used to test some ideas out, with Jogi Loew using a brand new formation.

3-0 v Holland

Taking the games in reverse order, Germany were exceptional against Holland. They destroyed them as convincingly as they dismantled England and Argentina at last summer’s World Cup, except they went about it in a different manner. Whilst the majority of goals in those games were scored on the counter-attack, against Holland they were more of an all-round attacking force, able to break swiftly through the centre of the pitch, but also dangerous when they held onto the ball for longer periods in midfield, before suddenly changing tempo and creating a chance.

The line-up in that game will be familiar for anyone who hasn’t seen Germany play since 2010. The six furthest-forward players in the 4-2-3-1 were identical to the usual line-up in South Africa, with the exception of the injured Bastian Schweinsteiger, who was replaced with Bayern teammate Toni Kroos.

The most interesting and effective part of Germany’s game was the movement of the attackers, particularly Miroslav Klose, Mesut Ozil and Thomas Muller. They never found themselves in the same zone – when one came in, the other came out. Muller would come inside, then Ozil or Klose would move to the right. Or Klose would come deep, and Ozil would charge on to become the highest player. It was simple stuff, but done so instinctively and so quickly, and the first two goals showed it off brilliantly.

The first came when Klose and Muller switched positions – Klose stayed at the far post, cushioned the ball inside for Muller, who slammed it home.

The second came when Ozil moved to the right, which meant that Muller took the opportunity to move inside into Ozil’s position. Ozil saw that Muller was doing that, so continued his run down the right, got the return pass, and crossed for Klose. For both goals, Klose’s movement away from the play to the far post was superb, and his touch was perfect.

<video>

Lukas Podolski had a quieter game but did his job, stretching the play by staying wider. The combination of that, and the movement inside from the other flank, made Germany a good all-round attacking force.

The real star was Ozil, who has developed so much since the World Cup. His movement off the ball continues to be astounding, and he seems to have formed an even better partnership with Klose, always making clever runs to exploit space. That was mainly a threat when Germany played more direct football reminiscent of their World Cup style, particularly in the second half when Holland tried to push forward. The third goal saw fabulous interplay between the front two. Ozil also dropped deeper into midfield to get the ball, which allowed Kroos higher up into the central playmaking role he has sometimes played for Bayern this season.

What Ozil did particularly well, though, was his positioning without the ball. Holland always wanted to pass out from goal-kicks rather than punting the ball long, which meant they spent a lot of time trying to pass from the centre-backs to the holding midfielders. Ozil didn’t drop goalside of Mark van Bommel, but instead tried to get into positions to cut off the passing angle between he and the centre-backs. Holland’s passing was too slow, and it meant that Ozil was in an immediate position to break quickly in behind van Bommel.

3-3 v Ukraine


Germany's formation in the 3-3 draw with Ukraine

Four nights earlier, the game against Ukraine was much more complicated. Loew wanted to experiment, and tried a (Napoli-style?) 3-4-2-1. The most exciting result of that was the inclusion of both Ozil and Mario Gotze in the same team behind Mario Gomez.

Germany were 3-1 down at half-time and were slightly fortunate to get back in the game, but there were some positives from the match. Upfront, Gomez linked well with Gotze and Ozil, holding the ball up and dropping deep, allowing the two other attackers to slide in behind. It worked better when Kroos moved forward to make more of a front four, but there were some good early chances for Gotze and Gomez. The wing-backs got forward well and combined a couple of times with deep crosses, something Napoli do very well.

The problem, though, was at the back. Germany were undone twice on the counter-attack to go behind within 35 minutes. There were various issues – the three defenders didn’t quite know how they were meant to be picking up the strikers, there was often too large a gap between Mats Hummels and the outside centre-backs, and the wing-backs were often caught too high up the pitch, leaving the three with too much space to cover. When Ukraine’s attacks were slower, the wing-backs tucked in to form a back five, but when they broke quickly Germany were very nervous.

More interesting than the precise nature of the shape was the question of why Loew tried to play that way. He regarded it primarily as an experiment, and admitted that the players had hardly worked on the system in training.

As the excellent Bunesliga Fanatic website puts it, “Löw admitted after the match to wanting to test this formation for certain in-match scenarios, in which he might have to remove a defender and chase the game.” It’s debatable whether that really works, however – look at the personnel in the 4-2-3-1 and the 3-4-2-1, and in both sides you have two central midfielders, but in the standard 4-2-3-1 you have four outright attacking players, in the 3-4-2-1 you’re forced to play with three centre-backs and wing-backs, meaning an attacker would have to be sacrificed.

How Löw would change from a 4-2-3-1 to a 3-4-2-1 within a game – in the attack-minded fashion he suggests – is unknown. If, for example, he used Philip Lahm and Jerome Boateng as the full-backs from the start in a 4-2-3-1, then Lahm would become a wing-back and Boateng would be part of the back three. But that would mean having to play either Podolski or Muller as a wing-back, or alternatively, taking either of them off for a more natural wing-back, which would help the balance of the side but would decrease the number of genuine attackers on the pitch, from four to three.

A back three might feature less defenders than a back four, but it’s not necessarily more attacking. The use of Andre Schurrle as a right-wing-back in the second half was a good use of a player that does provide outright attacking threat from that position, however.

<video>

Conclusion

Löw used the two friendlies very well – one to play at full pace and thrash another of the favourites for Euro 2012, the other to experiment with a different shape. The less reactive strategy compared to the World Cup shows that Germany have evolved, the attempt to use a completely different formation suggests they will continue to do so.

As this moment, with Spain wobbling and Holland on the end of this 3-0, Germany are playing better football than any other side who will be at Euro 2012.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

535#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-19 12:05:35 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2011-11-20 20:10 编辑

534楼参考译文
-----------------------

德国队本周比赛综述:一场敲山震虎,一场求新求变  
由 胡美满 发表在GoalHi足球·翻译团-足球


德国队3-0战胜荷兰队的阵型

本周德国队踢了两场比赛:客场3-3战平乌克兰,主场3-0完胜荷兰队。

对德国队来说,在阵型上,进球方式上和比赛目的上,这两场比赛都是截然不同的。他们将与荷兰队的比赛当成一场正式比赛来踢,身为多年的冤家以及近年来的主要竞争对手,与荷兰队的友谊赛是不可多得的练兵场合;而与乌克兰的比赛更像是一场实验,勒夫在这场比赛中尝试了一种全新的阵型。

德国3-0荷兰

从另外一个角度看这两场比赛,德国队在与荷兰队的比赛中的表现更加出人意料。他们就像去年世界杯大胜英格兰与阿根廷时那样摧枯拉朽般地战胜了荷兰。但与去年不同的一点是,德国队的进攻手段更加丰富立体。世界杯上的两场比赛中的进球,德国大都是通过快速反击取得的;而在与荷兰队的这场比赛中,他们的全方位立体式攻击既能迅速从中路突进,也可以在长时间的控球之后,突然改变节奏,制造杀机。

对于那些自从世界杯之后就再也没看过德国队比赛的观众来说,这场比赛的首发阵容也不会令他们感到陌生。4-2-3-1的阵型中有6名球员都可以深入对方腹地,这与他们在世界杯上的首发阵容大同小异。只不过阵中大将施魏因施泰格受伤,取代他的是俱乐部队友克罗斯。

德国队比赛中最令人赏心悦目也最具威胁性的就是前场攻击组的跑位,尤其是克洛泽,厄齐尔和穆勒三人之间的跑位互动。他们从不会与彼此的位置重叠,当一个人跑到一边,另一个人就会扯动到另一边。穆勒出现在中路,那么厄齐尔或者克洛泽就会拉到右边;而当克洛泽后撤拿球时,厄齐尔又会顶到最前面。这看上去简单,但他们在快节奏的比赛中的跑动换位,就像出于本能一般。德国队打进的前两个进球就说明他们的这种分工合作有多么精妙。

第一个进球是来自克洛泽和穆勒的换位。克洛泽拉到边路,将球传给禁区内的穆勒,后者一蹴而就。

第二个进球则是厄齐尔游曳到右路,穆勒则心领神会地出现在中路厄齐尔的位置上。厄齐尔看到了穆勒的跑位,因此继续向右路拉扯,他接到穆勒的传球,向禁区内起高球,克洛泽候个正着。这两个进球中,克洛泽从单箭头位置向右路扯动的跑位都风骚无比,他的触球更是顶级的。

波多尔斯基的表现没有那么令人瞩目,但是他很好地完成了他的任务。波多尔斯基在左路的跑动为球队的阵型提供了宽度。在此基础上,另一翼与中路不停地交叉换位,使得德国队的进攻火力无人可挡。

这场比赛真正的主宰者无疑是厄齐尔。他在世界杯之后的成长令人赞叹。他的无球跑动还是那么顶尖,能够通过跑位为球队创造空间。而他与克洛泽之间的默契又上了一个新台阶。厄齐尔的这种表现是德国队在坚持去年世界杯的战术之外能够踢得更加直接凌厉的保证。到了本场比赛的下半时,荷兰队大举压上,此时德国队的第三个进球也充分展示了厄齐尔和克洛泽之间美妙的互动。厄齐尔有时还回撤到中场较深位置拿球,这时克罗斯就可以更加靠前,来到本赛季他在俱乐部常踢的位置。

但厄齐尔做的最好的还是他的无球跑动。荷兰队不愿意打长传,他们希望能从后场开始,通过短传配合制造杀机,这就意味着他们花了很多时间尝试由中后卫将球传给后腰。厄齐尔并没有过多干扰范博梅尔,而是深入他与中卫之间的位置,切断他们的联系。荷兰队传球速度太慢,因此厄齐尔有充分的时间来到范博梅尔身后,破坏他们的传球。

乌克兰3-3德国


德国队本场比赛的阵型

而与荷兰队较量的四天前的这场比赛,则更为复杂。勒夫想要实验(那不勒斯风格的?)3-4-2-1阵型。这个阵型中最为令人期待的是厄齐尔和格策同时首发,他们站在戈麦斯身后。

半场结束时德国队1-3落后,最后扳平比分也不得不说有一点运气的成分。但是这场比赛仍有其积极的意义。在前场,戈麦斯与格策厄齐尔之间建立了紧密的联系,他通过回撤和带球能够让身后的这两位攻击手有机会轮番上前。而当克罗斯也向前参与其中时,就组成了前场的四人攻击组。格策和戈麦斯在刚开场时就获得了几次好机会。边卫的助攻,中后场的美妙长传,这些可都是那不勒斯的拿手好戏。

但是最大的问题在于后防。德国队在35分钟之内让对手连续两次利用快速反击的机会得分。原因有很多,三后卫的分工不明确,不知怎样盯防对方的攻击手;胡梅尔斯与他一左一右两个搭档的距离太远;边卫助攻的幅度太大,三名后卫覆盖的区域有限,无法很好地为边卫补位。当乌克兰的进攻稍慢时,两名边卫能够及时归位,形成后场五人防守的优势,而当乌克兰打起快速反击时,德国队那风中飘零的后防线就不得不让人为他们捏一把冷汗。

比起这个阵型本身,更有意思的是勒夫为什么要尝试这么踢。他承认这是个实验,而且球员在训练时几乎没有演练过这种阵型。

Bundesliga Fanatic有一篇非常优秀的分析文章中写道:“赛后,勒夫承认他想要实验这种阵型,以应付某些特殊局面。比如他可能在需要赢下比赛时不得不撤下一名后卫。”很难说他有没有达到目的。但是让我们来看一下在4-2-3-1和3-4-2-1阵型中人员搭配的区别。两种阵型中都有两名中场,但是在标准的4-2-3-1阵型中有4名攻击球员,而在3-4-2-1中你要使用三后卫和两名边卫,这就意味着要牺牲一名攻击球员。

这种阵型的改变意味着勒夫想要打造更具攻击性的战术,但他如何在一场比赛中将阵型由4-2-3-1变为3-4-2-1还是未知数。比如说,如果他在4-2-3-1的阵型中使用拉姆和博阿滕担任首发边后卫,在变阵3-4-2-1之后,拉姆将变成边卫,而博阿滕则与其他两名中卫组成三后卫。但是这就意味着波多尔斯基或穆勒中的一位也要踢边卫,或者将他们其中一人换下,换上一名更擅长踢边卫的球员。这样做或许能够帮助球队打破场上的胶着状态,但是同时攻击球员也会减少一名,由原来的四人变为三人。

看上去三后卫比四后卫减少了一名后卫,但这并不一定意味着更有攻击性。不过本场比赛下半时换上的许尔勒踢的是右边卫的位置,他在这个位置创造了很多威胁。

总结

勒夫很好地利用了这两场友谊赛,一场全主力出战,给了其他明年欧洲杯的夺冠热门球队一个下马威;另一场则实验了全新的阵型,它与去年世界杯德国的常用战术截然不同。这种新的尝试在以后的比赛中也许还会继续。而与此同时,西班牙表现起伏不定,荷兰队0-3完败给德国。德国队在热身赛中表现比西荷两强都更加出色。让我们在2012欧洲杯一见分晓。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

536#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-19 12:15:02 | 只看该作者
勒夫在德国队对乌克兰友谊赛中,试验了全新阵容,结果是3-3,体验是复杂感觉,用中国话说就是五味杂陈

对老对手荷兰队的打法是传统的,阵容是一贯的主力,结果却是3-0的屠杀

这能够说明一些问题。

往往说,德国队就如德国人一样做事刻板一丝不苟,但是赛季初对巴西队友谊赛却能打出比巴西队还华丽的技战术配合来,这一场对荷兰比赛以及对乌克兰新阵型尝试,说明德国队都在为2012击败西班牙做准备,尽管这些尝试有惊有喜的
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

537#
发表于 2011-11-19 20:23:35 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 红蝶 于 2011-11-19 20:25 编辑

对乌克兰是343,应该是在考察中场球员个体状态、后防个人能力(注意和前者的不同)和中锋(特指克洛泽)不在时的进攻组合,继续试验第二方案;
至于打荷兰则是恢复到第一方案的正常发挥,结果没什么好值得惊讶的,只是再次证明克洛泽的彻底成熟和德国战术第一中锋的无可替代性(反过来说这种不可替代性也是一个隐患)。
结合赛后勒夫的发言,明年的欧锦赛目标最低设定为进决赛。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

538#
发表于 2011-11-19 20:36:54 | 只看该作者
对乌克兰是343,应该是在考察中场球员个体状态、后防个人能力(注意和前者的不同)和中锋(特指克洛泽)不在时的进攻组合,继续试验第二方案;
至于打荷兰则是恢复到第一方案的正常发挥,结果没什么好值得惊讶的,只 ...
红蝶 发表于 2011-11-19 20:23


最好大热必死,进八强的时候被淘汰掉,哈哈
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

539#
发表于 2011-11-19 20:54:04 | 只看该作者
我正二八经说出口的目标通常都偏低……
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

540#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 11:53:38 | 只看该作者
我正二八经说出口的目标通常都偏低……
红蝶 发表于 2011-11-19 20:54


巴错
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

541#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 11:53:57 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2011-11-21 20:59 编辑

Bayern Munich 0-1 Borussia Dortmund: slow-burning game decided by scrappy Götze goal
德甲前二之争:格策进球激活慢热比赛
November 19, 2011


The starting line-ups

Mario Gotze struck midway through the second half as Dortmund move to within two points of Bayern at the top.

Jupp Heynckes welcomed back Arjen Robben to play on the right, although he didn’t look 100% fit. Thomas Muller moved into the centre of the attacking three, whilst Toni Kroos played the Bastian Schweinsteiger role deeper in midfield.

Jurgen Klopp played his usual 4-2-3-1. Veteran Sebastian Kehl played in the centre alongside Sven Bender, whilst Felipe Santana played rather than the injured Neven Subotic – but otherwise it was Dortmund’s usual XI this season.

This wasn’t as great a game as many hoped and expected – the first half was something of a standoff with neither side dissecting the other with their passing, primarily due to every player being tracked closely by an opponent.

4-2-3-1 v 4-2-3-1
A familiar pattern emerged across the pitch, with the two attacking central midfielders, Shinji Kagawa and Thomas Muller, staying high up and closing down the opposition centre-backs when out of possession, making the sides look like 4-4-2 for much of the game.

In midfield, the two sets of holding players were up against each other, with both pairs also moving high up the pitch to prevent balls being played into that zone from the centre-backs. As a result, the game was slow and none of the central midfielders enjoyed much of the ball, as everything became compressed into the middle third.

Bayern long balls

The most obvious tactical feature of the first half was Bayern’s use of long, usually diagonal, balls from defence to the front four. Most frequently, this saw either Jerome Boateng or Rafinha quickly switch the ball to Franck Ribery on the far side, and then he looked to take on Łukasz Piszczek. A couple of times Bayern tried a similar ball in the opposite direction out to Robben, but with Kevin Grosskreutz staying a little wider than Gotze, there was usually less space on that side.

Ribery didn’t quite make the most of those opportunities, although with the frequency of the ball being played out to him, he was probably the most likely to make something happen.

Dortmund attacks

Dortmund created little in the first half. Compared to last season, their transitions from defence to attack seem slower, although after 15-20 minutes when the game opened out slightly, they started to look more threatening. They were dangerous when they broke quickly and had space to motor into – when Bayern got men behind the ball, Dortmund lacked the invention from deeper zones to break down two banks of players.

Still, with Gotze coming into the centre they were arguably more of a threat through the middle than Bayern – Gotze looked to form little triangles with Kagawa and Robert Lewandowski, and although nothing came of this intention for most of the game, Gotze moving into the middle had an impact later on.

Second half

There was more fluidity in the midfield in the second half, with Kagawa coming deep a couple of times to bring variation to the build-up play for Dortmund.

The teams realised how they could take advantage of the game becoming squeezed – balls over the top. Bayern started to take advantage of Dortmund’s tendency to push up, as a chipped pass over Dortmund defence to Mario Gomez resulted in a decent chance, which he dragged just wide. Dortmund created a good opportunity with a similar idea – breaking quickly in behind. Lewandowski laid the ball off for Kagawa, but Manuel Neuer did well to save. This approach seemed like the only way a goal was going to arrive in open play.

Dortmund’s goal owed more to bad defending than great attacking ability, and wasn’t an overwhelmingly ‘tactical’ goal. It was notable, though, that Dortmund’s attacking players all got into central positions to create confusion in the Bayern defence – that probably wouldn’t have happened at the other end.

Bayern push forward, Dortmund sit deep

Dortmund immediately became more cautious after going ahead, and since Bayern’s best hope of a goal in the second half had come when they played the ball over the defence, this avenue was no longer an option as Dortmund sat deep. Muller’s last contribution before being subbed was an attempted chipped through-ball that went straight out of play for a goal kick, which summed up their new problem. He was replaced by Ivica Olic to try to poach a winner (Heynckes recognising the lack of space between the lines and the need for someone prowling in the box) whilst David Alaba replaced Robben.

Dortmund kept two banks of four and relied upon great performances from the centre-backs and goalkeeper. Hummels was particularly impressive, and even when Heynckes went gung ho with Nils Petersen on for Rafinha (and Alaba back to right-back), they held firm. Set-pieces and simply lobbing the ball into the box and hoping for a lucky break seemed Bayern’s best bet late on, as Dortmund successfully parked the bus.

Conclusion

Neither side played their best football here, and a 0-0 wouldn’t have been an unfair result. Dortmund did little more than Bayern to merit the win, although it’s fair to say that Lewandowski played the lone striker role better than Gomez, and Gotze was more involved than Robben – his moves inside eventually proved important in the goal.

Both lacked creativity from midfield, however. There are both tactical and personnel reasons for this – tactically, those midfielders were all pressing each other and denying their opponents time on the ball, and in personnel terms, Dortmund still miss Nuri Sahin, and Bayern are not the same without Schweinsteiger.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

542#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 11:56:40 | 只看该作者
541楼参考译文
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

543#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 12:04:20 | 只看该作者
格策唯一进球挫败了拜仁本赛季一段神话持续上演,德甲巨人第二场失败,还是主场落败,有曼联的“风采”
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

544#
发表于 2011-11-20 21:06:38 | 只看该作者
本场拜仁对阵多特蒙德比赛结束后各界反应!
诺伊尔 :挡得住一个,挡不住两个啊
巴德: 估计有人又得黑我,有意思吗?
博阿滕:当时晕了,但有巴德在,黑我的人肯定少
拉菲尼亚:闷声发大财
拉姆: 周中白休息了,唉
古斯塔沃: 哥尽力了,真的。 裁判把黄牌拿出来一刻,天大黑。拿回去的那一刻,天大亮。
克洛斯:不是我不行,后腰也能踢。技术绝对没问题,就是身体有点软。
穆勒:总是踢边卫,忘了练前腰。要说最在行,还得九号半。
戈麦斯:一直在游走,从未拿到球。铁帽数据帝,还得再努力。
奥利奇:经常性玩命,这回时间少,要是时间够,还要继续拼。
彼得森:说我在消失,暗中在观察,经常能射门,总是踢偏飞。
阿拉巴:请别说我矮黑丑,我还年轻呢

里贝里: 单身的日子过久了,本回来了,二人世界还不是很习惯,看来得适应
罗本: 老子伤刚好,踢一场比赛就不错了,哪想到大多特下脚都这么阴险了。有良心的就先别黑我,欧冠的时候让你看看什么叫超级球星。

海因克斯:玩了一辈子鹰,被更老道的小鸟摆了一道。
鲁梅尼格:你们问我们乐什么,只输一球但仍领先两分,我们足够强大!
赫内斯:你们问我们乐什么,家门口捧杯不是梦,我们足够强大!
内林格:他们乐什么我不知道,我只知道我们不需要买任何后卫,因为我们足够强大!

克洛普: 既有奔放的激情,也有冷静的沉稳,一步步走向成熟

段暄: 哎呦,这回该进了。巴德一脸苦相
陶指导: 这后卫,必须得买人。

多特蒙德球迷:壮哉,大多特连续三杀拜仁!
部分拜仁球迷: 就不该让罗本上 不该让穆勒上
部分拜仁球迷:巴德这厮怎么还不滚去巴萨
部分拜仁球迷:早说过买博阿滕就不靠谱
绝大部分拜仁球迷: 裁判SB!裁判SB!裁判SB!

绝大部分曼城球迷: 拜仁不过如此,曼城与那不勒斯携手出线,蓝月亮将拿下小组第一。
Why always me
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

545#
发表于 2011-11-20 21:07:23 | 只看该作者
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

546#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 22:46:51 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2011-11-21 20:59 编辑

Valencia 2-3 Real Madrid: Real press well early on, Valencia better after substitutions
蝙蝠2-3皇马:客队压上占先机,主队换人大有起色
November 20, 2011


The starting line-ups

Real Madrid maintained their lead over Barcelona after an entertaining win over Valencia at the Mestalla.

Unai Emery went back to 4-2-3-1 having played two upfront in the previous game against Levante. Sofiane Feghouli started rather than Pablo Hernandez, and Daniel Parejo got a rare start in the centre of the attacking trio.

Jose Mourinho changed his system, moving Mesut Ozil out wide, bringing Lassana Diarra into the side and pushing Sami Khedira forward behind Karim Benzema. Angel Di Maria was injured.

This was a game of different stages: (1) Real dominated the first half. (2) The first 20 minutes of the second half saw little football with six yellow cards being produced in this period. (3) The final 25 minutes was topsy-turvy, with four goals.

Pressing

Mourinho’s use of Khedira high up the pitch suggested he wanted to be aggressive defensively, closing down from the front – and that’s exactly what happened. Khedira and Diarra worked extremely hard to shut down the Valencia midfielders, leaving Xabi Alonso deeper in a less physically demanding role. The opening to the game, a little like the Bayern v Dortmund game earlier in the day, was all about the midfielders tracking each other, preventing the ball being played into feet.

The use of Khedira was inspired. Although he wasted one good opportunity through poor control (the obvious downside of playing a combative rather than a skilful player in that position), his energy set the tone for Real’s pressing, and it was slightly reminiscent of the role Pepe played in the Clasico series last season, albeit with someone less out of position, and less purely destructive.

Midfield battle

The 3 v 3 in the midfield was a clear battleground, especially with so much closing down, and the most interesting individual contest was Parejo against Alonso- Parejo was the highest of the Valencia midfield trio, whilst Alonso was the deepest in Real’s three. Parejo saw little of the ball early on and became frustrated, and started dropping deeper and deeper into the midfield zone to try to become involved.

In theory this was the correct approach, but the nature of Real’s midfield meant that leaving Real’s deepest midfielder free was giving the most creative of the three, Alonso, time to dictate the play. He enjoyed the room he got when Parejo dropped deep, and although his assist for Benzema came from a long, quickly-taken free-kick rather than in open play, it showed that he was the man Valencia had to prevent getting space.

Real approach

Real were very direct on the ball, trying to exploit the space behind the Valencia defence. The majority of chances, or near-chances, came when they got one player through on goal – they didn’t wait for Valencia to form two banks of four.

It was a very workmanlike, battling performance from Real, summed up by the fact that the two least talented players in the front four – Benzema and Khedira – both did their jobs excellently, whilst Ozil and Cristiano Ronaldo were more peripheral figures than usual.

Second half

Ozil wasn’t really comfortable out wide in the right-sided position up against Jordi Alba and Jeremy Mathieu – it was surprising that Mourinho wanted to play him up against the most dangerous part of Valencia’s side, and defensively he looked weak in the second half when Valencia grew into the game. The two left-sided Valencia players combined for a good chance, when Soldado couldn’t get a touch at the near post.

Valencia’s problem was that neither Feghouli nor Parejo could get into the game, and it was no surprise when Emery replaced them both, either side of Sergio Ramos making it 2-0 with a header from a corner. He brought on Jonas to play as a deep-lying forward and the Brazilian immediately showed more use than Parejo, happily receiving the ball with his back to goal, holding it up like a centre-forward and bringing others into play. Pablo Hernandez also came on to play a narrow right-sided role and provided direct running from the flank in behind the centre-backs.

Sure enough, Jonas and Pablo combined for the goal – Jonas got the ball between the lines, waited, then slipped a pass through for Pablo’s run in behind – his shot was saved, but Roberto Soldado slammed in the rebound.

Latter stages

Real were suddenly under pressure, but immediately restored their advantage through Ronaldo’s goal on the break. Much focus will be on the mistake from Diego Alves, but it was a very interesting goal from a tactical point of view, because it showed exactly what Real were set out to do. Not just to break quickly – although that was the plan, only obvious once Valencia actually started getting into the final third – but because, as Graham Hunter points out, Real won six 50-50 balls from the edge of their own box, to the edge of the Valencia box. It went:

  • Diarra beats Jonas to a header (78:27)
  • Marcelo gets in ahead of Pablo to clear (78:29)
  • Ozil holds off Alba to flick on the ball (78:31)
  • Higuain battles Miguel to head the ball forward (78:33)
  • Pepe beats Mathieu to the loose ball (78:34)
  • Ronaldo outwits Alves to set himself up for the goal (78:39)

That’s twelve seconds from defending on the edge of their own penalty box, to having an open goal at the other end, and the nature of the break – about tackles rather than flowing passing – shows what Real were set out to be – fierce combative, battling.

That should have wrapped the game up, but Valencia came back again. Artiz Aduriz came on for Alba, Mathieu went to left-back and Valencia went gung ho. Soldado again popped up with a clever finish, and a frantic late finish could well have made it 3-3.

Conclusion

A good tactical battle between two interesting managers. The game came down to this: Mourinho got his starting selection right with the use of Khedira high up, whilst Emery’s decision to play Feghouli and Parejo was a mistake, and Valencia only played well once Jonas and Pablo came on in attacking positions. Real ‘won’ the first 60 minutes before Valencia made changes. When Emery acted, the remainder of the game was 2-2.

There were a myriad of interesting features here: both sides pressing and leaving space in behind, Khedira’s role, Alonso being given space, Ronaldo and Ozil being less prominent than Benzema and Khedira, Jonas holding the ball up, Soldado’s brilliant finishing…but the main story was Real relishing individual battles, and coming out on top.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

547#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 22:50:22 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2011-11-22 16:53 编辑

546楼参考译文
-----------------

瓦伦西亚2-3皇马:是什么战术让穆里尼奥都摸不清?


The starting line-ups

经历梅斯塔利亚一场跌宕起伏的精彩比赛之后,皇家马德里继续保持着他们对巴塞罗那3分的领先优势。

上一轮面对莱万特时使用双前锋之后,埃梅里本场比赛回归4-2-3-1。费古利取代巴勃罗-埃尔南德斯获得首发,而帕雷霍则罕有地获得攻击中场的首发位置。

穆里尼奥也对阵型作出了调整,他把厄齐尔挪到了边路,把拉斯-迪亚拉放在中路,再把赫迪拉的位置提前到本泽马身后,迪马利亚则因伤缺阵。

这场比赛总共可以分成以下几个阶段:一,皇马在上半场完全占据优势;二,下半场前20分钟基本是黄牌大战,双方心思都不在足球上;三,最后25分钟是精彩绝伦的混战,而且造就了4个进球。

皇马的压迫

穆里尼奥对把赫迪拉的位置提前意味着他希望球队在防守上更具侵略性,而且从前场开始就压缩对方的进攻空间——而这一切正是上半场的真实写照。赫迪拉和拉斯-迪亚拉都在努力地凭借力量限制瓦伦西亚中场球员的发挥,而让阿隆索拖在后面担任一个不需要过于依靠力量的角色。比赛的开始阶段有点像稍早时候进行的拜仁慕尼黑与多特蒙德之战,基本上都是双方中场球员捉对厮杀,阻止对方轻松地控制皮球。

赫迪拉的使用是皇马压迫战术的点睛之处。尽管他因为控球不力而浪费了一个黄金机会(这也是使用一个拦截为主而技术不够细腻的球员打这个位置的一个不足之处),但他充沛的体能保障了皇马的压迫战术能顺利执行。 而且这也会让人稍微联想到上赛季国家德比中佩佩的角色,尽管这次赫迪拉的位置变动并没有那么明显,破坏力也稍弱。

中场争夺战

中场3对3的局面简直就是一个战场,特别双方都不不断限制对手的发挥和压缩对手的空间,其中最有趣的一组个人对决是帕雷霍和阿隆索的较量。帕雷霍是瓦伦西亚中场3人组中位置最靠前的球员,而阿隆索这是皇家马德里中场3人组中位置最靠后的一个。比赛初段帕雷霍基本没法碰到皮球,这让他颇为受挫。因此后来他开始不断往后靠,希望能够更多地参与球队进攻。

理论上这是一个正确的解决办法,但皇马中场3人组的安排意味着,放空位置最靠后的阿隆索就等于给了3人中创造力最强的人掌控比赛的时间和空间。在帕雷霍后撤之后,阿隆索很好地利用了身边的空间。尽管他对本泽马的助攻是来自一脚快发的长传任意球而不是运动战中的直传,但这足以说明瓦伦西亚不能让他有轻松的拿球空间。

皇马的攻击战术

皇马处理球非常直接,他们尝试利用瓦伦西亚防线身后的空间直接反击。大部分皇马获得的机会或者几乎能创造出来的机会都来自于前锋接应后场的直塞球——他们不会等瓦伦西亚的中后场都回归到位才开始组织进攻。

这是皇马非常熟练且十分积极的战斗模式,而前场4人组上半场的表现也说明了这个问题——其中天赋相对较差的两位,本泽马和赫迪拉,都交出了完美的答卷;而厄齐尔和C罗反倒成了配角。

下半场

厄齐尔对于自己在右路对抗阿尔巴和马蒂厄的位置并不是十分适应。穆里尼奥出人意料地希望用他在前场对抗瓦伦西亚最有威胁的左路,当瓦伦西亚下半场开始加快比赛节奏的时候,厄齐尔在防守上也显得很弱势。而这两个瓦伦西亚左脚将联手创造了一次不错的机会,可惜索尔达多在近门柱没有碰到球。

瓦伦西亚的问题是帕雷霍和费古利都游离于比赛之外,因此在拉莫斯接应角球头球破门把比分拉开到2-0的前后,埃梅里顺理成章地把他俩都换了下去。埃梅里马上换上若纳斯打影子前锋,而且巴西人很快就显示出了比帕雷霍更大的作用。他很舒服地背身接球,随后像中锋一样将球控制下来并等其他队友上前接应参与进攻。 巴勃罗-埃尔南德斯同样替补上场打靠近内侧的右边锋,而且经常从边路直接前插到中锋身后接应进攻

可以肯定的是,若纳斯和巴勃罗-埃尔南德斯联手炮制了瓦伦的第一个进球——若纳斯在皇马后卫线面前拿到球,他Hold住,然后送出一个直塞,巴勃罗斜线插入接应,可惜他的射门被卡西挡出,不过索尔达多大力补射命中。

最后阶段

皇家马德里突然压力大了起来,但他们几乎马上又通过C罗的反击进球重新获得了两球优势。比赛的焦点都都落在迭戈-阿尔维斯的失误上,但战术上而言则是一个很有趣的进球,因为这代表了皇马进攻的精髓所在。不仅反击速度快——尽管这是皇马的计划所在,但这只是在瓦伦西亚大举压上之后才有所显示,而且就像格拉汉姆-亨特所指出的那样,皇马在自己禁区到对方禁区之间赢下了6次50-50的机会球。它们分别是:

迪亚拉头球争赢若纳斯 (78:27)
马塞洛抢在巴勃罗-埃尔南德斯之前将球解围 (78:29)
厄齐尔轻轻挑起皮球避开阿尔巴的拦截 (78:31)
伊瓜因抢在米格尔之把球顶向前场 (78:33)
佩佩造成马蒂厄的丢球(78:34)
C罗巧妙避开迭戈-阿尔维斯得到射门机会(78:39)

从自己的禁区边缘成功防守抢下皮球到在另一边拿到射空门的机会,整个过程仅仅耗时12秒。而且这次反击的重点——关于拦截对手而不是一脚传球——展示了皇马进攻的精髓所在:勇敢地拦截和战斗。

这个进球理应让比赛就此结束,但瓦伦西亚又取得了一个进球。阿杜里斯换下了阿尔巴,马蒂厄回归左后卫,瓦伦西亚齐心协力应付剩下的比赛。索尔达多再次很聪明地出现在关键的地方,而且他随后的一次精彩的射门有可能把比分扳成3-3。

结论

这是两个主教练之间的一场精彩的战术较量。比赛可以概括如下:穆里尼奥在首发阵容中提前了赫迪拉的位置,这个做法十分正确;不过埃梅里决定用帕雷霍和费古利是一个错误,而且瓦伦西亚在若纳斯和巴勃罗-埃尔南德斯替补上场之后才表现出色。,皇家马德里”赢“了瓦伦西亚调整之前的60分钟的比赛。当埃梅里作出调整以后,剩下的比赛双方打成2-2。

这场比赛有许许多多有趣的地方:两边都进行中场压迫,也都在后防线上留下大量空档;赫迪拉的角色;阿隆索的角色;C罗和厄齐尔的作用反而没有本泽马和赫迪拉重要;若纳斯的前场控球;索尔达多的精彩射门等等。但最主要的还是皇马打出了一场精彩的个人化比赛,而且最终成为比赛的胜者。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

548#
 楼主| 发表于 2011-11-20 22:56:50 | 只看该作者
埃梅里本赛季两个主场打得都不赖,只是这场守门员有点坑爹,尤其所丢第三球
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

549#
发表于 2011-11-21 10:11:27 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2011-11-21 11:25 编辑

Chelsea 1-2 Liverpool: Johnson wins it late
蓝军1-2红军:约翰逊终场前绝杀赢得胜局

November 20, 2011


The first half line-ups

An excellent tactical battle ended with Liverpool snatching the three points.

Andre Villas-Boas went for Didier Drogba over Fernando Torres upfront. David Luiz played alongside John Terry, with Branslav Ivanovic at right-back.

Kenny Dalglish surprisingly selected Maxi Rodriguez, excellent at Stamford Bridge last season, on the left. Craig Bellamy played just off Luis Suarez upfront.

A few phases of the game here – Liverpool were better in the first half, Chelsea took command in the second, and then Liverpool clawed themselves back into the game late on.

Formations

With the versatility of the front four, Liverpool could have set up in various ways. In the end, it was a 4-4-1-1ish shape – Suarez played left-of-centre against Luiz, Bellamy dropped deeper as a link player, Dirk Kuyt stayed very high up against Ashley Cole and came into the centre of the pitch when Liverpool got the ball, and Rodriguez started much deeper close to Adam, but tried to break forward inside Ivanovic.

Chelsea were their usual 4-3-3 – Ramires worked hard to close down Charlie Adam early on (as Scott Parker did so well) and attempted to deny him time on the ball to turn or play good passes. The wide players struggled to get into the game, and Cole was nullified by Kuyt.

Pressing

Liverpool closed down well from the front – Suarez, Kuyt and Bellamy are all naturally chasers, and they worked hard high up the pitch. There was often a slight problem in that the pressure didn’t always continue in midfield – Adam was usually up against Ramires, Lucas watched Lampard, and Mikel sometimes went free until Bellamy dropped deeper on him. The one exception to this, of course, was the goal – when Adam moved higher up and robbed Mikel, the surprise factor explaining (if not justifying) his sloppiness on the ball.

The interplay that resulted in Rodriguez’s chance was excellent, and it’s worth pointing out that in their pre-match warm-up, Liverpool’s attacking four plus Adam were practising a very similar move (whilst the defenders worked separately and Lucas worked on defensive headers with a coach). Adam would fire the ball into Bellamy or Suarez, the wide players would come inside, a couple of quick passes would be played, and then one player would finish. The similarity with the goal – albeit with Adam winning a tackle rather than playing a pass – was remarkable.

Chelsea’s passing was poor in the first half. Too often they resorted to hopeful long balls towards Drogba – it would be interesting to know if they played that way because Drogba was in the side, or if Drogba was in the side because Villas-Boas wanted to play that way. Either way, it didn’t work.

Half-time changes


The line-ups once Dalglish had reacted to Chelsea's half-time switch

Andre Villas-Boas did exactly what he did when he found himself trailing to Manchester United – he removed a midfielder, brought on Daniel Sturridge, and Juan Mata became the central playmaker in a 4-2-1-3 shape. Mikel was the man sacrificed.

After period working out how Chelsea had changed – and a brief time struggling to get the message across to his players on the far side – Dalglish reacted. Rodriguez was brought inside from the left, Bellamy went out to that flank, and Adam moved across slightly. Liverpool were now 4-1-4-1ish.

That was quite a reactive move, and it’s debatable whether such a shift was necessary at that time. Chelsea, as we know from the Arsenal game, are vulnerable to runs in behind their defence and can be hit quickly on the break. Taking away Bellamy’s pace from that zone was a shame in that respect, and having been on the front foot for much of the first period, Liverpool now dropped deeper and deeper, with captain Pepe Reina continually screaming at his defenders to move higher up the pitch.

Mata was much more involved after the break – 32 passes attempted compared to 20 in the first half – his positioning was excellent, and he helped drive Chelsea forward. He cleverly drifted either side of Lucas, hampered by an early booking, and caused the Brazilian more problems than in the first half. To make a wider point, Lucas is better at scrapping and sweeping up in front of the back four as a ’spare’ player than when forced to track a specific man – and with Mata playing higher up than Frank Lampard did in the first half, he now had a problem. When he tracked Mata closely, he was dragged away from his preferred zone so Lampard and Florent Malouda could find room, and when he let Mata go, the Spaniard got passes into feet.


by Guardian Chalkboards

Adam also didn’t seem to appreciate being moved to a right-centre position to allow Rodriguez to move inside, and this contributed to Malouda getting space for the equaliser.

Latter stages

The wider problem was that Liverpool were being overrun in the middle, but Dalglish saved it with a clever substitution. Bellamy made way, which pushed Rodriguez back over to the left (he wasn’t a force in the middle) and Jordan Henderson provided fresh legs. From then, Chelsea dominated much less.

Villas-Boas waited until very late on to introduce Torres – inevitably, for Drogba – but the change didn’t work. Torres was only on for three minutes, when Liverpool went 2-1 ahead. Having gone long too frequently when Drogba was on the pitch, Chelsea now had to be direct…but now had Torres upfront, clearly less of a force in the air.

To make a wider point again, this can be a problem in this situation if a manager opts for a target man rather than a quick striker from the start. Defences tend to start the match defending high up and then drop deeper, and by the time the quick striker appears, there isn’t enough space in behind to exploit, and you’re better off having someone who can win the ball in the box. Another example here was Manchester United’s defeat to Manchester City in last season’s FA Cup semi-final, when Javier Hernandez came on when City were happy to sit deep.

Johnson’s goal was very well-taken individually but two other points deserve mention – John Terry’s strange reluctance to move over into a covering position, and Kuyt’s move from right to left shortly before Adam’s excellent pass, which probably contributed to Terry’s poor positioning.

Conclusion

A fairly evenly-balanced game overall… even if it was rarely evenly-balanced at any one moment, either side dominating at different moments.

Liverpool’s first half performance forced Villas-Boas into a change – and Chelsea’s recovery, in turn, forced Dalglish to react. The key decisions that influenced the pattern of the game were Mata becoming a number ten, and later Henderson being introduced to help Liverpool in the centre of the pitch.

One final point – overall, the shooting from both sides was poor:


by Guardian Chalkboards
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

550#
发表于 2011-11-21 10:11:56 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2011-11-21 18:17 编辑

549楼参考译文
------------------

切尔西1-2利物浦战术分析:互相压制,各领风骚半小时


首发阵容

这是一场精彩的战术对抗,最终以利物浦抢得3分结束。

博阿斯用德罗巴取代托雷斯首发,鲁伊斯和特里搭档中卫,伊万诺维奇出任右后卫。

达格利什令人惊讶的选择上赛季在斯坦福桥大放异彩的马克西作为首发左翼,而贝拉米和苏亚雷斯搭档锋线。

比赛分成几个不同的阶段。利物浦在上半场表现更好,切尔西在下半场控制了比赛。然后利物浦在比赛的最后阶段重新掌握了主动。

阵型

由于利物浦前场的四人组可以随意换位,他们可以作出不同安排。最终,他们变成了一个4411的阵式。苏亚雷斯在中路靠左的地方攻击鲁伊斯,而贝拉米回撤联系中前场。而库伊特则靠前站位压迫阿什利-科尔。一旦利物浦拿球的时候,他会内收到中路接应。马克西开始的时候站位靠后,几乎在查理亚当身边,但会尝试冲击伊万诺维奇身边的肋部。

切尔西采用他们惯常的433阵型。拉米雷斯在开场阶段(就像帕克那样)不遗余力地压迫查理亚当,尝试限制他的拿球时间,不让他送出好球。但两个边锋位置的球员完全没有进入比赛状态,而阿什利科尔也被库伊特限制住了。

压迫

利物浦在前场的压迫做得很好。苏亚雷斯、库伊特和贝拉米都很自觉地追防对手,而且他们在前场就开始逼抢。有点问题的是,在中场的压迫并不很有持续性。亚当通常对位拉米雷斯,卢卡斯盯防兰帕德,但在贝拉米后撤之前,米克尔则是自由的。唯一的例外就是那个进球。当时亚当突然前插抢断了米克尔,这个意外的情况也许可以勉强解释后者为什么拿球这么随便。

各种作用的结果就是马克西得到了那个绝佳的机会。值得指出的是,利物浦的前场四人组和查理亚当在赛前热身的时候练习了类似的跑位(而后卫们则各自热身,卢卡斯和一名教练练习头球解围)。亚当会把球传给苏亚雷斯或者贝拉米,而边路的球员将会内切,他们会进行一些列快速的传递,其中一名球员完成射门。这跟进球很相似。除了查理亚当是抢下皮球而不是送出一记传球。

切尔西在上半场的传球是糟糕的。他们经常的处理就是长传找德罗巴。我很想知道的是,他们这样的原因是因为德罗巴在场上还是因为博阿斯让他们这样做的。不管是哪个原因,这都不奏效。

中场休息时的改变


面对切尔西的半场换人,达格利什调整后的阵型

博阿斯的做法和对阵曼联落后时一样,撤下一名中场,换上斯图里奇,马塔变成中路的组织者,阵型变成4213。这次,米克尔成为牺牲者。

在花了一段时间理解切尔西的改变,然后又花了一点时间去通知场上的所有人,达格利什的球队终于作出了反映。马克西被移入中路,贝拉米去到左路。亚当的位置也右移了。利物浦变成了4141。

这样的改变有点针锋相对的味道,而在这个时间段,这样的一个改变是否有必要也值得讨论。就像从他们对阵阿森纳的比赛中得知的那样,切尔西的后防身后很容易被利用,在反击的时候能很快被击穿。把高速的贝拉米移离核心区域,无视上半场已经证明过的打法,利物浦越退越后。队长雷纳不断地吆喝他前面的后卫要往前压。

半场过后,马塔拿球增多了,32次传球远多于上半场的20次。他的位置感非常出色。而他也带动了切尔西前进。他聪明地在卢卡斯的两边带球,给对手早早带来了黄牌,也给巴西人带了比上半场更多的麻烦。更大胆地说,卢卡斯更加适合在防线前扫荡而不是盯防某一个特定的球员。相比上半场的兰帕德,马塔的站位更加靠前,卢卡斯有麻烦了。当开始紧追马塔的时候,他就被带离防守位置,而兰帕德和马卢达就有空位了。如果他不追访,马塔就可以轻松拿球。


by Guardian Chalkboards

把亚当移到右中前卫的位置上,以让马克西回到中路似乎让他不是很适应,而这也导致了马卢达找到空位去创造了扳平的一球。

最后阶段

更大的问题是,利物浦的中场跑不动了,但达格利什用一个聪明的换人解决了这个问题。马克西重回左路(他真不是中路的料),亨德森换下贝拉米。从那以后,切尔西对场面的控制就弱了很多。

博阿斯在很晚的时候才用托雷斯换下德罗巴,但并没有奏效。托雷斯仅仅上场3分钟,利物浦就领先2-1了。当德罗巴在场上的时候,切尔西已经习惯了长传,而现在也必须打得更直接了。但现在锋线上的托雷斯显然没有相同的头球能力。

我们可以大胆地说,在这样的情况下,让一个柱式中锋首发比采用一个速度型前锋更有问题。防线喜欢开场的时候前压,而随后会后撤,这时候,速度型前锋上场就没有足够的空位让他去利用了,这时候用一个能在禁区内争顶的球员会是更好的选择。另外一个例子就是上赛季足总杯半决赛曼联输给的曼城的比赛,当埃尔南德斯上场后,曼城高兴地退守了。

约翰逊的进球毫无疑问是个人表演,但另外一个观点值得关注,特里不没有移到协防的位置很奇怪,而在亚当大脚斜长传之前不久,库伊特刚刚移动到左路。这也许式特里位置出现问题的原因之一。

结论

总体来说,这是一场相当均衡的比赛,尽管在每一个单独的时间点上,都不均衡。双方都在一段时间内掌控了局势。

利物浦上半场的表现 逼使博阿斯作出改变,而切尔西恢复元气后,又逼使达格利什作出反映。影响比赛的关键决定就是让马塔成为了一个10号球员,而后来亨德森的上场也改善了利物浦的中场的表现。

最后一点,两队的射门都很糟糕:


by Guardian Chalkboards
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|阿根廷风暴 ( 沪ICP备05003678号   

GMT+8, 2025-6-26 16:03 , Processed in 0.125000 second(s), 19 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表