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]
751#
 楼主| 发表于 2012-2-13 12:25:53 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2012-2-13 13:32 编辑

750楼参考译文
--------------------

2012-02-12 / 余文乐



鲁尼的两个进球将曼联带上了英超榜首。

斯科尔斯上周对阵切尔西表现出色。弗格森爵士把他放进了主力阵容,将吉格斯移到左边。由于斯莫林缺阵,防线也就只有那些人了。
尽管贝拉米和卡罗尔在最近几周擦出火花,但达格利什并没有选择他们中的任何一个,只是让苏亚雷斯一个人顶在前面。恩里克回归,约翰逊回到右后卫位置上。

上半场的对抗相对平淡,完全没有赛场气氛那样炽烈。在开场仅仅30秒,比赛就停下来了(费迪南德和埃弗拉发生了冲撞),这意味着还需要一段时间才能进入比赛速度并达到某种节奏。当真如此之后,双方在中场中路的传球都不是非常准确,也没有什么破门机会。

中场争夺

比赛基本上是一场相当慢速的中场消耗战。吉格斯在左路首发意味着曼联在中场有三个传球手(卡里克、斯科尔斯和吉格斯)。他们都是喜欢拿球控制比赛的球员。达格利什使用了亨德森而不是查理亚当。亨德森的移动性更好,能压迫曼联并阻止他们控制比赛。但事实上利物浦在无球是相当消极,收缩防守,让曼联拿球。在比赛早段,曼联很难把球从后场传送到对方腹地,而利物浦实际上也拿到了一些控球时间。

但随着上半场比赛的进行,曼联慢慢控制了比赛。卡里克往前顶了,经常看见他在杰拉德(他和亨德森经常换位)往左边移动的时候跟防利物浦队长,这让斯科尔斯有空间去控制比赛。他又一次在拖后的位置有高质量的发挥,指挥分球,控制比赛的节奏。

斯皮林难题

曼联真正控制了的是中场和锋线之间的位置。理论上,那里只有斯皮林和鲁尼的1对1对抗。但斯皮林在那个位置踢得并不好。也许这是他在卢卡斯缺阵、成为准常规首发之后的第一次,但他似乎束手无策。

他并没有很好地把握跟防鲁尼的程度。有时他跟防鲁尼去到边路,结果空出了自己的防守位置。有时又死守自己的位置,让鲁尼在他的两边拿球。但公平地讲,这更多是曼联的战术聪明,而不是斯皮林个人的错误。吉格斯内收得很厉害,几乎是第二个“10号”,而这和朴智星在最近的杯赛上的做法很相似(下图,相比瓦伦西亚在右路接球,吉格斯的接球点要靠近中路得多)。另外,维尔贝克也后撤到这一区域,而甚至斯科尔斯也完成了一次出色的跟进前插,完成了一次精彩的头球攻门。



曼联的战术基本上是把人堆在斯皮林周围,并从他这一点突破。这是无球时4141阵型的问题所在——后腰需要覆盖很多面积的场地,而让对方非10号球员自由地进入这一区域是很危险的。



当曼联控球时,吉格斯、维尔贝克和鲁尼经常形成一个三角,围住斯皮林。

吉格斯是这一切的关键。但这也意味着他的防守站位并不好。他站位太靠内了,上半场格伦约翰逊那脚仅仅偏出的左脚弧线球就是明证。如果那球进了,那很大责任在于吉格斯站位问题,所以,有利也有弊。

在另外一边,瓦伦西亚再次完胜恩里克。西班牙左后卫看起来没有恢复到最佳状态——他经常放弃前插助攻拉开宽度的机会,当然,他的站位在后来也化解了不少瓦伦西亚的威胁。

下半场

但这些都是关于中场争夺的。让人惊讶的是,在曼联完全控制了上半场后半段的情况下,达格利什并没有让杰拉德或者亨德森拉回来形成4231,给斯皮林提供更多的帮助。两个支点将会提供更好的保护。

在半场过后,曼联马上就领先了。第一个进球是来自于一次长时间的控球之后获得的角球。而第二个进球则非常有象征性,也许在战术上来看,这是不可避免的,这说明了斯皮林的痛苦——他让瓦伦西亚抢到了球,并助攻鲁尼破门。

2-0

下半场2-0之后,大部分时间都静止了,了无生趣。弗格森全场都没有换人,尽管他有不少好的选择(包括克莱维利),这也让人看到了他对自己的阵型有多满意。

达格利什换了两个人,把阵型调回442。斯皮林和唐宁这两名本场表现最差的两名球员,被卡罗尔和贝拉米换下。前者顶到前面搭档苏亚雷斯,后者成为左翼。杰拉德和亨德森组成中场搭档。曼联在2-0领先之后没有创造什么攻势,这对2人中场因此获益,因为他们无需太担心防线前的区域。

最后时刻

然而,(译注:曼联在2-0领先之后没有创造什么攻势)也许部分是由于他们开始放松,开始专注于在中场控球拖慢比赛节奏。他们在很早的时候就可以在中场形成长时间的控球,引来看台上的叫好声。导致这样的原因是杰拉德和亨德森收得太后,苏亚雷斯和卡罗尔又站得太前。有大约30码的区域是没有利物浦球员的,这让曼联可以很轻松地在那里保持控球。

埃文斯-费迪南德组合很大程度上限制了苏亚雷斯,而卡罗尔至少提供了一种不同的威胁。一个定位球让利物浦重燃希望,而曼联在2-0领先之后的休闲态度看起来有点太自满了。但他们降低比赛节奏是对的,而他们在这场比赛中一直都踢得比对手好,尽管,他们也没有做到最好。

结论

曼联的主要优势是他们利用了斯皮林周围的空间,把人堆在他旁边,组成三角,在禁区前沿制造威胁。斯皮林表现当然不好,但他显然是被围攻了,需要其他人的帮助。鲁尼和维尔贝克的智慧也发挥了作用,而吉格斯的位置非常致命,尽管他的传球经常没有收到效果。

利物浦开场打得很消极,没有贝拉米的速度冲击,也没有卡罗尔的高度压制。上一场在安菲尔德,这些都做到了。德赫亚的问题在某些部分可能被夸大了,但他显然在应付高球上有困难。而在没有维迪奇的情况下,曼联的定位球防守能力也下降了。利物浦没有在这方面挑战曼联有点让人奇怪(两周之前,他们在角球时围住德赫亚的战术已经成功了一次。)

在换人之后,利物浦也没有什么改善,他们后来掌控了比赛,但在运动战中没有什么好表现。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

752#
 楼主| 发表于 2012-2-13 12:26:22 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 Alex2011 于 2012-2-13 12:28 编辑

Zambia 0-0 Ivory Coast: Zambia win the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations on penalties
February 13, 2012


The line-ups after the early Zambian change due to injury. Both sets of wingers switched throughout

Zambia completed an astonishing victory on penalties after a tight final.

Hervé Renard made the predictable but astute decision to switch to the team which ended the semi-final win over Ghana. That meant Emmanuel Mayuka starting upfront, Chisamba Lungu on the wing, and Isaac Chansa back in the centre.

After plenty of rotation throughout the competition, François Zahoui went for an unchanged side from the XI which beat Mali in the semi-final.

However, there was an early change for Zambia when left-back Joseph Musonda went down injured, and was replaced by Nyambe Mulenga, shown on the diagram.

Opening stages

The first goalmouth action was a Zambia chance that originated from a clever short corner worked very cleverly along the byline. They had done exactly the same thing against Ghana, so it was surprising the Ivory Coast weren’t ready for it. With a tournament so lacking in goals from open play, it made sense to work on set-pieces, and this was probably the area where Zambia threatened the most.

Aside from that, the game started at a relatively low tempo. Both centre-back pairings got lots of time on the ball, the early injury disrupted the rhythm of the game, and the ball was moved slowly from back to front.

Positioning

Zambia were set up in much the same way they have been throughout the tournament. 4-4-2 without the ball, more like 4-2-2-2 with it, with Chansa breaking forward from midfield to add more numbers to the attacks. In the defensive phase of play, Christopher Katongo and Mayuka positioned themselves between the Ivorian centre-backs and holding players, cutting off the passing angle and slowing Ivorian attacks.

Didier Zokora dropped deep towards the centre-backs a couple of times to get the ball, and he probably should have done this more; it meant a more fluid side, the ball could be played forward more easily, and the full-backs could get high up the pitch.

Toure

The question for the Ivory Coast was about how high up Yaya Toure would play. He was fielded as a number ten rather than a deep midfielder, though he found it very difficult to receive an initial pass into feet, so kept coming deeper and deeper to collect the ball.

Zambia were happy enough for him to get space between the lines, and he had little impact in open play – although there was one moment late in the first half when he dove well at the defence, and the nature of his freedom may have contributed to him being left unmarked for the shot he flashed narrowly wide of the far post. Still, he didn’t have his best game, and was removed later on.

Countering

Both sides switched their wingers throughout – hardly the most inventive strategy. Still, late in the first half when Zambia got the ball into the final third, Gervinho and Salomon Kalou started to get opportunities on the break, and this briefly looked a real danger to Zambia. The Ivorians were more dangerous on the break, simply because they threw so few bodies forward themselves that the back four was rarely out of position.

This counter-attacking promise seemed to result in different instructions for the second half. They sat deeper, let Zambia play more and come onto them, presumably with the intention of stealing the ball and then breaking. It was actually Zambia who made more of an effort to commit men forward in open play, with the excellent Chansa roaming into good positions.

Substitutions


The line-ups in extra time

Five changes were made, but only two were important. The other three were (a) the early Zambian change through injury, (b) Didier Ya Konan replacing Zokora, and (c) Wilfried Bony replacing Yaya Toure. These were all more or less straight swaps, though Konan’s introduction meant he played higher up than Zokora, and left Cheick Tiote as the primary holding player, when he was already on a yellow card. There was one incident when he could have picked up a second booking.

But the two changes that were key were on the flanks. Max Gradel replaced Kalou, a sensible move because Gradel picked the ball up in deeper positions than Kalou (important, since the Ivory Coast couldn’t get the ball forward to the front three).

On the other side, Renard made a brave call by taking off the sub Nyambe, dropping Lungu to left back and bringing on winger Felix Katongo. Both Gradel and Katongo created chances with their pace down the outside, and were changes reminiscent of Jesus Navas in the World Cup final – a genuine wide option when everyone else was playing through the centre, and getting tired.

Little progression

But this was the only tactical development throughout the game. In a way – and this may seem an odd thing to say about a 0-0 – both sides were constrained by the fact they’d played their more attacking systems from the off. Yaya Toure was already high up – the Ivory Coast weren’t able to change something by moving him there. Similarly, Renard already had two wide players and Chansa in the middle, rather than two holders and Chansa tucked in on the flank, as he started the Ghana game with. Aside from the extra pace down the flank, there was no obvious plan B for either, though Renard’s bravery in putting Lungu to full-back should be commended. Was this change because of, or despite, Gervinho winning a penalty five minutes beforehand in that area of the pitch?

Extra time was stereotypical – tight, slow and lacking in ambition. Both sides were scared to commit despite plenty of time in the ball in the middle, and 0-0 was a fair result.



Conclusion
Zambia’s victory is an astonishing story for human reasons, but also an interesting one in footballing terms. Other national sides should embrace the forward planning shown in persevering with good young players over a period of time, despite initial poor results. This side is six years in the making, and owes much to promising results at junior level. “Long-term planning is hardly a revolutionary concept, but it is rare enough in African football that those who try it, can enjoy great rewards,” as Jonathan Wilson puts it.

It’s also another example – after Greece in 2004, Ghana and Uruguay in 2010 and various countries at last year’s Copa America – that the way to overachieve at international level is to be broadly defensive, well-organised and work on set-pieces and playing on the break.

The Ivory Coast knew that too – and they didn’t concede a single goal in their six matches, which shows the value of keeping a centre-back pairing throughout the competition despite rotation elsewhere (though there’s an element of chicken and egg). They played very conservatively in each of their matches, which was broadly the right approach, but their failure to create many chances here was hardly a surprise. They still lack a genuine ball-playing midfielder. 0-0 in 120 minutes was an appropriate end for a tournament sorely lacking in creativity in open play.

The game may have been a draw, but it was still a tactical victory for Renard. Tactics is about getting the best from your players, and since there was nothing to choose between Zambia and the Ivory Coast despite the latter’s considerably stronger squad, it was Renard who maximised his resources.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

753#
 楼主| 发表于 2012-2-13 12:26:42 | 只看该作者
752楼参考译文
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

754#
 楼主| 发表于 2012-2-13 12:30:21 | 只看该作者
赞比亚赢得非洲杯,貌似就如同04年欧洲杯希腊夺冠一样,也堪比11美洲杯乌拉圭夺冠

天下大乱,才能大治
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

755#
 楼主| 发表于 2012-2-13 12:53:24 | 只看该作者
2012非洲杯决赛-德罗巴射飞点球赞比亚科特迪瓦点球大战卡通戈获最佳球员



啥叫廉颇老矣,这就是注解
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

756#
发表于 2012-2-13 20:25:07 | 只看该作者
赞比亚赢得非洲杯,貌似就如同04年欧洲杯希腊夺冠一样,也堪比11美洲杯乌拉圭夺冠

天下大乱,才能大治
Alex2011 发表于 2012-2-13 12:30
04希腊 今年的赞比亚  这个算大乱,,说不定 也只是昙花一现

11年乌拉圭谈不上大乱,,,实力使然  实至名归 可以可持续发展
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

757#
发表于 2012-2-13 20:31:20 | 只看该作者
科特迪瓦群星闪耀  却吃不下一个赞比亚,,,堆砌球星 个人主义  最终还是功归一篑,,,看过本届非洲杯的某几场比赛   非洲足球还停留在“看天吃饭” 挥霍天赋的阶段,,,整体的技战术  战术素养差的太多   科特迪瓦的整体性较日本差很多   非洲杯冠 亚军的实力  均不如亚洲冠军

另外  看来点球这东西  跟球星名气 球员平时技术 还真没多大关系,,,归根到底  就是罚点球前的那一刻 想法别太多 简单粗暴最好
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

758#
发表于 2012-2-16 12:13:28 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2012-2-16 12:21 编辑

Milan v Arsenal should be an interesting battle of very different formations and styles
February 15, 2012


Possible starting line-ups

A quick preview of tonight’s game…

On the left is the potential starting line-ups for the two sides. There may be changes to this – Arsenal have injury problems at the back and may play Francis Coquelin at full-back, while Milan’s three advanced midfielders can all switch around, as they did against Inter.

But the real interest here is not the players used, but the battle of systems. Milan play 4-3-1-2, Arsenal 4-3-3. This, more than most games, should be an excellent clash of styles. Milan are slow at the back and narrow in midfield – they are clearly vulnerable to pace down the flanks, as Tottenham demonstrated at the San Siro last year.

Arsenal should be able to get joy down the wings, in two separate ways – (a) attacking the full-backs at speed, and (b) by getting the full-backs forward to create 2 v 1s against the Milan full-backs. This will force the shuttlers on the sides of the diamond out to the flanks, will leave gaps in the midfield and then force the Milan trequartista to drop back and help out, making Milan a broken team. (Their trequartista is usually Kevin-Prince Boateng or Urby Emanuelson, players based around energy rather than guile, because Max Allegri is so concerned with joining the forward two to the midfield three. If that link man can be taken out of the game or pushed deeper, Milan have problems.)

The importance of attacking down the flanks is why it makes sense for Wenger to play two naturally attacking full-backs, if possible. Kieran Gibbs may not be fully fit, but it is vital to have good attacking players there, on their natural sides, rather than other options (Thomas Vermaelen is a centre-back, Coquelin and Sagna are right-footed).
Milan’s front two do little defensive work, but the movement of Robinho out to the flanks can stop the full-backs getting forward.

If Arsenal are taking lessons from Tottenham’s display last year, then it makes sense to sit back and counter. Arsenal aren’t particularly good at defending deep – Vermaelen and Laurent Koscielny prefer to push high up the pitch and force attackers away from goal, but Vermaelen must beware of giving space to Zlatan Ibrahimovic in behind, as he did twice in the 2-2 draw with Barcelona two years ago. Milan’s threat comes from individual quality upfront – to win the game, they need to excel in that department rather than tactically.

But Milan’s midfield aren’t at all creative on the ball, as explained here. The man who plays the most key passes in the side is Ibrahimovic, while the assist leader this season is Antonio Cassano, who has been out for four months. The possible presence of Alberto Aquilani would change that, but otherwise opponents can afford to let Milan have time on the ball – there’s no real need to close down.

The key player, though, will be Mark van Bommel, sitting deep in the midfield. As shown by the blue, orange and red highlighting in the diagram above, Arsenal should match Milan 3 v 3 deep in midfield, but van Bommel will be free. His influence on the side shouldn’t be underestimated – his calm, reliable passing sets the tempo. Arsene Wenger rarely varies his tactics significantly, but it would be worth him asking Robin van Persie to drop onto van Bommel, and effectively playing 4-3-3-0 without the ball. That would nullify van Bommels influence and also create more space for Arsenal to break into.

On that note, while Tottenham’s strategy at the San Siro worked well, they were fortunate that Milan’s deep-lying midfielder was Thiago Silva, a centre-back out of position and not particularly great at the ball. In the return leg, Allegri used Clarence Seedorf there and the Dutchman was given too much time on the ball, completing 20 more passes than any other player. Van Bommel needs to be watched, but if Arsenal can break past him and force him into an early yellow card, his defensive ability is severely weakened.

This is likely to be an odd battle – fascinating tactically by virtue of the fact it won’t be very tactical. In other words, these two coaches are quite inflexible, playing roughly the same system every week. The 4-3-1-2 v 4-3-3 match-up is very obvious – the former has an extra man in midfield, the latter is stronger down the flanks.

The clash seems to suit Arsenal more, and this performance will say a lot about them. Arsenal now play a system based around getting the ball wide and attacking quickly down the flanks – facing a narrow side that is slow at the back plays into their hands. With that in mind, if Arsenal don’t come out on top here, one wonders which of Europe’s big guns they would stand a chance of beating.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

759#
发表于 2012-2-16 12:19:53 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2012-2-16 12:31 编辑

758楼参考译文
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

760#
发表于 2012-2-16 12:28:26 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2012-2-16 12:30 编辑

Milan 4-0 Arsenal: Milan make their strength count and win comfortably
February 15, 2012


The starting line-ups

Milan thrashed Arsenal in an amazingly dominant performance.

Max Allegri went for the usual diamond in midfield. Clarence Seedorf started on the left but went off injured quickly, and was replaced by Urby Emanuelson. Philippe Mexes started at centre-back, rather than Alessandro Nesta.

Arsene Wenger picked two natural full-backs, with Kieran Gibbs fit enough to start, but not fit enough to complete the game. Tomas Rosicky was a surprising choice on the left of midfield.

As forecasted, this was a match between two completely different sides. Certainly not as forecasted, Milan maximised their areas of advantage to produce a ruthlessly efficient display.

Midfield battle

This battle was key. Milan had 4 v 3 in that zone, but Arsenal actually dominated possession – it was 55% at half time, and 57% at full time. In a way, this Arsenal’s first problem – the ideal gameplan seemed to be sitting back, soaking up pressure and breaking at speed. They shouldn’t have wanted to see lots of the ball. Surprisingly, despite a focus on attacking down the flanks this season, Arsenal were very slow with the ball and seemed happy to hold onto it for long periods with no direct threat.

Milan didn’t see much of the ball for long spells, but they used the midfield advantage to great effect when they did have it. There was no obvious Arsenal strategy when they were out of possession – one would have expected either (a) Song to push up and leave Kevin-Prince Boateng free, meaning Arsenal could get tight to Mark van Bommel, or more likely (b) Ramsey to drop back off van Bommel, meaning Alex Song could pick up Boateng and the players on the side of the Milan diamond would be occupied.

But neither approach was properly carried out in full – there was too much chasing in the midfield zone from Arsenal – none of the players really seemed to know their responsibilities, with the result that neither van Bommel nor Boateng were nullified effectively. Arsenal looked like 4-4-1-1 without the ball, with the wingers getting back into defensive positions and Ramsey slightly higher up, but they didn’t really need that extra support on the flanks.

Song generally picked up Boateng when Milan had the ball, but tried to push up higher than him when Arsenal had possession. That meant turnovers were a danger, and Boateng’s movement for the first goal came from an initial starting position well in advance of Song when Wojciech Szczesny cleared poorly. Boateng’s finish was excellent, and like against Barcelona he tended to move to the right of the attack, as Robinho was drifting wide to the left.

No Arsenal width

Milan’s strength in the centre was expected, but Arsenal were supposed to counter that with their pace down the flanks. This strategy was never put into place – the odd decision to start Rosicky indicated that Arsenal weren’t even pursuing that approach, let alone carrying it out successfully. Rosicky wasn’t particularly bad, but his tendency to come inside and slide balls towards van Persie made Arsenal increasingly narrow, which Milan were happy with. Robin van Persie found himself between a trio of Milan players and was isolated throughout the first half.

There was a brief incident in the second half when Rosicky got past Mexes, and had his shirt pulled, with the Frenchman more than happy to take a yellow card to slow an attack. That was the only time Arsenal really got past the defence, and it showed how uncomfortable Milan were with the quick threat in behind, adding to the confusion that Arsenal weren’t doing this more often.

Ramsey had a poor game, often making the wrong decisions on the break. His longer passes were also wayward, but at least he was often looking for diagonals to the flanks, which should have formed more of Arsenal’s gameplan. Theo Walcott was barely involved.

Ibrahimovic

The final area of Milan strength was with Zlatan Ibrahimovic, who Arsenal had no plan for. He seemed to surprise both Arsenal centre-backs in different ways – Thomas Vermaelen was outpaced by him, while Laurent Koscielny stood off when Ibrahimovic dropped towards the left of the pitch. As mentioned in the preview, Ibrahimovic plays more key passes that any other Milan player, and here he moved deep very well to slide balls through the defence, creating more chances than any other player on the pitch.

The fact that he moved to the left worked well, because it is Vermaelen, rather than Koscielny, who is the player more comfortable coming up the pitch to close down a striker. Koscielny naturally stands off, and gave the Swede too much space before going off injured. Having three different centre-back partnerships (Koscielny-Vermaelen, Djourou-Vermaelen, Djourou-Song) clearly didn’t help.



Substitutions

Wenger didn’t go with a width-based approach from the outset, and the decision at half time to take off Walcott underlined that. He pushed Thierry Henry upfront, and then lined up with an extremely narrow-looking midfield, with Ramsey right and Rosicky left in a 4-4-2. Whilst in theory this meant Arsenal might cope better defensively with bodies in the centre, this was an odd move if they were trying to get back in the game, which they clearly were.


The line-ups after Arsenal's half time change

Walcott had been poor on the ball, but he’s always going to be more suited to a wide role than Ramsey, who naturally came inside, as Rosicky continued to do on the other flank. That meant that, with two upfront and four narrow in the middle, Arsenal were now attempting to take on Milan at Milan’s game, an amazingly reactive and timid approach. Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain emerged late on and made a couple of promising runs down the flank.

In fairness, Henry did OK – van Persie was no longer isolated, and the two combined beautifully for the van Persie shot that forced Christian Abbiati into an excellent save.

The Milan diamond became flatter when Max Ambrosini replaced Boateng – he sat alongside van Bommel with Emanuelson left and Antonio Nocerino right. That was seemingly a response to Oxlade-Chamberlain’s introduction – Milan wanted more protection for the full-backs.

Milan still broke very well – the movement and decision-making on the counter-attack showed they were more than about brute force, and Ibrahimovic deserved his late goal after a brilliant all-round performance.

Conclusion

These are clearly two very different sides – good in some areas, bad in others. One’s strengths are the other’s weaknesses, and vice-versa. Here, one side focused strongly on putting energy into their preferred areas, with Milan dominating the centre ground and outmuscling Arsenal throughout. The away side, however, barely even attacked down the flanks, and it wasn’t really clear what Arsenal’s gameplan was, or what they were trying to do on the ball.

Milan certainly played well, but their performance was more about maximum efficiency than great skill. They actually only managed five shots on target in the game, and there were rarely slick passing moves or periods of utter dominance from them. They were just brilliantly ruthless when they went forward – ZM has questioned whether the approach of bullying their way past opponents is good enough to defeat top opposition, as shown by their poor record against big sides in Serie A – but Arsenal were weak, and Milan were brutal.

This is a genuinely shocking result for Arsenal. In terms of style, Milan seemed the ideal side for them to face, because of their vulnerability to pace and width, but Arsenal didn’t show either of those features here. It’s staggering that Arsenal didn’t go wide more readily, and difficult to explain.

In one of their long-running spats at the turn of the century, Arsene Wenger once commented upon Sir Alex Ferguson, saying that “His weakness is that he doesn’t think he has a weakness.” Wenger’s weakness is that he doesn’t seem to know his side’s strength.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

761#
发表于 2012-2-16 12:31:17 | 只看该作者
本帖最后由 pedro 于 2012-2-20 19:29 编辑

760楼参考译文
--------------------


2012-02-16 / baiy07


双方首发阵容

米兰用不可思议的统治级表现轻松击溃阿森纳。

阿莱格里排出了常规的菱形中场。西多夫首发出现在左侧但很快受伤下场,埃马纽尔森入替。梅克斯代替内斯塔出现在中卫位置。

温格派出了两个正统的边后卫,吉布斯虽然健康到足以首发,但还不足以完成整场比赛。罗西基令人惊讶地被安排在中场左路。
像赛前预测的一样,这场比赛的双方的打法完全不同。但显然赛前没预料的是,米兰将他们的优势发挥到了极致并给出了极具效率的表现。

中场争夺

中场的争夺是比赛的关键。在这一区域米兰拥有4对3的优势,但事实上阿森纳掌握了控球--上半场55%,整场比赛57%。从某种方面来说,这支阿森纳要面对的第一个问题---他们理想的比赛计划应该是退居半场、承受压力并利用速度反击。他们本不应该控球太多。但令人惊讶的是,尽管这个赛季的比赛中他们经常不懈地攻击对手的两翼,但这场比赛中他们却在有球时运转缓慢,而且似乎乐于长时间控住球而不是对对手造成直接的威胁。

米兰在长时间内得不到控球权,但他们运用了中场的优势并取得了很好的效果。阿森纳在无球时似乎没有什么明显的策略----人们本来期待要么(a)宋位置提前并放弃看守博阿滕,这意味着阿森纳可以压迫范博梅尔,或者更可能的一种策略(b)拉姆塞回撤,远离范博梅尔,这意味着宋可以盯住博阿滕,并且米兰菱形中场两侧的球员也有人看管。

但整场比赛中两种策略都没有很好地被执行---在中场阿森纳更多地是在追着对手跑---似乎没有一个球员明确自己的职责在哪,结果范博梅尔和博阿滕都没有被很有效地看管。无球时阿森纳看上去像是4-4-1-1阵型,两翼退回防守位置,拉姆塞稍稍靠前,但他们并不是真的需要两翼来支援防守。

当米兰拿球时,宋一般会看住博阿滕,但当阿森纳拿球时,他就试图压得比博阿滕更靠上。这意味着一旦阿森纳失误就会出现危险。第一个进球中,什琴斯尼开球失误的时候博阿滕的站位就比宋更靠前(译注:从米兰的角度来看)。博阿滕的射门精彩极了,就像对阵巴萨时那样,他倾向于移动到右侧进行攻击,同时罗比尼奥在左侧拉边。

阿森纳对宽度的利用不足

米兰在中路的强势是意料之中的,阿森纳本应该用快节奏的两翼冲击来应对。但这个策略从未被实施---让罗西基首发的决定很奇怪,这显示阿森纳根本没想过用那样的策略,更别提成功实施了。罗西基踢得并不是特别差,但他内收并传球给范佩西的倾向使阿森纳踢得更狭窄了,这正中米兰下怀。范佩西发现自己被三个米兰队员包围,在上半场完全孤立无援。

下半场有一个镜头,罗西基过了梅克斯,但却被对方拉倒,法国人很愿意得到一张黄卡来减缓阿森纳的进攻。这是阿森纳唯一一次越过对方防线,这显示了米兰对于对手快速打身后的进攻是多么不舒服,但阿森纳没有更多地这样做,令人费解。

拉姆塞踢得不好,反击时的决策也经常是错误的。他的长传也不好,但至少他还在寻求用对角线传球寻找己方两翼,这本应该是阿森纳的比赛计划。沃尔科特几乎没有参与到比赛中。

伊布拉希莫维奇

米兰实力的最后一环是伊布,阿森纳并没有制定对付他的计划。他似乎通过不同的方式让阿森纳的两个中卫都吃了一惊---维尔马伦跟不上他的速率,而当伊布拉到左路的时候,科斯切尔尼却站得离他很远。前瞻中提到,伊布的威胁传球比米兰任何人都多,本场他回撤得很出色,传出了打穿防线的威胁球,创造的机会比场上任何其他人都多。

相比于科斯切尔尼,维尔马伦更适应跟防对方回撤的前锋,因此伊布本场回撤到左路起到了很好的效果(译注:看阵型,科斯切尔尼是右中卫)。在受伤下场前,科斯切尔尼的站位离伊布很远,给了瑞典人大把空间。虽然阿森纳在场上曾经换过三组中卫(科斯切尔尼-维尔马伦,朱鲁-维尔马伦,朱鲁-宋),但都没起到作用。



换人

开场时温格并没有走拉开球场宽度的路线,而中场时换下沃尔科特更坚定了这一点。他让亨利顶在前面,因此中场排阵显得更狭窄了,拉姆塞在右路,罗西基在左路,形成了4-4-2。虽然理论上这意味着阿森纳可以更好地防守对手中路的球员,但对于一个想挽回比赛的球队来讲(阿森纳显然想),这是一个奇怪的变阵。


半场换人之后的阵容

沃尔科特虽然有球时踢得不好,但他比拉姆塞更适合在边路活动。拉姆塞更喜欢内收,而罗西基在另一边也一样。拥有两个顶在前面的前锋和四个踢得很狭窄的中场,这意味着阿森纳现在试图在对阵米兰时踢得像米兰一样,这招极为被动且懦弱。张伯伦随后出战,在边路作出了几次出色的跑动。

公平地说,亨利踢得还行---范佩西不再孤单,两个人作出了美妙的配合,范佩西的射门迫使阿比亚蒂作出精彩扑救。
安布罗西尼换下博阿滕后,米兰的菱形中场变得更平了。安布在范博梅尔身边辅佐,埃玛纽尔森在左,诺切里诺在右。这似乎是针对张伯伦上场的回应---米兰希望为边后卫提供更多保护。

米兰对对手的破坏还是做得很好---反击中的移动和决策显示他们并不只是肌肉流,伊布奉献了全面且精彩的表现,他的表现配得上最后那个进球。

结论

这是两个打法截然不同的对手---都在某些方面强,另一些方面弱。一支队的优势是另一支队的弱点,反之亦然。本场比赛中,米兰控制了中场并在身体对抗上完胜阿森纳,将他们的优势发挥到极致。然而,客队阿森纳几乎没有攻击对手边路。我们并不清楚阿森纳本来的比赛计划是怎样的,或者他们在有球时到底想怎么做。

米兰当然踢得很好,但他们的优秀表现更多建立在效率奇高而不是技术出色上。他们实际上就五脚打中目标,而且在全面压倒对手的情况下也鲜有娴熟的传接配合。他们仅仅是在向前推进的过程中显得毫不留情---ZM曾经怀疑在对阵强队的时候,米兰是否有足够的能力压制对手,就像在意甲中对阵强队时的糟糕战绩所显示的那样---但阿森纳太弱,米兰则毫不留情。

这对阿森纳来说真是一个令人震惊的结果。从风格上来说,米兰似乎是他们的理想对手,因为米兰对付快节奏和拉开宽度的进攻时显得很脆弱,但阿森纳今天没有做到以上任何一点。令人惊讶的是阿森纳并没有利用宽度攻击对手,这很难解释。

在温格和弗格森的长期斗嘴史中,世纪之交的时候温格有一次评论道,“他的弱点正是他并不知道他有弱点”。现在看来,温格的弱点是他并不知道自己的优势在哪里。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

762#
 楼主| 发表于 2012-2-16 12:41:51 | 只看该作者
伊布、博阿藤、席尔瓦,这三人给米兰在三条线上强势,决定了枪手未赛已经面对米兰时高下立判

偶一直说范草包对枪手提升不大对荷兰队也是,现在依然如此;虽然此君本赛季联赛曾经一度强势,但是到了欧冠关键时候,还是原形毕露
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

763#
发表于 2012-2-16 16:40:54 | 只看该作者
目前正在激战的非洲国家杯似乎没什么人关注

今年的赛事自农历小年夜开战至今,已进行到半决赛阶段


弱队已经悉数被剿灭,目前半决赛对阵形势为:

赞比亚 VS 加纳

马里 VS 科特迪瓦


效力于河南建业的赞比亚前锋 ...
小豆丁梅西 发表于 2012-2-6 16:52


非洲杯一直在堕落,眼看着不如亚洲杯了。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

764#
发表于 2012-2-16 18:16:48 | 只看该作者
伊布、博阿藤、席尔瓦,这三人给米兰在三条线上强势,决定了枪手未赛已经面对米兰时高下立判

偶一直说范草包对枪手提升不大对荷兰队也是,现在依然如此;虽然此君本赛季联赛曾经一度强势,但是到了欧冠关键时候,还 ...
Alex2011 发表于 2012-2-16 12:41



所以皇马论坛一听说要买饭配稀,都纷纷摇头,无论拿他换西瓜还是笨马,都不合适。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

765#
发表于 2012-2-16 21:42:30 | 只看该作者
我个人觉得范佩西还是很有实力的  这一年长球不少,,,比以前成熟了不少  2010世界杯的时候看他还不怎么样呢  那个时候真的是华而不实  而现在 踢球的合理性 对比赛的阅读 都进步很大

昨天的比赛  范佩西得到的支援太少  机会也不多,,,寥寥几次机会 但是射门质量都已经很不错了 阿森纳败在自己拙劣的后防线   败在进攻手段太单一 没有边路进攻  败在求胜欲不强  败在全队的层面上,,,不是范佩西一个人的错  所以  我说范佩西昨天踢得 很孤独

当然 昨天两队头牌之争  伊布完胜,,,而这也与罗比尼奥的穿插跑动  米兰中场的支持密不可分的

同样  我认为伊布是可以作为一个战术支点 撑起全队进攻的  而范佩西不能
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

766#
发表于 2012-2-16 21:47:23 | 只看该作者
非洲杯一直在堕落,眼看着不如亚洲杯了。
白与蓝之舞 发表于 2012-2-16 16:40
亚洲杯多的不敢说  但是四强  至少日本 澳大利亚 韩国的战术素养 球队整体性是要强于非洲杯的四强的

当然  亚洲球员在个体天赋上同非洲球员的差距 还是比较明显的
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

767#
发表于 2012-2-17 08:46:53 | 只看该作者
我个人觉得范佩西还是很有实力的  这一年长球不少,,,比以前成熟了不少  2010世界杯的时候看他还不怎么样呢  那个时候真的是华而不实  而现在 踢球的合理性 对比赛的阅读 都进步很大

昨天的比赛  范佩西得到的支 ...
beat_bob 发表于 2012-2-16 21:42


范佩西是个好球员,但绝没有媒体吹的那么神乎其神,就好像我说阿奎罗在英超金靴榜上很难争赢他,

并不是昆实力在他之下, 而是阿森纳前场进攻是围绕范佩西来做文章的, 而曼城火力点显然更多,更分散而已。

范佩西如果去皇马, 未必就竞争得过笨马和西瓜, 到时还得把板凳作穿。

另外我觉得是不是巨星, 就看顶级水准的淘汰赛, 真金不怕火炼, 我敢说,如果把伊布和范佩西调换一下位置, 阿森纳绝不可能四球溃败。

当然, 在我眼中, 伊布是个人实力在C罗之上的球员,  而范佩西比巅峰的亨利还差不少。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

768#
发表于 2012-2-17 09:10:53 | 只看该作者
完全同意豆丁的说法,范-佩西就个人能力来说,不如伊布,难称巨星
此人若加盟皇马,主力位置都难说

如果说到巅峰时期的亨利王,无论伊布还是本泽马、伊瓜因,都难望其项背
范-佩西显然不可能达到亨利的高度
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

769#
发表于 2012-2-17 11:27:47 | 只看该作者
范佩西还是无法跟伊布比的,遑论亨利了。后两者都是长期稳定发挥高水平的球员,一己之力可以提升一支球队。现在阿森纳的进攻资源几乎全集中在佩西身上,一队成就一人,而不是一人提升一队。
不过我倒是希望西瓜换个环境
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

770#
发表于 2012-2-17 11:36:50 | 只看该作者
范佩西还是无法跟伊布比的,遑论亨利了。后两者都是长期稳定发挥高水平的球员,一己之力可以提升一支球队。现在阿森纳的进攻资源几乎全集中在佩西身上,一队成就一人,而不是一人提升一队。
不过我倒是希望西瓜换个 ...
午时靡深蓝 发表于 2012-2-17 11:27


车仔切不可入,像金童那样病危就不好办了

最佳推荐:入主老特

他这个类型的球员,绝配小胖,而且曼联的边路打法,也很适合西瓜的特点

再者,弗格森特别善于调教勤奋型中锋选手

古有坎帝、科尔,中有范尼、野兽,后有豌豆、韦尔贝克,无不是在弗格森帐下实力大爆发
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

771#
发表于 2012-2-17 11:39:03 | 只看该作者
只叹格雷泽实在太面,如果是曼苏尔,随便砸个三四千万镑,西瓜可能已经在英超呼风唤雨了
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

772#
发表于 2012-2-17 11:41:55 | 只看该作者
去你那想法很美好,几率太渺小。还是去尤文可操作性大一点,要么哲科去尤文,西瓜去大曼城。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

773#
发表于 2012-2-17 11:51:16 | 只看该作者
去你那想法很美好,几率太渺小。还是去尤文可操作性大一点,要么哲科去尤文,西瓜去大曼城。
午时靡深蓝 发表于 2012-2-17 11:41


尤文这个队,不靠谱,前锋在那儿都不会进球,主要火力点居然是马尔基西奥
而且现在的意甲,已经不是巴蒂大帝时代的那个联赛了

大曼城...叫我怎么说呢...
好吧,我觉得去那儿还不如留在马德里
否则以曼奇尼的战术,西瓜要不就是和KUN神抢位置,要不就是和KUN神+巴神抢位置
总之活的很累
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

774#
发表于 2012-2-17 11:56:08 | 只看该作者
或者去巴萨也行,巴萨现在真是没前锋了
比利亚年纪大了,阿费莱就不能算前锋
特略或者昆卡实际上都是边锋,佩德罗我看悬,伤的太勤快了
桑切斯和西瓜完全是两种不同类型的选手,不冲突
梅西可以照应一下西瓜,还能加强感情

同样一举多得
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

775#
发表于 2012-2-17 12:00:08 | 只看该作者
尤文那些个前锋水平不行,马特里也就丹尼斯,帕齐尼的水平,去个中上游球队还行,尤文要是有志中兴,什么马特里,夸利亚雷拉这些个1500万级别的都要换掉。
要说竞争的话,我觉得本泽马要比八神厉害多了,你是觉得KUN瓜组合对英超对你家来说太恐怖了是伐
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, 2025-6-25 16:05 , Processed in 0.140625 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