ZonalMarking: Manchester United 8-2 Arsenal - 阿森納兵工廠足球俱樂部 Arsenal Football Club

前言：

ZonalMarking是一個不錯的足球分析網站，不時會針對比賽、戰術、陣形分析，這篇是

分析上周慘輸給曼聯，我知道這是許多板友不願想起的痛(我也是>"<)，但歷史如鏡，

就算是慘敗，我們也能學到一些東西....吧(話說看球的球迷是要學什麼阿? XD)

這篇文章可謂「鞭鞭入肉」，看了很痛，大家要小心服用！



原文：http://tinyurl.com/4258vf2



Manchester United 8-2 Arsenal: Wenger’s heaviest defeat as Arsenal manager


An astonishing game ended with a resounding Manchester United victory.

這場驚人的比賽以曼聯的大勝作為結束


Sir Alex Ferguson kept the side that defeated Tottenham on Monday, with Danny

Welbeck continuing upfront.

Ferguson維持了上一場擊敗熱刺的陣容，讓Welbeck頂在最前面當中鋒。


Arsene Wenger was without Thomas Vermaelen and Bacary Sagna to add to various

previous injury and suspension problems, so Carl Jenkinson played at

right-back, and Johan Djourou in the centre. Francis Coquelin made his debut

in the centre of midfield.

Wenger在這場比賽前已少了許多傷兵與禁賽兵，本場Vermaelen與Sagna的缺陣更是雪上加

霜，不得已，只能讓小將Jenkinson踢右後衛，Djourou踢中衛，而小小將Coquelin則在他

生涯英超首發踢CMF這個位置。


The match was a barely believable stream of United chances in an amazingly

dominant display. Arsenal were wretched from start to finish, completely

unable to make the most of their numerical midfield advantage, and remarkably

disorganised at the back.

這場比賽幾乎只看曼聯表演，兵工廠從頭到尾都很慘，完全無法因中場人數占優取得中場

優勢，而後防則是一片混亂。


Defence 防守分析

Where to begin? It’s difficult to look at an 8-2 and break it down into

specific areas that went wrong. Arsenal were simply poorer in every possible

attribute that goes into competing in a football match, and the logical

continuation of this stream of thought is that Arsenal’s problems do not lie

predominantly in tactical issues – there’s something deeper that must be

addressed.

該從哪邊開始呢？在一場8-2的比賽當中，你已經很難仔細去看到底是哪個環節出了問題

，兵工廠就是在所有的環節上都表現得較差，更仔細的說，兵工廠這場比賽主要的問題

並不在戰術，我們必須把某些更深層的問題提出來。


That’s not to say that there weren’t tactical problems, however. For a

start, they lacked any kind of cohesiveness without the ball. Some of the

side seemed to be pressing, some seemed to be standing off. Coquelin, thrown

into such a huge game on his debut, played a relatively deep position and

picked up Rooney. Bizarrely, despite Rooney claiming a hat-trick, Coquelin

did reasonably well: Rooney’s impact upon the game in open play was

relatively little in the first half, and all three of his goals came from

set-piece situations. Wenger’s decision to remove Coquelin at 3-1 on 61

minutes (though possibly because of fitness reasons) backfired spectacularly.

並不是說在兵工廠在戰術上完全沒有問題，從一開始，他們失去控球權時看起來像是一盤

散沙，有些人在壓迫對手，有些人就只是冷淡的旁觀。Coquelin，這位小朋友在他英超的

首發(甚至連聯賽杯都沒上過?)就踢如此刺激的比賽，在場上的位置靠後，負責盯防Rooney

，若不談Rooney的帽子戲法，Coquelin其實幹得不錯：Rooney在上半場並沒發揮顯著的影

響力，而他的三個進球都是來自定位球。Wenger在61分鐘，場上比分仍是3-1時選擇把

Coquelin換下(雖然可能是體能方面的問題)，看起來是完全錯誤的決定。


That was the only thing that went OK for Arsenal. The problem with pressing

meant that Arsenal frequently had no pressure on the ball in midfield –

despite the fact that they could afford Coquelin sitting, because Aaron

Ramsey and Tomas Rosicky could close down Anderson and Tom Cleverley.

Somehow, and again arguably due to fitness reasons, this failed – Anderson

and Cleverley got time on the ball and could hit passes over the top.

Coquelin可能是兵工廠那天唯一正常的地方，Arsenal在壓迫對手這個環節出了問題，這

意味著他們幾乎沒有在中場施壓 - 別忘了兵工廠在中場多一個人，就算Coquelin坐在地

上休息，Ramsey跟Rosicky也應該能夠去防守Anderson跟Cleverley，然而，或許是體能的

問題，結果完全行不通，Anderson和Cleverley有足夠的時間處理球，並傳出許多好球。


The secondary issue was with the high defensive line, which is suicidal

enough when there is no pressure on the ball – but that almost becomes a

pedantic point when the main issue was that the back four was incapable of

moving as a unit. Two players would step up, two would drop back. Sometimes

it was amazingly easy for United players to waltz through and score – the

Nani goal being the best example. On other occasions a lone Arsenal player

would become trapped behind the rest of his defence and be forced into a

last-ditch tackle – Jenkinson collected both his bookings in this fashion.

第二個問題是太靠前的防守線，在沒有壓迫對手時這看起來像是自殺 – 但沒有壓迫對手

並不是主因，主要是後防線上四位仁兄無法像四人三腳一樣前進、後退，前進、又後退。

總有兩個在前，兩個在後，我進去了，我又出來了，讓曼聯的球員能像跳華爾滋般輕鬆得

分，Nani進的那球就是最好的例子。另一個情況是孤立無援的兵工廠防守球員掉進了隊友

挖的洞裡，然後只好背水一鏟 – Jenkinson就因為這樣拿到他的兩張黃牌。


United were frequently pleasing on the eye, and the quality of their

finishing was consistently superb, but they didn’t even have to play

particularly well. They passed the ball much better in the 3-0 win over

Tottenham and in the 3-2 win over Manchester City. Some of the goals – the

Park Ji-Sung shot, the Welbeck header – simply came as they had too much

time and space on the ball. Rooney’s three goals came because Arsenal had

conceded fouls by diving in. Young’s strikes were superb – yet if they’d

been the only goals in a 2-0 win, we would have been here questioning why a

right-footed player was allowed to come inside onto his stronger side so

easily. Almost everything went wrong for Arsenal.

曼聯踢得不錯，他們在門前的最後一擊是非常好，但他們甚至不用踢得「特別好」- 他們

在3-0贏熱刺，3-2贏曼城的那兩場比賽傳球都還比較好，有些進球 – 像Park Ji-Sung的

還有Welbeck的頭球 – 是因為他們有太多時間跟空間可以處理球；Rooney的三個進球都

是由於犯規，只有Young進的兩球是世界波；但就算他們只有2-0贏球，我們還是要問：為

什們一個右腳球員可以這麼容易讓他內切進來用強壯的右腳射門？兵工廠幾乎全身上下都

不太對勁。


Basic errors 基本的錯誤

The most striking thing from the chalkboards is that even in the basic areas,

the most primitive concepts in football, Arsenal were outclassed. United

completed 64% of the tackles they attempted, Arsenal just 45%:

從下面的比賽抄截(tackle)統計圖：

http://tinyurl.com/3ze252v (by Guardian Chalkboards)

我們看到令人訝異的事情，就連在最基本的地方 – 抄截，兵工廠也完全敗給曼聯，曼聯

有64%的抄截成功率，而兵工廠只有45%。


Another example – despite the ball spending most of the time on the edge of

the Arsenal area, United managed to block six shots compared to Arsenal’s

one:

另一個例子我們可以看到下面這張圖：

http://tinyurl.com/3qmy5sm (by Guardian Chalkboards)

雖然球大部分在兵工廠防守的那一側，但曼聯有過六次的阻擋射門(shot block)，而兵工

廠才一次。


Getting tackles in, getting blocks in – not sophisticated, not the Arsenal

way and unlikely to be a deciding factor upon the game, but when your side can

’t keep the ball, can’t keep an offside line and is letting the opposition

play, these are the things you have to be halfway decent at. If not, you’re

liable to concede eight goals.

抄球跟蓋火鍋 – 這並不複雜，雖然這不是兵工廠輸掉比賽的主因，但當球隊無法拿住球

、無法拉好越位線，又讓對手自由在場上跳舞的時候，這就是你至少該做的，否則你丟掉8

球，只能說不、意、外。


Conclusion 結論

Part of the issue, in simplistic terms, is that Arsenal didn’t have players

who were fit to perform the tasks required. Some of this was because they

lacked experience, some because they were simply the wrong players for the

situation. Laurent Koscielny finished with a 100% pass completion ratio…yet

kept getting caught too high up the pitch when defending. Carl Jenkinson was

a force going forward and got an assist…yet didn’t make a single successful

tackle. Ramsey and Rosicky are creators, not battlers. To use these type of

players in the positions they played in, you must be in control of the game,

and Arsenal were never close to that.

用簡單的話來說，兵工廠的球員沒能達成應完成的任務，有些有可能是因為他們缺乏經驗

，有些可能是他們被放到錯誤的位置。Koscielny完成了100%的傳球成功率，但他防守時

站得太出來，Jenkinson衝得太靠前，拿到了一次助攻，但沒有一次成功的抄截。Ramsey

跟 Rosicky是中場大腦，並不是中場屠夫，如果你要把這樣的球員擺在場上，你就必須要

能控制住比賽節奏，但兵工廠在這場比賽從未辦到。


United continue their impressive start, though even they must have been

surprised at how easy it was. Their 4-4-2 shape (with two strikers coming

deep) provides forward runs from a lot of different angles, and with Nani and

Ashley Young being able to go down the line or inside for a shot, they are

very dangerous going forward.

曼聯持續他們本季亮眼的開局，就連他們可能都會覺得怎麼會這麼順利，他們的4-4-2陣型

(兩個突前的前鋒)，提供了從不同角度的向前跑位，而Nani 跟Young可以下底傳中，也可

內切射門，他們在前場提供了許多威脅。


------


後記：雖然這場比賽被鞭得一文不值，但我看到後來雖然輸很多球，場上某些兵工廠球員

還是很努力在進攻，看了滿感動的，相信只要兵工廠一天有這樣的熱血球員，我們就有

機會能夠重返榮耀， Let's go ARSENAL!




--

http://twgosport.blogspot.com/

My Blog, My Dream!

--