新教練：莫里尼奧在切爾西(2) 球隊背景與防守 - 切爾西足球俱樂部 Chelsea Football Club

Chelsea’s background

切爾西的背景

Mourinho inherits a side which has been drilled excellently in a defensive
sense over the past couple of years. Andre Villas-Boas was the first Chelsea
coach who tried to take the club in a different direction from the Mourinho
blueprint (odd, considering he was one of Mourinho’s assistants) but since
then the club has been formatted ideally for Mourinho’s style of play.

莫里尼奧承襲了一個在過去幾年中一直在防守意識上相當傑出的陣營。AVB是第一個嘗試
把球隊帶向與莫里尼奧藍圖不同方向的教練(考慮到他曾經是莫里尼奧的助理，這實在是
件奇怪的事)。但自從他(下課)之後，球隊繼續採用和莫里尼奧風格一樣的踢法。


Roberto Di Matteo’s first half-season as manager set the tone. Not only did
Chelsea triumph in the European Cup thanks to some excellent defensive play –
sacrificing possession and concentrating on dealing with pressure – his
formation choices were also similar to what Mourinho would have done. Chelsea
were reasonably adventurous in a 4-2-3-1 system in the league, then switched
to a more defensive 4-3-3 for big European games. That might be exactly what
Mourinho does this season.

迪馬特奧作為教練的前半個賽季決定了這個風格。不但在歐洲賽場上的勝利來自傑出的防
守、犧牲控球及專注於對抗壓力，如果讓莫里尼奧選擇陣型，他的選擇可能也會和迪馬
特奧相當相似。迪馬特奧的切爾西在聯賽使用了比較大膽的4-2-3-1系統，然後在歐戰時
轉換成重防守的4-3-3。這可能就是莫里尼奧這一季會做的事。

Then Di Matteo (perhaps because of instructions from upstairs) moved to a
much more fluid 4-2-3-1 system this time last year, that had Hazard, Mata and
Oscar rotating in the three attacking midfield positions. Chelsea were
exciting but lacked structure, and Rafael Benitez’s first task as Chelsea
coach was to concentrate upon defensive positioning and protecting the back
four, especially with the wide midfielders.

之後迪馬特奧，也許在高層的授意之下，在他的最後一年改用了一個更具流動性的4-2-3-1
系統：讓Hazard、Mata以及Oscar在三個攻擊中場位置間輪轉。這樣的切爾西令人興奮但卻
缺乏組織，貝尼特斯來到切爾西的第一個任務就是專注於防守位置和保護後衛。尤其是當
中場站位寬度拉開的時候(???)。


Di Matteo’s side looked defensively solid in a 4-3-3/4-5-1, but not in a
4-2-3-1 with two banks of four and a number ten. Benitez is unlikely to
receive much credit from either Chelsea fans or Mourinho himself for his
performance at the club, and his achievements were decent rather than
excellent, but it means Chelsea are already suited to Mourinho’s defensive
style.

迪瑪特奧的陣營看起來在4-3-3/4-5-1陣型下防守相當穩固。但在有兩條四人防線加上一
個十號球員的4-2-3-1陣型下防守卻不穩固。貝尼特茲在切爾西的表現很難獲得切爾西球
迷以及莫里尼奧本人的認同。他加強防守獲得的成就是繼承前人而來的。這代表著切爾西
已經適應且習慣了莫里尼奧的防守風格。


Oddly, that’s crucial in making Chelsea a more attack-minded side. If
Chelsea were a shambles defensively, Mourinho would use his attackers
conservatively and focus upon overall structure in the opening weeks.
Instead, he has slightly more license to be creative and adventurous further
forward.

奇怪的是，讓切爾西變得更進攻性卻是(討論現在切爾西的)關鍵。如果是切爾西的防守是
一團混亂，那麼莫里尼奧應該會在開季時保守的使用攻擊性球員，並注重整體的結構。但
他反而允許前鋒更加冒險及創造性。




Defence
防守

The left side of Chelsea’s defence has survived from Mourinho’s first
spell. John Terry and Ashley Cole are hardly likely to win any popularity
contests, but they’ve been a consistently dependable unit for the last seven
years. Partnerships between centre-back and full-back often aren’t
considered as important as that between the two centre-backs, or between the
full-back and his wide midfielder, but very few mistakes come from that part
of Chelsea’s defence.

切爾西左邊的防守還是殘存著莫里尼奧第一次執教的影響。Terry和Cole也許很難獲得大
眾的歡迎(很表，這兩個人剛好是車車負面新聞最多的)，但他們在過去七年中一直是相當
可靠的。也許邊後衛和中後衛的默契並不若中後衛間、以及邊後衛和邊路中場間的默契重
要。但是切爾西防守在這個部分的確很少犯錯。

Terry’s future seemed uncertain when Andre Villas-Boas was demanding a high
defensive line – most obviously exposed in Arsenal’s 5-3 win at Stamford
Bridge – but Terry is both (a) extremely comfortable in a deep defence and
(b) better at covering for his lack of pace with good positional play than
many would like to admit.

在AVB要求高位防守時，Terry在切爾西的未來變得相當不確定。從主場3-5敗給阿森納的
比賽就可以看的出來。但Terry在較深的防守站位下不但踢得相當自在。而且還可以用可
以用良好的位置感掩護他速度太慢的缺點。

Alongside Terry, Mourinho has decent options, and David Luiz and Gary Cahill
are both more comfortable than Terry high up the pitch. Cahill is the
superior of the two when defending inside the penalty box, something
particularly obvious over the past week given Cahill’s fine display for
England away in Ukraine, and Luiz’s positional error in the defeat at
Everton, but Luiz is more capable of bringing the ball out of defence.
Mourinho isn’t regarded as a coach who insists upon ball-playing
centre-backs, but the likes of Ricardo Carvalho and Lucio have often brought
the ball forward effectively under his coaching.

除了Terry之外，莫里尼奧還有其他合適的選項。Luiz和Cahill兩人都比Terry更適合高
位防守。而在禁區內Cahill的防守又是兩人中較好的：由上周英格蘭對烏克蘭的客場比
賽以及Luiz在輸給Everton比賽中的站位失誤就可以看出來。但Luiz更有能力處理攻守轉
換。莫里尼奧並不是個堅持中後衛一定要控球的教練，但他喜歡像是Carvalho或是Lucio
(國米時期後衛主力)這樣能有效率的把球往前帶的球員。

Chelsea’s defensive performance against Manchester United was interesting
because both centre-backs had such simple jobs. Cahill made no tackles, made
no interceptions and conceded no fouls. Terry made no tackles, made one
interception, and conceded one foul. Their game was almost entirely about
clearing the ball in the air – demonstrated by the green circles below.

切爾西對抗曼聯時的防守是相當有趣的。因為兩個後衛的工作相當簡單。Cahill沒鏟球
沒攔截也沒犯規，Terry沒有鏟球，一次攔截一次犯規。他們在比賽中幾乎只有一直把高
空球清出去：請見下圖的綠色圈圈。

http://tf-chalkboards.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images/0qm6Q.png

Clearly, the centre-backs were so well protected that they didn’t really
need to do anything. Compare that to the performance of Liverpool’s
centre-backs in their clean sheet against Manchester United.

很明顯的，兩個後衛被保護得非常好所以他們什麼事都不用做。讓我們拿利物浦對曼
聯時，兩個利物浦後衛的表現作比較：

http://tf-chalkboards.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images/0qLsQ.png


There are more interceptions (diamonds), tackles (crosses) and blocks (grey
lines). The positions of Daniel Agger and Martin Skrtel’s defensive
contributions are much more haphazard – they still kept a clean sheet, and
Skrtel in particular was excellent. But Chelsea’s defensive organisation so
far has been extremely impressive.

圖中有更多的攔截(鑽石記號)、鏟球(十字記號)以及封阻射門(灰線)。Agger和Skrtel的
防守站位是比較偶然的。雖然他們也成功的零封曼聯，Skrtel尤其表現傑出。但切爾西的
防守布陣遠比他們更令人印象深刻。

Right-back is an interesting area, because Mourinho has a choice between
Branislav Ivanovic and Cesar Azpilicueta, two completely contrasting players.
Ivanovic is a centre-back by trade but has grown accustomed to full-back
since his move to Chelsea, while Azpilicueta is smaller, quicker and more
technical. Ivanovic has been preferred so far, and while Azpilicueta will
surely get gametime soon because of rotation, he’s only played one Premier
League minute in Chelsea’s four league games so far.

右後衛是個有趣的地方。因為莫里尼奧要在兩個完全對比的球員間做選擇。Ivanovic在被
是交易來時是個中後衛，但來到切爾西後慢慢成長並習慣於踢邊後衛。Azpilicueta則更
小隻、更快而更具技術性。目前Ivanovic比較被偏愛，但毫無疑問的Azpilicueta因為輪
換的關係很快就會有上場時間。目前英超四輪比賽他一分鐘都沒有踢。

The Spaniard enjoyed a good first season at the club, so this seems a simple
case of Mourinho preferring a bulkier, more physical player at full-back. He
does like height in the full-back positions – he supposedly had initial
concerns about signing Cole in 2006 because of his lack of height, and while
he clearly felt Cole was good enough to get past that problem, perhaps he’s
reluctant to play two (relatively) short full-backs regularly in the back
four.

西班牙人(AZP)在俱樂部踢了開心的第一個賽季。但對莫里尼奧而言，讓更大更有力量的
球員上場是個再簡單不過的選擇。他的確比較喜歡高的邊後衛─搞不好他在06年準備簽下
Cole的時候還因為身高一度擔心過，不過後來又覺得Cole夠好所以可以克服這個問題。也
許他不願意常態性的在後場四人中，擺上兩個身高相對矮的邊後衛。
(作者猜測鳥只願意擺一個矮後衛，可是唯一的名額又被Cole佔走，所以AZP掰)

It’s also worth considering Petr Cech’s role in the side. An excellent ‘
pure’ keeper but not particularly adept at sweeping off his line or
distributing the ball (Chelsea’s passing from the back under Villas-Boas was
poor because Cech looked so uncomfortable with the ball at his feet), Mourinho
’s return has been good for the Czech international.

Cech的角色也是值得思考的。Cech是個傑出的純守門員。但對於離開門線以及控球並不傑
出(AVB時代切爾西後場導球一直很爛，因為切赫對於用腳踢球感覺並不自在)。莫里尼奧
的到來對於捷克國家隊隊員而言會是件好事。

--