[情報] 尼爾觀點 - 饒了我們的守門員吧

看板Chelsea作者JamesCaesar (首席百人隊長)時間19年前 (2006/10/17 21:25)推噓2(2推 0噓 0→)

留言2則, 2人參與討論串1/1

http://bbs.chelseafc.net.cn/viewthread.php?tid=53334&extra=page%3D1 Look at it this way - Save our goalkeepers Monday, Oct 16, 2006 翻譯：FERN Neil Barnett has been writing, editing and broadcasting for Chelsea for over 20 years. This week he responds to the challenges which injured Petr Cech and Carlo Cudicini. 尼爾今天要談的是兩門將的受傷。 Reading vs Chelsea was not 102 minutes as has been reported. It was 107. The second-half clock started at 45 minutes and continued for 12 of stoppage time. But the first-half contained five minutes of stoppage time. That is 17 in all. This was no normal match. 雷丁和切爾西的比賽時間並非如通常所報導的102分鐘，而是107分鐘。下半場進行了 45分鐘的比賽，補時12分鐘。但是上半場包括五分鐘的補時時間，總共達到了17分鐘。這不是一場普通的比賽。 The subsequent questions that the public need to ask are the following. 接下來，每個人都應該問問自己下面這些問題。 1. Can two serious head injuries in one game to goalkeepers be a coincidence? 1．一場比賽中兩個守門員頭部接連受傷僅僅是一個巧合嗎？。 2. Shouldn't footballers exercise a duty of care towards fellow professionals and was this practised at Reading on Saturday? 2．難道球員不應當對自己在場上一起踢球的人的安全承擔起某部分的責任嗎？在雷丁的比賽中這種責任是否得到了體現？。 3. Would those challenges which injured the Chelsea goalkeepers have been acceptable overseas — in other words were they old fashioned 'English' challenges which the world game has long found unacceptable? 3．對切爾西守門員的傷害在國外能否被接受 — 換句話說，這是不是世界足壇所一直不能接受的，而為英國足球特有的，舊式英式傳統呢？。 4. Would they have been fouls in any other part of the pitch? 4．雷丁的球員在整場比賽的其他時間是否有惡意犯規？。 Before Jose Mourinho made his post-match comments he went and studied the video footage. At no stage thereafter did he suggest that Steve Hunt deliberately injured Petr Cech. But if you apply Questions 2, 3 and 4 to Hunt's challenge, what answers do you get? 莫里尼奧發表談話之前，他去看了比賽的錄象。他沒有提及到亨特是否故意侵犯了切赫。但是如果你考慮一下我上面所提到的2，3，4點，你自己會得出什麼樣的答案？。 In English football more than any other it is acceptable to test an opponent physically, to hang a leg in to see what will happen, to let them know you are there. 在英國足球當中，人們習慣從身體上去對付自己的敵人，他們習慣抬高自己的胳膊，看看會有什麼效果，他們習慣以此來讓敵人知道自己就在這。 On television on Saturday night we could witness an appalling two-footed tackle on Wayne Rooney go unwhistled. But at Reading we saw two deserved sendings off for 'cheating', pulling back an opponent when beaten. 看一下週六的電視，我們可以看到一次對魯尼的雙腳鏟球被忽視了。而在雷丁的比賽當中，有兩個人因為“作弊”被送下了場，當他們被對手越過的時候還去拉扯對方。 In England we get some things right and some things wrong. We don't like cheats. But we still don't protect footballers. Maybe the latter is one reason why we don't win anything as a nation. Maybe we don't ensure that our footballers exercise a duty of care to fellow players as FIFA would like. 在英國我們對事情有自己的判斷。我們不喜歡騙子，但是我們也不保護足球運動員。可能後者就是我們至今未能以一個國家的身份贏得任何榮譽的原因。和FIFA的觀點不同，我們的球員對他們在場上的同伴不負有任何安全上的責任。 It's garbage to suggest that you can't be physical if you can't tackle like in England as compared to abroad. John Terry tackles, but he does it properly. That is why he has never been sent off playing for Chelsea. On Saturday at Reading in an outstanding performance, sadly overlooked because of the injuries, Khalid Boulahrouz showed that he knows how to tackle. He looked an excellent central defender. 有一種說法，跟國外比起來如果你沒辦法像在英格蘭一樣鏟球你就硬不起來，這根本是胡說八道。特里會做鏟球，但是他的動作都很恰當，這就是他為什麼從未被罰下的原因。週六對雷丁的比賽中，雖然很不幸的受了傷，但博拉魯茲也展示出了他懂得如何去鏟球，他看上去就是一個完美的中衛。 I thought Jose was kind to Ibrahima Sonko for his challenge on Carlo Cudicini. It was wild. He wasn't looking at the ball. It wasn't malicious, he was looking for an equaliser, but it was wild. It caused serious injury. It didn't show a duty of care. 我認為穆帥對松克對庫迪尼奇犯規的表現得很溫和。那個動作很瘋狂，他根本就沒有看球，這個動作非常惡毒，他在尋找平衡，但動作卻非常野蠻。這個動作導致了嚴重的傷害，完全沒有顯示出一個足球運動員所應當具有的責任感。 I thought he was kind to Reading as well. Their game reminded me of the 1980s when English football hit an all time low, of lump and run, of challenge and challenge, of Wimbledon and Watford and… sorry, Steve Coppell, but of Crystal Palace. 我認為穆帥對雷丁的態度也很溫和。他們的比賽讓我想起了80年代，英國足球處於低潮期，到處是傷痛和犯規，沒完沒了的爭執，包括溫布敦和沃特福德，抱歉....還有在水晶宮的雷丁現任主帥庫佩爾。 FIFA has taken a lot of stick down the years for its changes to the rules, or to the interpretation of the rules, but it has frequently been proved right. The tackle from behind was correctly outlawed. Goalkeepers picking up back passes were correctly stopped. The game has become better as a result. And wild challenges and challenges on the floor have been unacceptable. FIFA在近些年對足球規則做了諸多改變，或者說在怎麼執行這些規則方面做了很多調整，這些改變被證明是正確的。從後而來的鏟球被封殺了。守門員接回傳球被禁止。結果比賽變得更好看了，在足球場上野蠻的侵犯被認為是無法接受的。 Were Hunt's and Sonko's challenges really acceptable, or were they part of a culture that accepts that accidents happen and are part of the game? If they were the latter, that is a pretty sick culture. 亨特和松克的犯規真的可以被接受嗎？還是他們是一個鼓勵意外發生的比賽傳統一部分？如果是後者，我們不得不說這是一個非常病態的傳統。 The game became so wild on Saturday that Carlo Cudicini was left lying unconscious while the action continued around him. The referee only whistled up once Didier Drogba had kicked the ball away from the goal. 週六的比賽失去了控制，庫迪奇尼失去知覺躺在場上，可是比賽卻還在繼續。那個裁判一直等到德羅巴把球踢了出來，才吹停了比賽。 It is true that collisions do happen. It is true that accidents do happen. It could even be freakishly true that two goalkeepers could sustain serious head injuries during one game and that nothing be wrong with the game or the culture. 沒錯，碰撞總是會發生的，意外總是不可避免的，不過兩個守門員在一場比賽中同時受到頭部傷害是非常少見卻是真的會發生的事件，而有人會說這種傳統沒有絲毫的錯誤。 But if there is not a thorough investigation into the match and review of the culture when such an incident happens, then the whole sport is being irresponsible. What happened to Petr Cech and Carlo Cudicini in the same 107 minutes must never happen to two goalkeepers again. 但是當這種情況發生了之後，倘若我們沒有對整個比賽進行調查，沒有對這種傳統進行反思，那麼體育這個詞就變成了不負責任的代名詞。在107分鐘內對切赫和庫迪奇尼發生的事情，絕對不應該在另外兩個守門員身上再度發生。 Now take another look at those challenges! by Neil Barnett -- 當我漫遊在斯坦弗森林時，我看見了雀爾西，米爾斯的女兒，在傍晚初升的明月中，在泰晤士河旁一處林地空間上翩然舞蹈。所有痛苦的記憶都離開了我，我像落入迷離幻境中一般，因為雀爾西是伊露維塔兒女中最美的一位。她身上那襲藍色的衣裳宛如萬里無雲的晴空，她灰色的眼睛像是傍晚群星閃爍的天空；她的斗篷上繡著金色的花朵，她的頭髮漆黑如暮色中的陰影。她的榮光與美好，就像樹葉上的光芒，像是潺潺流水，像是這迷離世界上方閃爍的繁星；她臉上有閃亮的光輝。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.169.198.117