Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'underlap'.
Found 1 result
A lot of people seem to struggle with overlaps and underlaps in FM. They either employ them in a wrong way, or simply avoid using them because they aren't sure how the instruction(s) affect a tactic. What both an overlap and underlap do is – slightly increase the mentality of the related wide defender (or wide „defensive midfielder“a.k.a. wing-back) and slightly reduce that of the wide midfielder (or wide forward) in front of that fullback/wing-back. In case you do not use wide midfielders (MR/ML) and wide forwards (AMR/AML), overlap/underlap will only affect the mentality of the related FB/WB, making him a bit more attack-minded. An individual player mentality is determined by the combination of his duty and team mentality, but can be also affected by the team fludity. The difference between overlaps and underlaps is obvious to everyone I guess. For those who may not be sure – both instructions encourage the FB/WB to move forward past his WM/WF, but the overlap means the FB/WB should do that by going around the WM/WF, while the underlap means he should move inwards. In both cases, the WM/WF is asked to hold up the ball for a moment so as to give the FB/WB some time to make the overlapping/underlapping run. However, there are also so-called natural overlaps/underlaps, meaning they can be created without actually applying an overlap/underlap team instruction. How to do this? If you use an IW or IF, set his duty to support, and that of the FB/WB to attack, but bear in mind that the FB/WBs' role should not be an IWB. The natural underlap follows the same basic principle, only in the opposite way – the WM/WF should be a winger or WM on support, whereas the FB/WB should be an IWB on attack. Logically, you'll be less likely to see these natural overlaps/underlaps in systems where the distance between the FB/WB and WF is longer (e.g. 4141DM Wide or 4231Wide or 424Wide etc.) than when it's shorter (e.g. 442 or 4141 or 4411 etc.). And this in part also depends on players' traits. People can of course have different approaches. Some will use an Overlap instruction even if they already have a natural overlap/underlap as part of a tactic. It logically increases defensive risk, but nothing can stop you from creating your own tactic in whatever way you believe is right. As long as you are aware of the risk(s) you ar taking, you are free to use any tactical tool you have at your disposal. And the better your team is, the less of a negative impact these risks are likely to have. I personally prefer to avoid any overkills in my tactics, including in relation to overlaps and underlaps. So if my tactic contains a natural overlap/undelap, I in most cases am not going to use an overlap or underlap TI. When will I consider turning an overlap/underlap on then? Well, I'll do it hen I want to create more dynamic interplay between my players on a given flank by reducing the difference between an attack-minded WF/WM and his more conservative FB/WB partner. The best way to explain what exactly I mean is to do it through concrete example. In the first example, I'll focus on my right flank in a 4141DM Wide system. Here is a setup in which I could consider the Overlap right as an option: X X Wat X DLPsu X X X X WBsu So in the above example I want to make the WB on support and the winger on attack operating more closely on their flank, with a DLP as not only a playmaker but also a holding role that should help protect that flank by covering for the overlapping WBsu. If I wanted to be a bit more cautious, I would use a FB on support instead of WB. Another example with the same formation, but slightly different roles: X X Wat X BBM X X X X IWBde Here I no longer have a holding role in the MCR position, since a BBM has replaced the DLP, so my fullback needs to be a bit more defensive than in the previous example in order to reduce potential risks of using the Overlap right team instruction. I hope these two examples should be enough for people to get the point.