Is slow-paced and tactical football underrated?

Football has been evolving to cater fans who expect fast paced football all the time. Reason why people love watching the likes of Bayern, Barca, Madrid, Arsenal etc. People dismiss scores such as 1-0 and call it boring while results like 4-3 gets hype all over the world. In general, attacking football defines the current era.

But is it undermining slow paced football with tactical display which shows the art of defending?

Sometimes I love watching a close match which revolves around teams cutting each other's tactics and making the game a battle of wits. I think those type of matches are equally good as matches which end up as 7-1 or 4-1 or 5-0 etc


Thoughts?

I don't understand the thread. You like slow-paced football or you like defensively tight games with low scorelines?

I suppose OP is talking about something like Italian football.  which I Love tbh. Not sure even Serie A are playing slow nowadays tbh. Teams like Napoli ar just as swashbuckling as any other in Europe nowadays.

@ RG
Might give some examples of slow football playing clubs or NT in your opinion

I tend to think that the great physical condition of players nowadays results in rather fast-paced game. You see slower football in the lower leagues or at international level between countries like Finland and Hungary where the physical & technical level of players doesn't allow faster game. You get a lot of low-scoring results there with the emphasis seemingly on defensive tactics, but I believe it's quite often out of necessity rather than choice.


A trend that annoys me, though, is what Barcelona started, that football is the better the more you keep it on the ground. That if a team fields big target men up top and play long balls and crosses, it's somehow less sophisticated and less agreeable way of playing. Especially the bigger the club in question is, the more the fans will expect "nice", on-the-ground football. I feel that most managers nowadays favour technically impressive strikers to big target men, even if the latter would score you more goals. Even though he plays for Everton, I'm kinda enjoying how well Lukaku is doing, because he's reminding people that you can be a great striker without having great dribbling skills or tricks up your sleeve.

Keeping the ball down without hoofing it to the Gorilla upfront and trying to find gaps in defence with key passes in final third is the most technical thing a team can do imo.

I've always likened slow-paced football with possession-based football, which I understand tactically, but just don't like. It's effective though if you have the right players who are intelligent enough to understand it and disciplined enough to follow it consistently.

Tactical Football is entirely separate to me however. It doesn't necessary have to be predicated on tempo, but on intelligence, anticipation and discipline. Sides like Empoli and Sassuolo have been standouts to me in that the players know how to take tactical direction from the coach and then apply that effectively. It's not necessary fast-paced like Napoli and it's not slow and ponderous like Roma. It's simply adaptable to whichever suits the game at that time.

If anything I think both styles are rated appropriately as the teams who know how to use them are doing so successfully and the teams who clearly don't are suffering, as expected.

When both teams are very close in terms of collective and individual strength, the battle will boil down to tactics. As in whoever lays down the better gameplan is likely going to win.

However, there's a big difference between a pure tactical game where both teams are insanely and equally good; and a pure tactical game where both teams are average or below average in strength.

First scenario gives you a jaw-dropping football masterclass, and this regardless of whether there are tons of goals or none at all.

Second scenario will give you a few enjoyable moments in an otherwise boring game.

So I don't think our enjoyment is solely dependable on goals. I'm going to use Real Madrid as an example because I don't wish to offend anyone:

I'd personally choose to watch the away PSG game which ended in a goalless draw over the 10-2 game against Rayo.

This Inter agenda smh

I think Spain vs Germany in WC 2010 semi was one of the best match I have ever seen. But then am still to grasp by "slow football" what OP means. Does that count as slow football? Or its got to do with the pace of players?
According to me:
Making hundred passes in final third to get opening- slow
Hoofing the ball in feets of striker or attacking through wings and crossing to target man - fast

It's like you are defining world cup games. And I just hate it.

The title doesn't really make any sense tbh.

"tactical football" doesn't have to be slow paced...

jibers wrote:The title doesn't really make any sense tbh.

"tactical football" doesn't have to be slow paced...

Tactical game intended as where both teams play extremely cautiously and prioritize nullifying opposition's threats and not giving any space for the other to play which I believe is what OP meant is always at a slow pace. Also known as borefest.

Slow football that the op is referring to only happens when both teams are happy to employ a deep zonal marking system to win the ball back. The key here is both teams. If one team decides to up the tempo of the game or go full man making mode then the other team have no option other than to raise their game speed too.

Teams of this era is more pro active now. They don't want to wait for opposition mistake or just control the deeper more dangerous space closer to goal now.. They want to win it back in best possible position with least energy spent and preferably very quickly.

I barely see teams that sit back in a classical zonal defence that we have seen alot in serie A back in the day. Now days pressing and more importance to transition football means that the game will be inevitably faster, it's just the way the football evolved. If some team decides to play classical zonal marking then they are in a tactical disadvantage with the way the other teams are playing, hence low number of teams still using it.

I'm really just kinda confused by what the thread is asking.

It sounds more like you're asking whether I prefer low scoring games or high scoring games, in which case...it depends

Is there "Most confusing thread" category for  GL 2015 awards? This thread would win it hands down imo.

Let's be real, RG made this thread just so he could sneak in this

RealGunner wrote:Reason why people love watching the likes of Bayern, Barca, Madrid, Arsenal etc.

into the OP.

RG be like

Spoiler:

Sorry had to type that thread a minute before my bus was due.

Most of the answers are exactly what I was looking for anyways. What I meant was slow paced football which is also tactical however people dismiss it calling it garbage and a waste of time and would instead watch Madrid put 10 past Rayo etc.

@CBarca nah not as vague as that.

Great posts by Adit, Mclewis and Cabbage though.