It's always been a hotly contested topic in FM tactical terms whether the tempo affects solely the pace with which your players pass the ball to one another, or if it has an impact on both passing-speed and build-up play (as in, how much of a focus your team places on 'attacking' or 'forward' passes). There is still no confirmed answer to this mystery from FM authority, with the exception of one SI staff member claiming on their forums that, as far as he understands it, tempo can be best explained by the former of the two above explanations; tempo's clear and primary function is to dictate how quickly players release the ball from their feet upon having received it, not necessarily making a difference to which direction that pass is in. After having watched some game-time in full, I also concur that this is indeed the case. Of course, I know more of Wayne Rooney's favourite underwear than I do of the game's code, but through good old-fashion Aristotelian observation I can quite confidently say that your team's tempo refers exclusively to how much or little time they are encouraged to take whilst on the ball before sending it on it's way, in whichever direction that may be.
Now that we've cleared that up, it's on to the question part of my post. Assuming what has been said above is correct, it would follow that if one intended to create a tactic based around quick, one-touch passing - retaining possession but maintaining a high enough intensity to break the opposition down and also allow for a pleasing aesthetic look - one would use the obvious team instructions to achieve this: retain possession, pass it shorter, work ball in to box, higher tempo, etc. But when it comes to width, however, I find the situation a good deal harder to judge. Is a short passing, high tempo game better suited to playing wider, or playing narrower? Does it make more sense to have players closer together, ready to receive the short pass, or further apart, allowing for more space in which to roam to provide more fluid passing outlets? The intention is not to either remove or exclusively rely on wide play, but to spread the pitch when necessary, whilst retaining the optimum pass completion ratio. My first thought was that, with a quick tempo, narrow would be the best choice; meaning players have more options to pass to in their immediate vicinity and can gradually work the ball to the wings when required. It seems as if slow tempo, on the other hand, is most suited to playing wide, as players take more time with the ball at their feet, affording their prospective pass-recipient team mate a longer period in which to move about in and take advantage of the wider, spacier field. When I say it aloud (i.e. write it here) it seems like a perfectly coherent and rational argument, but when I watch a match in full detail it becomes less clear as to whether or not I'm talking bollocks. The truth is, I can't really tell from playing the game whether my one-touch, possession based tactic is best suited to using the play wider or play narrower instruction.
If anyone has a definitive answer to this, or can help me find one in any way, I'd be very grateful.
Now that we've cleared that up, it's on to the question part of my post. Assuming what has been said above is correct, it would follow that if one intended to create a tactic based around quick, one-touch passing - retaining possession but maintaining a high enough intensity to break the opposition down and also allow for a pleasing aesthetic look - one would use the obvious team instructions to achieve this: retain possession, pass it shorter, work ball in to box, higher tempo, etc. But when it comes to width, however, I find the situation a good deal harder to judge. Is a short passing, high tempo game better suited to playing wider, or playing narrower? Does it make more sense to have players closer together, ready to receive the short pass, or further apart, allowing for more space in which to roam to provide more fluid passing outlets? The intention is not to either remove or exclusively rely on wide play, but to spread the pitch when necessary, whilst retaining the optimum pass completion ratio. My first thought was that, with a quick tempo, narrow would be the best choice; meaning players have more options to pass to in their immediate vicinity and can gradually work the ball to the wings when required. It seems as if slow tempo, on the other hand, is most suited to playing wide, as players take more time with the ball at their feet, affording their prospective pass-recipient team mate a longer period in which to move about in and take advantage of the wider, spacier field. When I say it aloud (i.e. write it here) it seems like a perfectly coherent and rational argument, but when I watch a match in full detail it becomes less clear as to whether or not I'm talking bollocks. The truth is, I can't really tell from playing the game whether my one-touch, possession based tactic is best suited to using the play wider or play narrower instruction.
If anyone has a definitive answer to this, or can help me find one in any way, I'd be very grateful.