...a strong defensive player ...
Do you think that the one who is good positional player can only defence? Then you need to see, for example, Botvinnik's games. He was very strong positional player but sometimes he made very good and beautiful attacks (with sacrifices, etc.) even vs. Tal - very good tactics player.
I prefer to face tactician, because I'm bad in positional game.
My hypothesis is that a tactician would prefer to be beaten by a better tactician and a strategist by a better strategist. I'm delighted when someone comes up with an interesting endgame idea and beats me. Perhaps we naturally have a deeper appreciation for people who think and play the same way we do.
I recall a game where where I won a pawn and then simplified to avoid any tactical complications. By the end of the game, my opponent was positively livid. Apparently I had overlooked several 4-move wins and had taken over a dozen extra moves to score. I also recall many games where I was winning until I overlooked some 'silly' tactic, and for some reason I was less excited to post-mortem those games.
it's interesting because both phases, tactical and positional, stem from the same understanding of how the pieces interact. Heavy tacticians usually prefer to use this understanding to attack, whereas heavy positional players usually prefer to use this understanding to build up small advantages. I don't think one is superior to the other, but personally I tend to end up on the losing side of a more positional game (I like to think I hold my own in a tactical one 
).
for me its easy to spot tactical play than positional play. in tactical play you know or will notice immediately what your opponent is up to but on positional play you will just realize later in the game that you are losing.
I think you need both, people say that most games are lost to a tactic to which I ask how did the threat of those tactics occur? I think that positional knowledge leads way to more objectively complex games and introduces higher level tactics. All of which is meaningless if you get to a position but is too complicated for you to win. At the same time so is forcing a tactic that doesn't work and would actually put you in a losing position, is that tactics or a blunder? For tactics to work objectively without hoping the opponent will miss a defensive move the pieces must be set up beforehand it occurs.
@weaselgamer42 necroed this, I guess it thinks it's clever.
The oldest topics are in the summer of 2007. Try harder.
In any case the OP mischaracterizes positional play as defensive. A common beginner mistake.
I've probably only played 1 or 2 thousand games on chess.com, but my number of posts on the forums is probably 50-60 thousand.
Which do you think is better ? My opinion that it is much more difficult playing perfect defence than to develop threats . Which do you prefer to face , a strong defensive player , who will let you pound him the whole game , to possibly kill you in the endgame or a strong tactician , who wll expose his king and give you some counter-attacking chances and maybe a couple of pawns for a winning endgame on your part ?