Does Anti-Football Have a Place in the Modern Game?

Following the Dutch's rough house tactics against the Spanish in the World Cup Final, I will examine whether there is any place left in the modern game for ideals based around physical superiority and bullying tactics. 

First of all, we must look to define the term "anti-football", especially as it is used in a derogatory sense, and never by the teams accused of using it. 

Anti-football is the idea of a team kicking their way to a result. Teams based around it are filled with large and rough players, who make up their lack of technical skills with no-nonsense physical play. This is a common view of a team like Blackburn. Sometimes players are more than simple brawlers, for example, Mark van Bommel is an extremely accomplished footballer, but also a brute.

Following the mass condemnation of Holland's style of play in the final, it seems that much of the footballing world has lost patience with what used to be called just football. The games of old allowed tackles from behind and rewarded physical stamina, Leeds were unpopular, but successful.

There is seemingly little distinction between physicality and anti-football. 

I ask this question, how else could Holland have played? Germany looked the most comprehensive of passers until Spain outdid them, and I'm not saying that Germany would have won if they had a more physical side, but it is a possibility.

Holland were never going to out-pass a Spain side that Germany and countless other teams have failed to counter effectively.

What did this leave to Holland?

Now to be clear, I am not endorsing van Bommel's crunching tackle on Andres Iniesta or Nigel de Jong's flying karate kick on Xabi Alonso, but harrying tactics were the last line of defence for a Dutch team with no other options.  

Anyone who says Holland should have played their own game and lost with pride and dignity is frankly a fool. When football's ultimate prize is sitting mere meters away, any footballer will do what it takes to get it. 

To my mind, it is as pleasing as a thirty yard screamer or inch perfect through ball to see a well executed sliding tackle or expertly timed shoulder challenge, and there is something viscerally pleasing when it takes ball and man.

It might not be considered a high-art, but it is an integral part of the game.

Holland came close to taking the title. Spain were visibly upset, and in recent years teams faced with clearly superior passing teams and individuals often changed their game to a more physical one. Those who follow the English Premier League will note the surprising rise of Stoke FC, who play a strong game and have been rewarded with reasonable success.

At a higher level the likes of Didier Drogba, Michael Ballack, Mikel John Obi, John Terry and Alex are the battering rams which, like Mark van Bommel, can also play, which resulted in a Premier League winner medal for them all.

It might not always be pretty, but it is part of football. Managers can speak about protection for their players, and I do not endorse reckless or dangerous tackles, but to be able to deal with physicality is the mark of top footballers.

Spain still won after all.

Those who simplistically tag the likes of Holland, Stoke, or Blackburn as proponents of anti-football fail to take into consideration the hours of planning, marking practise,  impressive stamina, and strength on show. 

Not everyone can thread a pass like Xavi, but not everyone can put in a shift of such determination and physical ability as Mark van Bommel. Both are skills, and both take hours of practise and no little self-belief. 

There is no 'right' way to play football, short of cheating of course, and excessive fouling can only be called cheating, but physicality is not. To outmuscle an opposition player is not cheating. 

Now the Netherlands crossed the border between excessive physicality and an acceptable amount on several occasions, but looking back on it, Dutch fans and players might well draw the same conclusion. The only thing they would change in hindsight is their close marking of Andreas Iniesta. 

My point here is that football is not all about "tikka-takka", Arsenal style of play. There is still a large role to be played by physical footballers and I, for one, would not trade it for the world.   

How do you feel about the subject: is physical football anti-football, or is it part and parcel of football and to be admired as such? Let me know below.