Does efficiency always eventually win over style?

In the wake of Liverpool inflicting the first home defeat on Chelsea in nearly five years and after 86 games, does it reflect substance over style?

For the majority of those 86 games Chelsea have played with a style that was criticized by pundits, managers and fans (including their own), for its dependency on a defensive mentality and sometimes "route one" style attacking play. Ironically Chelsea were finally beaten by a team that adopted their approach, when their own style had been reverted to an attacking mentality by their new Brazilian manager, Scolari. After Liverpool took an early lead it was evident their defence was in for a long afternoon as they put 10 men behind the ball, leaving one player up front for the break.

In the 2008/09 season Chelsea have played fast, one touch football earning them plaudits, one of them Alan Hansen, a 'Match of The Day' pundit. A far cry from the boring, and even 'anti football' team they were under Grant and Mourinho.

This has been witnessed by Arsenal fans since the 2005 FA Cup final. Their last trophy. Arsenal are a team that attract much praise for their attacking philosophy instilled by Frenchman Arsene Wenger, who likes to attack with quick and sometimes spectacular one-touch football. This though has lead them to two cup finals since, but they have been ultimately unrewarding. Great victories have been achieved, they were the first English team to beat Real Madrid in Madrid, they were also the first English team to beat AC Milan at the San Siro. But, there were great victory's but when it came to the crunch, style didn't prosper.

There are not many pure attacking football teams about, but so far the closest thing to a pure attacking team winning something over a defensive minded team was the 2008 Champions League Final in Moscow between Manchester United and Chelsea. Manchester United won on penalties, not in open play, so is it a victory over defensive football? That's up to your personal opinion.

Back to the Liverpool, Chelsea match. Once Liverpool had scored a fairly lucky goal courtesy of a deflected Xabi Alonso shot, they were ultra defensive. One side of the argument would be that they should go defensive as it was in their best interests. The other side says it ruins the game, a 4-3-3 formation Vs a 10-0-0 formation.

Is it Anti-football or just common sense? It depends on your philosophy of football, but do the true attacking sides of this world deserve trophies they have been knocked out of due to efficient teams, when the losing side have been playing in style?

Or is it just football?

Ironically, the praiser of Chelsea in previous weeks for their attacking style, former Liverpool defender and MOTD pundit Alan Hansen, condoned the defensive style of Liverpool against the flair of the team he had previously praised. Looks like he hasn't made his mind up.

Have you?