Mane Garrincha fathered the idea of there's no such thing as anti-football back in the SP days. I remember his epic debates with Philosopher. So maybe you should read the forum a bit more often, instead of reading what you write.
Oh, so no one has defended it on TT (I wasn't a member on SP), so that was pointless. My point proven. Chelsea could have played attacking football, but there was no way they were going to survive had they done so, some of their players weren't even fully fit. Cahill and Luiz would have struggled immensely, and the protection in front of them paid off. Deploying this tactic might not show how great a team is overall, but it still does take a collective effort to execute. I've seen many teams who have used the same approach, but have come out with nothing. Justice for football is an arrogant (even patronage) way of looking at things, and it shows how bitter you are still about the loss. Whilst I do not think it doesn't determine who the genuine champion is, supporting any method of playing football is what I'll continue to do. Most forget that anti-football has essentially been played by every team. When a team defends in the last ten or five minutes of a game that's anti-football, but that's overlooked, possibly because it's not prolonged.