Warning: may contain tackles.

Ok, I promise this will be my last blog on football (the World Cup at least) for a while. There are plenty more sporting stories out there!

This is, I suppose, a resumption of where I left off with the last one: broadcasters and the media, with reference to the wider concept of 'playing football the right way'.

Readers of the last blog will know I was a little annoyed by the BBC's coverage of the WC final, particularly for their overwhelming praise of Spain's masterclass in the face of Dutch brutality, calling it a "victory for football". Do they have the right to tell us what is right for football's future?

Alan Hansen was a classy defender in his Liverpool days (not such a success with Scotland) but knew when to put a firm tackle in. Lee Dixon had success with an Arsenal team that strung out dull 1-0 wins - he was also capable of this. Alan Shearer is an interesting case: skillful, committed and lethal in the opposition penalty area. But - yes, it's one game out of many - he put in some 'van Bommel-esque' tackles on the likes of Keane and Silvestre when Newcastle played Man Utd in 2003. United won 6-2. A victory for football, Mr Shearer?

I thought it was clever of them to throw Clarence Seedorf out of the studio for the final, allowing them to tear into the Dutch side without anyone to counter the criticisms (in fairness, Seedorf agreed with a lot of what they said, but was not so damning).

Also, what if the Dutch had been replaced in the final by England or, say, the Ivory Coast? Would Shearer and Dixon be moaning if England had hacked their way to victory, thanks to a solitary Heskey strike (ok, back to the real world now)? Not at all. They would hail Capello's pragmatic tactical approach as a masterstroke. Or Ivory Coast or Ghana, etc. The "victory for football" would be dumped in favour of "the result everyone wanted - finally an African team fulfills a continent's potential", however they had done it.

There will always be bias and opinions in punditry (otherwise it's unspeakably dull). But I think it should be more considered, allowing for differing circumstances and consequences.

Now I move on to the style of game played. The Netherlands were lucky to have eleven men on the pitch at half-time, yes. But in the second half, they largely nullified the Spanish threat without committing such abhorrent tackles - they could have won it through Robben too. Is a team built on defence and then counter-attacking such a sinful thing to have? I don't recall Greece's Euro 2004 victory being labelled a disgrace. That was a team without star individuals who had a solid defensive set-up and looked to score on the counter or from set-pieces. No, they were the valiant underdogs. Italy in 2006 had talented forward players, but their victory was really built on Buffon, Cannavaro, etc at the back. Again, no real complaint.

Even in this World Cup, the Swiss scored an unlikely victory against the Spanish wonders by defending deep, holding firm and hitting Spain on the counter. Yes, their tackling wasn't as ruthless as some of the Netherlands', but the tactical approach was similar. Bert van Marwijk must have looked at the tape of that game and saw how Spain might be beaten, since exciting young Germany had failed.

The problem for the Dutch was that they were not 'underdogs' as such. It would have been no great shock had they won, taking away some of the magic. They also have their own history to deal with. The Dutch of the 1970s revolutionised world football, gaining far more admirers than silverware, though. From the shock defeat of 1974, the Dutch looked to add bite to their game, which brought the 1988 European Championship and also a place in this year's WC final. But success has come at a cost. Journalists and fans look back at the 1974 side and wonder why today's Dutch side can't emulate their style of play. Well, they don't have Johan Cruyff for a start, who backed the Spanish for this one against his countrymen, claiming it was the Spanish who kept alive the spirit of 'total football'.

I think the Dutch have a choice between glorious losers (1998 WC, for example) or unpopular winners - at least with the players they have now. Solid defences and rapid counter-attacks have been the mantra at the clubs of their star men, Sneijder and Robben. It so nearly worked, as it stopped the Spanish playing their beautiful game. How dare they! Surely the Dutch ought to have gone out, attacked, lost 4-1 and everyone would have been happy?

Enough on the Dutch. I'm going to look at the Spanish now, arguing they don't deserve all the praise being showered on them.

Frankly, I found their games against Portugal and Paraguay to be hugely boring. They pass it brilliantly and their technical ability is phenomenal. I could go to a Spanish training session to see that. In a game situation, you want action: hard tackling, pieces of individual brilliance, use of teamwork and, most of all, goals.

Germany scored 16 in this tournament, the Netherlands 12, Spain 8. Who's playing the better football here then? The Spanish might be playing a more technically-advanced game, but it nets a poor goal return. Maybe it's teams playing negative football against them, but with the players they have they should overcome that.

Iniesta, awesome as he is, seems to represent the Spanish team for me. Intelligent, a great passer and the possessor of skills that most can only envy. He should really have been crowned World Footballer of the Year by now. Why not? "He doesn't score enough goals." Simple answer. He just doesn't get the goals his overall play deserves, unlike Messi and Ronaldo. Maybe it's narrow-minded of FIFA to prioritise high-scoring forward players over defenders and midfielders (never mind 'keepers!), but goals win you games, fact.

Barcelona have relied on the likes of Henry, Messi and Ibrahimovic (well, sort of) to get them the goals to win La Liga, albeit supplied by Xavi and Iniesta. A Frenchman, an Argentine and a Swede. But Pedro came through the ranks last season and Villa joined from Valencia just before the WC started. If they start getting hatfuls for Barcelona, Spain's international team may also benefit.

So, overall, I can see why people lavish praise on Spain. If they scored a few more goals, though, perhaps I'd be slower to criticise. Until they do, any comparisons with the Dutch of 1974 or even Brazil of 1970 are unjustified. Moreover, I refute that there is a 'right way' to play the game. Rather, we should respect coaches' decisions to make the best of what players they have to pick from, at least until they can shape a team around their own ideals.