Route one football. It has such negative connotations.

It conjures images of hulking centre backs lumping the ball towards equally bruising centre-forwards who get their not inconsiderable frames and elbows working to gain possession or nod down to a nippier striker to hopefully scramble the ball across the line. Midfielders are bypassed completely as the ball is transferred from defence to attack as quickly as possible.

Purists scoff, preferring instead slick interchanges through midfield and probing passes to unlock defences.

But the last time I checked, all goals count for one, whether they're the result of a beautiful flowing move involving multiple players or a deflection off someone's backside from a yard out. The former is aesthetically far more pleasing, but the result is the same. You don't get bonus points for prettiness.

Phoenix's first goal against Sydney FC could be described as route one. Tony Lochhead picked the ball up well inside his own half and drilled it over fifty yards in the general direction of Paul Ifill. Ifill took advantage of indecision from Pascal Bosschaart to nip in and poke the ball past Liam Reddy. Route one led to one-nil.

For all their endeavour through the middle of the park, Sydney FC were able to fashion few genuine openings in the game and went away with nothing.

Critics have been quick to slam the use of the long ball, not only by Phoenix, but other A-League clubs as well. Adelaide United in particular have come under fire for over-use of the tactic. To be fair, it's not even Phoenix's primary tactic; shifting the ball wide and getting crosses into the box is Plan A for this side.

But there's a lot to be said for getting the ball forward quickly. Yes, the margin for error is higher for a 60-yard pass than a six-yard one, and yes, when it goes wrong, the long ball is not only ineffective but looks ugly too. But why is the use of it so quickly and regularly condemned?

Football is a results business. If you offered any A-League coach - even Ange Postecoglu - the choice between a 1-0 win with the goal coming from a long ball or a dazzling passing performance by his team in a nil-nil draw, there's simply no contest. For all the talk about attractive football, getting three points is what's important, however they may be gained.

Earlier this season, Brisbane passed the ball to death against Phoenix at Suncorp, but weren’t able to penetrate a stern defence for most of the game. A week later they were similarly unsuccessful against nine-man Melbourne.

I'm certainly not advocating the long ball strategy at the expense of all else. Consideration must of course be given to playing entertaining football to attract crowds. People won't fill stadiums to watch hoof-ball. Brisbane's incredible ability to (usually) get results from their fantastic brand of football must still be the ultimate aim.

But unconditional criticism of a direct approach misses the point.

Or the three points, as the case may be.