A bit premature to talk about playing style, but it's quite common in football circles, so I'll go with it.
Personally, I think diversity is what makes football exciting, and I think it's fun to watch everything from De Zerbi ball to Union Berlin's interpretation of the Berlin Wall.
Having said that, there is a lot of snobbery out there, and there is no doubt that possession football is what is considered the proper way to play football. It is perhaps not surprising when you see that mostly the best teams do it, and you confuse correlation with causation.
It's a little comical when the best teams - with by far the biggest budgets - beat teams like Bournmouth etc., and you hear it's a great tactical triumph. At the same time as these teams (Bournmouth, etc.) are told that they play boring and destructive football.
Context is everything. As you know, football and the art of war have many similarities. If you meet armed forces that are much better equipped, you don't go toe to toe. It's stupidity. This realization has led to many tactical innovations. Among other things, manmarking defense was quite common - in many countries right up to the 2000s, while the smaller nations had already started to develop a pure zone defense. Norway was far ahead here, and had great success with this in the 90s. This in many ways offset the strengths of a superior opponent.
Another realization, which most people who have played football know, is that it is much more difficult to create imbalance against a team that is in balance - especially when this opponent is significantly better. Many passes also mean that you yourself can quickly be caught off balance. So the plan many came up with was: (1) Attack immediately after regaining the ball - then the opponent was off balance, (2) Long balls against established defence, and win second balls. This was supported by the research, which said, among other things, that most goals came within the interval 0-6 passes. Here you can do a simple survey yourself, and review the goals in PL in this round.
The point is that all top teams have integrated the principles, but do so in a slightly different way. Barcelona, Ajax, Mancehster City, etc., do not hit long balls to win second balls, but they position themselves in such a way that when they have the ball they can immediately press to win the ball and exploit the opposition's imbalance.
On the other hand, the best teams have developed counterplay against the tactics of supposedly weaker teams. It should be said that these are not new ideas, but old ideas that have been developed further.
E.g. positioning himself between lines/opponents, and not least wide wing players, can damage a zone defense quite a lot. Inviting pressure, to make the opponent leave his structure is another way.
It is this interplay, this dynamic, that makes football interesting. There is no one right way to play football. Everything depends on context. But you have to have a plan, you have to train on it, and execute it with perfection - and not least the right players.
When someone says that crosses isn't effective, then ok, but that's based on an average. A team that has Duncan Fergusen as striker scores considerably more with this tactic than a team that has Lionel Messi as striker.