If you want a win with aggressive and confusing play, maybe Shirov or Ivanchuk... but of course at the same time, incredibly brilliant. Their opponents may have been confused, but the play was also world class strong.
If you want crazy attacking, that's more Nezhmetdinov. The opponent is confused, and there is a big attack, but it's not necessarily sound / good play.
As for Tal and Polgar you don't get to be world champion (or in Polgar's case, top 10) without solid play in every area. An easy proof that Tal understood positional play as well as anyone was how he had a positional style later in life.
For every wild attacking game of players like Tal and Polgar, you could probably find 2 prosaic wins utilizing technical play, milking a small middlegame advantage through the endgame to a win. If all a player had to do to beal Tal or Polgar was create a boring position, they would never have climbed so high.
I know it's going to sound very ridiculous to call GMs as strong as Mikhail Tal and Judit Polgar "inferior," but my point is to ask whether their "crazy" offensive style was fundamentally sound or rather it worked more because opponents couldn't figure them out, given all the complications or just from the unexpectedness of things and, therefore, would lose/blunder.
Were these players and styles sort of gimmicky and unable to be sustained against the best of the best like Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen, etc., or is there sound method to the madness?