Disclaimer: I am mainly answering the 2nd question (Would that work for club level players or could they use other methods?).
Yes, it is possible for a club level player to play the man. First, I would like to clarify that playing the man is not the exact opposite of objective play. There is even a certain intersection between them in human vs human games! Playing the opponent refers to bringing in the psychology factor which makes sense because you are playing against a human after all. And it is widely used in all levels of play.
Thorough analysis may point out that a sacrifice/gambit is not sound, but playing that posiiton in the defensive against an aggressive player is another thing. Think about Tal's games ("There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones and mine." -Tal). In an interview Kramnik attributed his good record agaist Kasparov to his mindset.
Quote from Vladimir Kramnik Interview: 'I'm Not Afraid To Lose' (emphasize mine).
I don’t care about losing. I enjoy the process, and it doesn’t make any difference if I win or lose. ...............................................
Qn: Do you think this mindset helped you during your career?
I think so, because with my approach to chess, I was never intimidated or felt afraid of anyone. I think this particularly helped against Garry, whenever we played. I could clearly see that whenever other players faced him, there was a fear, up to the point of panic. For me this was always quite strange. Of course Garry was a special player, and I’ve always had deep respect for his chess, but when you play any opponent, you’re just playing a game. You can lose, but so what?
Some top-level players have used surprise as a weapon against strong players. I hesitate to give example games for this and similar tricks employed.
One way club-level players play the man is to stop opponent's plans in the track (one needs to have an ability to measure opponents and see their plan to do so; not so easy). Some players do this even when opponent's plan doesn't seem so good. This aims to bring down their confidence instead of annoying them (which by the way shows a clear lack of sportsmanship).
And now to justify that there is an intersection between playing your opponent and objective play, ...
Many players would prefer to steer the game to a position which the opponent doesn't like though objectively they may be perfectly fine. This 'objective part' of this decision is that you want to control where the game goes (in terms of style, or personal preferences). Also, when you are not in a position to control the game, the 'objectively' best strategy is not to let your opponent achieve their goals either. An example is to make sure that your opponent cannot make use of the (semi)open file he/she possess. A distant example is neutralizing your lack of space by exchanging minor pieces (this would be considered an objective decision usually; but this strategy is not objective in all crammed-like positions).