Say we run a 3 (A: A1,A2,A3) x 3 (B: B1,B2,B3) repeated measures ANOVA. A significant p value for factor A, for example, indicates that there is at least one pair (A1-A2,A1-A3,A2-A3) in which the mean difference is statistically significant (let's assume there are no interaction effects). Normally, to determine the specific pair(s) where a significant difference exists, post-hoc tests (multiple comparisons) are used, which will include some type of correction (e.g., Bonferroni, Tukey).
There is an alternative method, which is running the ANOVA first and then running follow-up pairwise t-tests comparing factor levels. I'm wondering whether these two alternatives are equally valid from a statistical point of view.
And a second related question: what would the correct interpretation be in a scenario where a main effect is found for a particular factor (or the interaction), but post-hoc comparisons are all non-significant?