Thing is, I don't think the Lydiard way is the best for everyone (or that any one way is the best for everyone).
But it's still a viable way. It's still relevant and meaningful.
It's one thing to sit and discuss about the merits of Lydiard compared to other methods. I like doing that. What I think is unfair (and why I've jumped in to defend these guys) is that IQ100 was, at first, being very personal- calling Lydiardism a "cult" and being disrespectful to people who disagreed with him.
However, IQ100 has shifted from attacking Lydiardists to describing his own views on training. That's fine, and IQ100, I commend you for changing your tune. I agree with you on some of your points, even.
The way I see training is that everyone will thrive off somewhat different stuff.
I think if Peter Snell had trained like Bill Crothers (a contemporary of Snell who was a low-mileage, interval intensive athlete with similar 800 results) he would have been a 1:48 bum no one had ever heard of.
Likewise, if Crothers had run 100 miles a week and not done speed for months, like Snell did, he would have been a 1:48 bum no one had ever heard of.
Now, a lot of Americans, I think, lack endurance. A good way to go about getting more endurance is the long, steady efforts Lydiard recommended. Obviously, if a guy can run 2:00 in the 800 but only 58 in the 400, his problem isn't endurance, but speed.
Any program- Coe or Daniels or Lydiard or Igloi- should be focused on the individual needs of each athlete. If you have great speed but lack endurance, work on your endurance. If you have great endurance but no speed, work on speed. If you have great footspeed, good endurance, but can't put it together during a race, focus on improving that.
I would think that it's very rare nowadays to see a professional runner say "oh, I follow the Lydiard program" or "Yup, I'm a die-hard Coe follower."
More likely, you'll see a coach who took bits and pieces from everyone and then modified the way he did things as his experiences taught him. So maybe, like John Walker, you'll see a Lydiard-type program that was modified to account for Walker's Compartment Syndrome, or Liquori, who did Lydiard-type stuff but threw out the downhill running.
Or, on the other side of the coin, you have an athlete like Tim Hutchins, (4th at the OG 5000, 1984) who was coached by Frank Horwill, a noted low-mileage, 5-pace-theory guy. Hutchins has been quoted as saying "well, I did Frank's workouts, but I did way more mileage than he recommends- you won't get world-class running 40 miles and doing 5 workouts a week." Instead of doing 5 workouts in 5 days, Tim would add a day of easy miles in between, doing Frank's 5 paces in 10 days.
Any "program" is worthless unless it can be modified to suit the needs unique to each athlete. Two guys can run 1:44 off completely opposite training- it means little about the relative merits of each training program, and more that "Well, for 1:44 Guy 1, Lydiard worked. For 1:44 Guy 2, interval intensive stuff worked."
Any coach worth his salt will realize what works best for EACH ATHLETE (even athletes in the same event running similar times) and give those athletes the best workouts for THEM.