I've just started Bakken's book and broadly agree. It's probably too in depth, for most. You already need to know a lot about training to probably make sense of it. That isn't a criticism but it's certainly not a super easy read. I really look forward to getting in depth with some of it and though and into the really fine details. How can we not want to read what Bakken has to say?
The genius of sirpoc is how he can get ideas across in a very simple way. He's as good a communicator as you will find. That's the huge appeal and you could give NSM to a semi keen runner as a book and they wouldn't be overwhelmed, yet there's enough also in there to keep someone who knows the basics interested. This is why his book as sold so well and is so highly rated. I've given copies as gifts to people who can just pick it up, enjoy it and reshape their own training.
They are both guys who clearly have huge respect for each other, but coming at it from different angles. I think sirpoc even said here they have spoken a lot over the past 6 months or so. I would love to have an insight into those conversations. I doubt there is a huge amount they don't agree on, especially having read Bakken's foreword to NSM and him mentioning sirpoc by name in his own book.
These two guys have you covered from 4 hours a week running up to olympic level. There's probably some crossover in the middle. You also can't forget sirpoc really just happened to copy his own training from decades before from another sport, which just happens to line up with broadly the Norwegian method. But sirpoc's book could easily be called "The British time trial method". It's a reminder that all good training ends up looking the same in the end, anyway. I would also add the race pacing section of NSM is probably the best part of any running book I've ever read and they both will uabe pride of place on my bookshelf.