Perhaps prior long runs made a difference, but my point is that not doing long runs didn’t seem to negatively affect my ability to complete some pretty tough long runs. I would do about 30-40 mins very, very easy in the morning (9-10:30 pace - I know that sounds crazy slow but it can be really calming to start the day) and then about 1:15-1:30 in the afternoon or at lunch. That run would sometimes just be a steady effort, a ladder workout, or sometimes even some intervals. Some weekend days I would just do a single run for about 1:30-1:45. I didn’t have much structure because I had no expectation of being able to race; the opportunity came up quite unexpectedly. This structure would usually average about 85-95 per week and about 13ish miles per day - but running every day (now 100+ days straight without injury after dealing with a gnarly stress fracture in my pelvis that required 3 months off and then plenty of little issues left and right, also possibly caused in part by excessive long efforts rather than consistent moderate ones).
It’s only anecdotal so it should be taken as such. Yes, there are plenty of holes to poke in my “training” and I’m not saying that’s an ideal plan for everyone. Taking out the short morning runs at super slow pace, my milage would have been about in the 60-70 range so it’s not a big difference than what I’ve done in the past. I think the big difference is the consistent aerobic stimulus at a relatively reasonable level that occurs every day with my current strategy. If I ran a long run every week, I highly doubt I could keep this up. Thus, my point is that, for me, eliminating the long run from my training has not been detrimental. Oh, and I definitely enjoy running more since I’m never wiped out and it *feels* like I have more time on the weekends since I’m not dedicating 3 hours to a single run (especially when it’s bad weather) and then feeling mentally and/or physically worn out after. For me, it’s much, much more sustainable long term.