When you understand Einstein’s relativity, do you ask if Newton was wrong?
When you consider the context of the ‘50s and ‘60s, Lydiard provided a combination of right answers built on what was learned before.
What happened since the ‘60s and ‘70s, besides changes in training and periodization, were changes in racing schedules and the shift towards event specialization.
One thing I think that is overlooked that Lydiard got right is that with a lot of time spent in “general” training phases, the whole team can train together, which can develop a team atmosphere and camaraderie. This can be important in high school and university.
Lydiard has “specific” training, but this occurs very late in the classic “linear” periodization, in his “coordination” phase. One of the main criticisms is that the athlete neglects “specific” training for many months while building up his base, hill training, and track training. Whether this is a problem depends on your racing schedule and when you need to be near racing shape.
Yet the Lydiard approach is not rigid, he himself made adaptations to his periodization, so that you can extend your racing period with “race weeks” and “non-race” weeks while sticking with the main principles that maintain the balance of “aerobic” and “anaerobic” fitness, while not training/racing past your peak. Rob DeCastella kept the Lydiard principles, while scrapping the linear periodization, maintaining his speed year round. You might fairly ask how many elements you can keep and how much you can discard, before it is no longer Lydiard. But a rose by any other name …
When I was in school, I competed in track in the spring, and cross-country in the fall. A Lydiard periodization with long aerobic recovery/buildup in the summer and winter would have fit right in without adaptation.