Strange. When I started to write this, I was convinced that getting a groundspeed as an actual figure, was a total waste of time. By the time I had made my comment, I wasn't so sure. It went something like this.
Hah! I thought I was the one that always wanted to analyze things down to relativistic accuracy. But in this case, it seems that we've always had that ground speed thing ticking away in the back of our minds anyway.
Knowing the 2000' winds and surface winds, we then only have to factor in gusts. Doesn't that cover everything that's being said? This is assuming of course we're flying the correct range of IASs.
We get back to that 'It looks wrong' issue if the ground speed seems visually low. Just sitting here in my dotage, I get an very uncomfortable feeling when I visualize a surface-wind-induced crawl over the last half mile before touchdown. It just smells dangerous, but I could never imagine wanting to know my groundspeed in kts.
Okay, now we're in a modern electronic flight deck that might be landing in CAT several. Getting groundspeed is a touch of a button. Maybe, if the PF can get the feel from that figure that I used to get from the visual image, then that could only be to the good. I would suggest however, that the full meaning of that visual image should be well ingrained first.
But as for flying a groundspeed per se, that's just lost on me.