Thank you FFF, for a note of common sense. But, if I may add to that - read the manual - aircraft operators manuals recommend specific techniques, and they are there for a particular reason.
For example, I'd never use a wing-down method in a G109b - it has too much lateral stability, a large wingspan and low wing - the only thing that will work is a crabbed approach. Doesn't work all that well with a PA28 either.
Alternatively, a CFM shadow, or a Lockeed L1011 with lowish directional stability, and a shortish high wing, are both ideally suited to a wing-down approach - so that's what you use.
The "third option" works for aircraft with high lateral stability, but high directional stability as well. So, a crabbed approach is much more comfortable, but when you kick off drift late, the into-wind wing inevitably drops forcing the last bit to be flown wing-down.
There is a fourth option, which is to land crabbed. This is used usually either by aircraft where the roll and yaw control aren't independent (such as a flying-flea derivative, or a flexwing) or some big jets where the designer decided that it was easier to design maingear that could handle it, that to build in sufficient rudder power. It feels totally wrong when you do it, but if anybody knows another way to land a flying flea in a crosswind, I'd be fascinated.
So, whilst there are a few types (C152 for example) which don't really mind what method you use and this has perhaps led to some loose-talk in flying schools, I'd be very cautious of any argument that one is better than the other (either in general, or for a particular pilot) - it doesn't hold water, and worse can be downright dangerous. Since in this country we don't have a type-rating system for light aircraft and most club trainers can at-least demonstrate both methods, I'd argue that instructors should make sure that students can handle both, then know to fly the recommended method for that type.
G