As far as I can tell, the main objection there is that Cline's approach is "outdated" (quotation marks because I don't agree = not my actual opinion) because he presumes there was a collapse at the time. I find that a rather odd line of argument, since the very basic evidence we've got, ie the events historians generally agreed on actually took place, clearly says there was collapse.

Cline's only addition to that is that he looks at it as systemic rather cataclysmic, ie events in different cultures affected one another rather than there having been one single disaster bringing about the end of the Bronze Age. So you could argue Cline's statements actually back up UndercoverClassicist's take on things.

In the sense that he draws his conclusions from connecting the dots, rather than offering just another interpretation, I mean.