On the contrary, he applies a historian's filter to the often misleading first-person accounts and provides the most balanced account of The Battle available to English-speaking peoples. He's not as detailed as Hofschroer or some of the British historians, but his lack of an agenda makes his book invaluable.
I'd take his numbers, for instance, as the best approximation for troop strengths available. And whatever Adkin says, those numbers _have_ to be an approximation.
Oh, and Didz, dammit, it's Randall, not Ranald.