Fr. Anthony Ruff has posted an entry in response to comments on the ground that, all told, the old Missale Romanum has actually more Scripture than the Lectionarium promulgated in 1970.
Factually speaking, the data is so overwhelmingly in favor of the new Lectionarium as to make the discussion absurd - akin to debating if the sun is a star or a spaceship built by ancient Mayans.
The real debate concerns the quality of the application of Scripture in both missals. I'm not going to seriously enter the debate here, but it is worth noting that the cycle of readings and antiphons was largely based off of the interpretations of then contemporary scholarship of patristic exegesis. It is a very linear use of Scripture, designed to tell a fairly obvious narrative. The old missal, in my estimation, has awareness of the very patristic notion of the four senses of scripture and the very non-linear reading that results from such an interpretative principle.