Can't agree more! Yes, Witzel got his points but Talageri trying to build a chronology based on Sudas's exploits and his relation vis-a-vis Vishwamithra and Vasistha is somewhat interesting, unique and a first in d domain.Talageri's analysis of the Rg veda mandalas and their relative chronology depends on whether you accept his rearrangement of the 10 mandalas. Of course his argument is correct that the traditional arrangement of the mandalas(1-10) was not based on any chronology and probably he is the first person, in recent years, to have made an attempt to study the texts chronology.
However you must refer to the objections raised by Prof witzel, especially on his reliance on vedic Index list (Anukramanis which are considered a later addition), to arrive at his chronology.
Also,I didn't understand shit for a sec when he claimed Bhrigus an Iranian stock per se,who were later added to Vedic lineage.