'A sterile interlude'. How valid is this judgement on the reign on Mary I?

The 20th century scholar A. F. Pollard used the term 'sterile interlude' to describe Mary Tudor's reign. Pollard's thesis specifically meant that Mary's reign was an unproductive interruption to a Protestant, 'liberal' and successful course in English history. Certainly Mary's popular image has been affected by negative judgements such as Pollard's, exemplified by the legend of 'Bloody Mary'. Yet more recent and closer analysis Mary's religious, economic, and foreign policy suggest that her short reign was more productive than Pollard gives her credit for. An assessment of Mary's reign requires an understanding of secondary debate between earlier and later historians, as well as approaching the primary evidence. S.T. Bindoff, Pollard's pupil, asserted that Marian England was 'politically bankrupt, spiritually impoverished, and economically archaic.' But since the early 1990s, historians such as Eamon Duffy and David Loades have led a revisionist charge to view Mary's achievements more positively. There is plenty of evidence at parish level, including voluntary monetary contributions from ordinary people and church visitations, to suggest that her restoration of the Catholic faith wasn't sterile and therefore may have been successful if she had lived. Her government provided financial stability unlike her father, not only with Reginald Pole's reforms to church administration but also policies such as the Muscovy Act to improve trading. In foreign policy, despite her loss of Calais and relatively unpopular marriage to Philip, Mary's marriage never put England at risk of Spanish annexation and Tudor England resisted any attempt at invasion. Perhaps most importantly, Mary's campaign in 1553 to gain power in the first place was the only successful revolt against central government in 16th century England. Thus, Mary re-established the legitimacy of the Tudor succession. Even if just for this, Elizabeth should be greatly in her debt.