To give an example, TOC doesn’t have returning nines, neither does it have the regulation number of par 3’s, par 4’s etc, and it’s fair to say that like a lot of out and back links courses the routing doesn’t have a lot of variation in hole direction.
You could say the same thing about North Berwick, Prestwick, and Elie, just for starters. Of course, all of those examples were built
before anyone wrote down any principles about what a great golf course "should" include.
The focus of any design should be on building a diverse set of great holes. If you really achieve that, not many golfers are going to call you on the other stuff [except for the tedious guys trying to show that they read a book on Golf Architecture 101].
If you've got a bunch of holes playing in the same wind direction, sure that's not ideal, but it just means you have to be extra diligent in making those holes different from one another. If you're going to build six par-3's, or fourteen par-4's, it just means you have to be extra diligent in making those holes different from one another.
The 4-10-4 arrangement of par 3's, par 4's and par 5's was only a way to simplify things ... because it's harder to keep adding variety if you go above those numbers. But that doesn't mean you should always stick to the template. Have I mentioned I hate templates?