limitations of valence bond theory

In valence bond theory this is how bonds are assumed to form. In MO theory thsi si not the case!.

Superior is a difficult term. The latest versions valence bond theory and molecular orbital theories give similar answers. The simple old versions work from different premises- valence bond assumes localised pair bonds molecular orbital theory is better ate predicting spectroscopic properties. VSEPR is different again and focuses on the geometry around a central atom- and as such is better than both the simple versions of the other theories.

Molecular orbital theory is more recent than Valence bond theory. Both theories have their adherents and recently VB theory has had a renaissance. They both have their strengths. Chemists use both and mix/match. Some very familiar concepts used every day by chemists spring originally from VB theory, electronegativity, hybridisation of atomic orbitals.

MO theory has its advocates, an early triumph was the prediction of the paramagnetism of O2 whereas valence bond theory predicted O2 to be diamagnetic. One criticism of VB theory is that it starts from a description of bonds as localised pairs of electrons, whereas in MO all bonds are potentially delocalised.

If I understand the theory correctly, then it is safe to assume that any molecular bond is based on the valence system. Valence bonding occurs when orbitals of electrons are slightly overlapped. Your question should rather be 'what kind of valence bond occured in the bond. There are 2 types namely sigma and pi. Sigma bonds occur when the orbitals of two shared electrons overlap head-to-head. Pi bonds occur when two orbitals overlap when they are parallel (wikipedia). So it is safe to assume that any bond that is covalent can be described using valence theory.