I started this exact thread on a previous forum. And it attracted rigorous debate. That forum's web hosting expired - so it has now disappeared. 

I was of the opinion, that spinners are not always needed - nor even preferable in SA, Aus, NZ, modern WI and early season England. Watching Adil Rashid play for England in a test, and not bowl a ball, and rightly so, and not bat, and not take a catch, was one of the most lol moments of cricket in  2018. But on NZ pitches with no turn, I have long given up on the idea of a spinner being needed here, unless you have a big ripping leggie. But Sodhi was not chop, and Astle always injured. So why bother with one at all?

To my great delight, within a few months of me posting this thread, it started happening. NZ dumped its spinners for a 5 prong seam attack. No over rate problems. SA did the same against Pak, and Pak admitted its why they lost. In a close game, they were forced to bowl spin and lost to ineffective bowling. They did leave out quality seamers to do this. Faf got an overrate ban but his team won. Now in Maharaj, SA has a very good spinner. But the constant seam attack was better for them. They then brought Maharaj back for the SL series, and they lost with Maharaj putting up the worst numbers of the SA bowlers. I think they may have been worried about over rate bans leading into WC...
 
Then WI did it vs England, and won the series in 2 tests. Holder was banned for the third test. England played spinners. England were smashed in the first test playing Rashid and Ali. Then just Ali in the second. WI crippled them with a prong pace attack. WI was so on top, Holder could have snuck in some Roston Chase overs, but he went for the jugular and seemingly wanted the 3rd test ban.

Australia of course have not done it lately. And India and SL played spinners there last year. Aussie dabbled with it at times arguably, as Greg Mathews was far more a batsman than a spinner, but his career was over with Shane Warne, and rightly so. 

Bans for overrates are gone now. But should the quicks not be able to keep up with overrates? Bumrah, Archer, runs ups are getting shorter. Curran, CdG, the 5th bowling mediums are comming in off shorter runs ups as per. Boult is a regular 140 bowler, who takes a shorter run up than most I notice. Always well short of the field advertising. 

Anyway, I invite you to discuss the pro's and con's. I am a firm believer in horses for courses. When I first did this thread elsewhere, I used the WI evolution post Gibbs as why. But be warned, earlier this year, it finally started happening. And utlimately, I am interested whether Aus cricket fans think the team would be better off with an all seam attack in place of Lyon at home bar SCG. Aus has one issue in that Starc, Haze and Cummins do take a while to get through their overs with their long run ups. But Pattinson has a shorter run up. As do other candidates. Another question is whether they need to be as long as they are in the first place. 

Anyway, welcome your thoughts. 

Overrate bans are gone now, instead if a WTC match, you lose as many points as you are overs behind. But that can still be mighty profitable for points as against not winning where there is no points for losing.