knowing your opinion on spinners, this is tough one for me to answer. let me try.
i personally would think no team is complete without at least one spinner; i grew up watching the great west indies team dominate world cricket. but they never won a series in pakistan or new zealand at their peak. australia beat everyone at home and away and warne had a significant role to play almost every time. you can attribute it to the greatness of warne and not take it as an advertisement of spin. but i take that as the biggest difference between the 80s WI teams and the recent australian teams. (the next big difference is gilly).
with an all-rounder who can bowl fast you may very well end up with four fast bowlers if you want. having five fast bowlers is an unnecessary and dumb tactic especially when murali/warne/kumble/saqlain were waiting to be selected.
i have seen so many matches in india decided only by spin bowling. the same is true for most sub continental pitches. we know what happened to lillee when he toured pakistan.
just like you need fast bowlers for the new ball, and a specialist glove man to keep wickets, and openers to start your innings, you also need a specialist spinner to handle the old ball and also dominate the last two days when the wicket starts to crumble.
every serious cricket expert devoted a slot for spinners in their dream teams. we should continue to do that too.
Well no one is stopping you from picking a spinner if you want, but the choice should be there. Secondly, there have been fast bowlers in history who have a fourth innings record comparable, if not better than, most spinners. And they're much more effective on the first three days.
Cricket orthodoxy has been wrong many times in the past, and I do not claim higher knowledge than everyone, but the fact is that an argument can be made and if people don't buy into it, that's fair enough and they can choose to pick a spinner.
Incidentally, you also prevent people from choosing two spinners, if they want. That idea to me is ludicrous, but I'm sure some people would pick it based on their reasoning. If this is going to be a true CW Post-Packer XI, it should allow for more freedom in that sense.
Another are is the role of an all rounder - the two greatest dynasties in history did not have one. So you should have to freedom to select a non all rounder at the number six spot (which you allowed people to do). It's the same thing here. Cricket orthodoxy says that 'ideally', you'd have an all rounder at six or seven - but maybe WI and Aus were better without it and better off depending on the purely batting strength of their top six, and the wicket taking ability of four pure bowlers. It's an argument that can be made, same with spinners vs. fast bowlers.
Easier to bag someone for being a tosser than a chucker without getting into a fight. 