If this thread is about Test matches, then we need to understand that both Shaheen Shah Afridi and Naseem Shah are Genuine Number Elevens.
One of Misbah's most grievous repeat errors is to go into Test matches with 4 Number Eleven batsmen.
You just can't do that in Test cricket. It's why his record outside Asia is so catastrophic.
Look at what you now have in place for when the day comes that Misbah is replaced by a qualified and competent Chief Selector:
NUMBER 7: Shadab Khan (leg-spinning all-rounder)
NUMBER 8: REQUIRE PACE BOWLING ALL-ROUNDER - only current option is Faheem Ashraf
NUMBER 9:
a) In Asia - off-spinner who can bat (?????Sajid Khan)
b) Outside Asia - quick bowler EITHER taller than 6'2 OR minimum 6'0 but faster than 140K who can average over 20 as a Test batsman. (Amad Butt?)
NUMBER 10 who can't bat
Shaheen Shah Afridi who is 6'6 tall and bowls 135+
NUMBER 11 who can't bat
Naseem Shah who is 5'9 tall and bowls 140+
The point is, there's no vacancy for Mohammad Hasnain or Sameen Gul or Ehsan Adil unless they massively improve their batting.
Their batting is actually more relevant to this thread than their bowling is.
Theoretically I agree, practically NO.
Cricket being a 200+ years old English game, still quite conventional - there are basically two philosophies around when it comes to bowling picks/combination. One is the English philosophy, other one is Aussie thought process.
Before explaining both, lets look at some of the ground rules/conditions behind the history. Cricket in England is played in summer, with lots of rain and long, long days, with day temperature/humidity being quite comfortable, air a bit moist as well. In such conditions, often the English tracks are lash green, a bit soft and compact - these wickets helped medium pacers, offered lot more purchase off the wicket and in air. Negative side is, it often took out spinners for most part of the game and it kept bonded for several days. Add to that long summer days, in English counties, 150-160 overs/day was quite common, which demanded extreme work load for bowlers.
Aussies were totally different - hot, dry summer days under scorching sun, hardly any moisture in air; scratched, rock hard surface, large boundaries (because same grounds are used for Aussie rules). And, historically Aussies played cricket hard - they played shorter days (max 90-100 overs/day) but prolonged the game by days (timeless games; 6-7 days long FC games...) - the idea was that bowlers will give everything while playing and come back recharged next day.
For such playing conditions, the two philosophies were born - English Counties (FC teams are actually reflection of National team - when IND used to play 4 spinners, Mumbai had five in their Ranji team, Gavaskar opening the bowling!!!) opted for lots of such all-rounders you have mentioned here; because on favorable conditions, these average bowlers could extract some life from the wicket - bonus was their contribution with bat. And, it was essential to share the work load of 150 overs/day by 6-7 bowlers, 3-4 of them being all-rounders.
Australia was opposite - whoever is picked to bowl, has to make it for the bowling merit first, regardless of batting skills. On those uncompromising conditions, those 20-30 extra runs batting contribution was always useless, if your bowler doesn't make it on bowling merit - medium pacers or part-time spinners will be slaughtered on those rock beds. And, in AUS you'll always have to give it 100 - short, but intense work load in every days. You can manage the daily workload with just 4 bowlers, if all four has the skills and endurance.
So, Aussies always tried the other way - they picked best 4 bowlers and tried to extract as many runs possible from them; while they picked couple of batsmen, who were decent FC level bowlers, just to be used as odd change bowlers, often as a surprise element. For that reason, we have seen several Australian cricketers over the years, who are master of one trade and handy in other one. I can name at least 20 AUS bowlers who would have walked into any other contemporary team as bowler, but could contribute with bat - take a pick - Spofforth, Jimmy Mathews, Hugh Trumble, Vic Saunders, Ranji Horden, Ted McDonald, O'Reilly, IW Johnson, Lille, McDermott, Warne, Lee, Gillespee, Johnson, Cummins, Starc... some were better than mare contribution - George Giffen, Monty Noble, Jack Gregory, Kieth Miller, Benaud, Davidson, Gilmore...... Opposite of the spectrum are Warwick Armstrong, McCartny, Stan McCabe, Bobby Simpson, Doug Walters, Greg Chappell, Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Daimen Martyn, Michel Clarke .... even Steve Smith bowls part-time leggi.... Each of those players could have made almost any team of their time for their stronger suit - RK Miller, probably for both!!!
In contrast, I can name at least 50 English cricketers, very good all-rounders at County level, unfortunately bits & pieces at the top level. Most cases these all-rounders are/were very similar to your picks - good bowlers in favorable conditions, and decent batsman. But, their downfall was mainly because of short-fall in their bowling skills, which was exposed once they are out of their tailor made English wickets, under English summer sky. That's one reason, off all cricket records, I value the achievements of Sir Jack Hobbs as highest - in contemporary cricket, on those uncovered English wickets, what he did for years, decades after decades was simply unparalleled, arguably better than a certain 99.94 ....
Now, the suggestion you are giving for PAK team would have worked perfectly in English tours till 1990s, may be even now - but trust me, with "all-rounders" like Shadab & Faheem ..... PAK will definitely lose by an innings to some single Aussie batsman one day!!!! And, in history of the game, I don't think there are more than 7-8 players batting at 9 and averaging over 20, for fast bowlers it's probably even lower - Wasim, Hadlee (hardly batted at 9), Marshall, Berbie, Lee, Vaas and probably (not sure - he made a 76 at 9) Srinath. May be few odd names as well but, if I put a filter of 1000 runs - it probably will come to 3-4 names - Wasim, Broad, Marshall, Lee may be ....... if PAK's No. 9 can match any of those simply with ball, I guess everyone will take that with both hands, without batting contribution.
I am sorry for the long post, but this thread is about PAK's future fast bowlers - not for combination or all-rounders. I had to write this epic not to derail this thread, rather to keep focus on the burning issue - skilled fast bowlers for future. Lets discuss on that, we may discuss the combination in some other thread. Personally, I won't mind if PAK can find 4 pacers like McGrath, WY, Walsh & Bumrah - I'll disregard their batting contribution and play all four, with WY happy at No. 8
. Qadir was supposed to play, but he was injured, so Tauseef (?) played - but again, Abdul Qadir wasn't picked for his batting contribution, rather, he could bowl a bit as well.
