That's completely irrelevant. In part that's because grounds are bigger, in part it's because matches come with less regularity, in part it's because the league is miles smaller... if you compare total attendances for a season of AFL and a season of English football league (yes, that's right, football league not just the top division - there are actually four divisions, plus others below that which still attract not-inconsiderable crowds) you'll get the picture.
As a general rule, it did. That doesn't mean there was no seam-friendly deck, ever, after September 2001, though - Bond actually played on several, none more notable than the ones against India in 2002/03 which were about as seam-friendly as it's possible for a deck to be.
No, it doesn't - no bowler can be any good unless he's bowling, same way no batsman can be any good unless he's batting.
The contention that whenever Bond got into the field he potentially offered more than Fraser did has something going for it - plenty, in fact. But the idea that if a Test team was offered a bowler who'd give you Fraser's career and one who'd give you Bond's (which for all its promise only ended-up producing good results on the occasions he played) they'd take the latter is - yes, completely absurd. A bowler who's hardly ever fit to play is no use to anyone.
Asking a batsman who they'd rather face in itself is completely pointless in terms of ascertaining who the better bowler is. If you get the choice between hardly ever facing Bond and facing a decent bit of Fraser most batsmen would tend to take the former, anyway.