Test

I think the criticism that Scrum faces mostly is that its often done incorrectly or badly.

Even if you don't run Scrum it's good to have a Scrum Master (even if you call it something else) as they should be "protecting" the team from outside interruptions, helping to clear any blockers for the team and communicating with the product owner and other stakeholders outside the team. If it's done correctly, you would have somebody who is there to help push back to the PM or PO, ensures that the team have everything they require to complete a task, and that the team is being "Agile" (Oh, that lovely buzzword!)

Sadly, most places re-use the Project Manager as a Scrum Master, which always seems silly as the two jobs have conflicting interests. The Scrum Master is there to protect the team, the PM is there to protect the project. How could you possibly argue you need to push back on a requirement whilst simultaneously saying it needs to be done?! In this case its mostly just micromanagement and not overly productive.

I think there is benefit to having somebody as the interaction layer between the team and any stakeholders, even if you don't call them a scrum master.