Is systematic sampling outdated? From what I can gather from lists of "pros and cons" like this one, systematic sampling  is roughly equivalent to simple random sampling when the list is randomly sorted. If not, it leads to sampling bias.
With this information, my conclusion would be that systematic sampling had a use before (pseudo)random numbers could be easily generated, but I can think of no practical use nowadays.
Are there situations where systematic sampling is still used? I am curious because it is usually included in all lists of sampling methods, but I'm unsure if it's just some sort of "historical inertia". 
 A: In a prospective, randomized medical study, you actually enroll patients to the trial in a non-random fashion. The panel of eligible participants is actually a moving window, and selectively excluding people from the sample just prolongs the study.
Typically all individuals with a condition will be invited to participate, and they are screened and enrolled on a first-come-first-serve basis until target recruitment is achieved. It's known the sample exhibits some issues of prevalent case bias. However, if randomization is performed, time with condition is approximately balanced between treatment arms, and doesn't bias the analyses.
So this example contributes to a "no" response to the question. When SRS can be done, it is preferred in all respects. But cost, time, and other considerations don't always permit. In fact, complex sampling procedures can only be said to make the sample less random yet more efficient. This extends all the way to the above example where the sampling is entirely deterministic.
A: Systematic sampling has the advantage of not always requiring a frame. Take for example this scenario: you want to survey people at your amusement park about their favourite ride. Your systematic sample could be surveying every fifth person to enter the park until your sample is filled.
