Agreed.
That's why I said "two of the three major tours"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b2a6f/b2a6f7956fef23a6790ef183a374ffc4ce72c46a" alt="Big Grin :D :D"
Referring to Aus and England.
Yeah - I thought you were talking of the money tours as "major" tours, which is totally disrespectful to SA cricket talents, but you somehow omitted that 5th placed England (like is 5th out of 9 teams incl WI and Bangladesh seriously still "major" but for pounds sterling?) beat Safrica home and away of late, so two is being generous to a team that is consistently getting weaker as its batsmen ages (to clarify - that's SA, Eng just have Root, Cook and 3 spuds). 2 years ago I would have agreed that Safrica was the best in all conditions, but not now. SA, Aus, Eng all have batting issues where the ball turns - which is half the cricket world.
We're actually getting to the point that India is the best cricket nation (gifted a huuuuuuuge benefit of not having to face Pakistan at home or away)- yet they still suck having lost away last in Eng, SA, NZ and Aus. I don't think this is necessarily bad for cricket, but it would be nice to have some teams learn how to play well in alien conditions from those that they enjoy at home.
Ind batsmen may suck in swinging conditions, but they score huge on turners. And this summer, I think they may well have Aussie's number without Smith and Warner. Even if they keep playing Hardik Potato.
I'm still undecided who I want to win the series. I'd normally support anyone playing Australia. And if Smith and Warner were playing, I would support India. I guess I just don't like someone being basically gifted the toughest series win away there used to be. But in ten or twenty years time, that mantle will probably be India's anyway.