You're deriving that from very confused ideas; you already basically said that England have the advantage in batting
because their bowling is better than South Africa's. That's not a batting advantage; that's a bowling advantage that may result in you scoring more runs that opposition (or if you actually look at properly - it may result in you bowling the opposition out for less than you score yourself). Your definition of "batting advantage" seems to be the same as everyone's else definition of "better team", as it factors in the strength of the bowling attacks, so the conclusion you were stumbling around in your earlier posts was that these two teams would in fact be playing cricket. Cheers for the insight.
What we have in the two best bowling attacks in the world, and two good but not brilliant batting lineups that have been prone to collapse in recent times. Why you think that means it'll "batting vs batting" is beyond me.