RSA isn't a fair comparison point when it makes Cook look bad, but is when it makes Cook look bad it is?
RSA weren't playing ATG attacks vs Eng in RSA. Philander never played. Steyn played 4 and a green Rabada played 3. The attack for the 2009 series was genuinely pretty poor besides Steyn, who didn't play the whole series. Cook didn't face the kinds of attacks that RSA have usually had since the 2010s.
Of the 9 countries they both played in, Smith averages more in 6, and has the biggest gaps, with a chunky gap in overall away. I'm not too sure who was better at home. Smith did have it rougher. England had a lot of serious flatties, but the Dukes partially bridges this. Maybe Cook a smidge better, but close either way.
RSA is fair when comparing their output in their respective home conditions, but I don't think it's fair when you compare Cook's record to Smith's in SA considering the disparency in sample size and attacks faced.On the flipside, Graeme gets the point for being much better in Cook's backyard than Cook was in his, seems just fair to me.
Rabada was a beast right off the gate and Steyn was still a beast, Morkel was also good, It isn't the strongest attack in the world but it's comfortably better than the English attacks that Smith scored 2 consecutive double tons against for example.
Cook's output against non-minnows at home is 45 compared to Smith's 38, on top of Dukes being the equalizing factor between conditions, it's not close about whose better at home.
and a lot of away output gaps are just blatantly contextual, like 2010s West Indies and Bangaldesh being stronger than the ones Smith faced, the home pitches of the 2016 series in particular being horrible with them actually having test class spinners. the legitmate advantages Smith has — UAE Record, New Zealand Record, England Record + performance in Cook's home country, the legitmate advantages Cook has — Sri Lanka record, Australia record, India record + much greater home output. not a run away debate at all.