Something I've seen a lot recently that bothers me.
"X isn't a great bowler, because if you put him to bowl in conditions that absolutely don't suit his bowling, he will fail to run through a side"
This is such a horrid argument. You're stacking all the odds against the bowler, and will only consider him to be Elite or World Class if, in the face of that, he can take a match-winning 10 wicket haul. And even then you add riders on for the modes of dismissal and match situation and all that stuff.
Bowling is the art of making use of your conditions to good effect. No bowler has a perfect style that fits every possible set of conditions and circumstances on the Earth. Every bowler hones his style and method to be extremely effective in the conditions that he plays in the most. When you take a bowler out of those conditions, and put him in the worst possible conditions for his style, and when he returns with figures of 35-2-100-2, that is not a good reason to write him off as a rubbish bowler. Sometimes that's literally the best any bowler of that style/method can possibly accomplish in those circumstances.
I've seen this style of argument used to write off spinners based on their performances in Australia/NZ/England, to write off swing bowlers in batting conditions, and even applied to batsmen who 'only' 'average 30-40 in alien conditions. And its really annoying.
No player hones their game to perform in conditions that they aren't playing in. You want to maximise your effectiveness here and now, in the conditions and situations you play most of your games in. And when you do that, you develop certain strengths and certain weaknesses. There is no perfect 'technique' or 'style'. It's all relevant. A player is naturally going to be less-good playing in conditions that he has not built his game for. To hold that against players, or to use it as some sort of evidence of them being not all that good, is just ridiculous.