England are obviously proving to be **** in the subcontinent.
India have been a joke abroad the last year but I'll bet the shirt off my back that people like Ashwin and Ojha will wreck visiting teams at home more often than not, and the bats will stand up to be counted as well. Same applies to Pak, and to a lesser degree to SL.
Australia are back to dark horse status, and almost as unpredictable as Pakistan of the 90s. Probably the most fun team to keep tabs on as well because of their pace attack and general quirkiness.
South Africa, on recent record, seem to be the most consistent of the lot, having regularly pulled back a Test or two over here, and also having won series in Eng, SA, and NZ over the past 4 years.
So, my question is, do you attach more significance to a non-subcontinental team winning away from home in non-subcontinental conditions (for eg. Aus winning a Test in SA), as opposed to, say, SL winning a Test in India? Or is it just a gigantic cluster**** all around? I think it is.