Dear fellow do some research before giving such lacklustre responses. Sir Geoffrey played on uncovered pitches not the modern day pancakes. Smith was captain in over 100 of his matches since he was 22 iirc.
Is saying Smith is 'considerably superior' without providing any reason why a lacklustre statement? I'd say so.
Thought we were talking about great openers? What has the captaincy (Cook was captain for a large portion of his career) got to do with that? You don't get 5 test double centuries (yes the one against West Indies 4th XI in the day/night test was easy runs, I was there to watch) and still be classed as significantly worse than someone like Graeme Smith in my opinion. Smith also got 5 but 2 of them were at home against Bangladesh...
What exactly makes Smith 'considerably superior' to Cook as a batsman? Both of them to be brutally honest were horrendous to watch from an entertainment point of view, ugly techniques, even in 'full flow' they were never exactly Ian Bell or Kane Williamson. Yet both were extremely effective as openers in an unconventional way.
Away from the main subject, Smith in particular I admire for sheer grit, his bloody minded determination to drag South Africa to the pinnacle of test cricket was incredible. Both share that sort mindset to grind things out, do it the ugly way, etc. With the retirement of Cook this has probably been lost from the game. The ability to grind a bowling attack down, absorbing everything thrown at them and more, before reaping your reward is not something I can see in the sport where run rates are on the up and the idea of test matches changing to 4 days continues to gather momentum.