It was a quick look. I'd say conditions do not play to the strengths to certain teams - hence the Ashwin problem. But with all the players India has, the fact they can't find someone to effectively replace Hardik Pandya is an India problem.
England have had to bring back a 36 year old retiree, our lack of spinners is an England
problem.
There's probably nowhere that wouldn't offer certain advantages and disadvantages. I'd say, with their pace bowlers Pakistan would actually be more suited to England than Asian conditions.
---
meanwhile, what a screamer from Green. Check Cummos left boot though.
The main reason why I was surprised was because Pakistan generally did well in England, or at least that's what the perception was. Looking at individual match results it does seem to be the case, Pakistan have won as many games in England as India despite playing seven lesser. Sri Lanka on the other hand have just two wins in fourteen games but one of those was in their solitary series win there and the other was in a series they managed to draw. The Kiwis have just three wins in sixteen games and they have a similar tale to Sri Lanka with the extra win being the WTC final against India. India's always managed a win at least other than in the horror 2011 series and Pakistan have two series' where they didn't win any games but managed to draw four series, that's pretty commendable I'd say even if it'll hurt them to not have turned at least one of them into a series win.
In terms of win percentage Pakistan has the third best this century for a visiting team to England with only the Proteas and the Aussies being better. Not a coincidence that all three of them have had good pacers or ones that work well in English conditions as you mention.