The argument that Ponting had it easier was based on the fact that he came in after 2 quality openers most of the time in his career, and hence the opposition was already on the back foot after a good start and also the fact that he had a world-class bowling line-up which meant his team usually wasn't hundreds of runs in the arrears when he had to walk on to the pitch.
ok.
Now as a cricketer why is it harder to score runs when you are in arrears. This is a very big myth, yes certainly centuries when your back is against the wall or in big matches are fulfilling and deserve more of a sense of achievement but that doesnt make them more difficult to score. My point is that Ricky Pontings career has improved whenever he has had more responsibility on his shoulders, which is similar to what you are saying.
Batting at 6 for Australia he was good but certainly not great, but since he moved to number 3 he has been a world class batsman and since he took over the captaincy he has had an even better batsman. So Ricky Pontings career points to him succeeding whenever pressure is on so to say "what if he played for a team without the superstars" the evidence really points to him being able to do so.
A little stat as well, his record when his team has lost the toss and fielded, meaning the other team gets first use of a good pitch he averages 64.93 in 48 matches so another example of when conditions may not suit him as well he shines through. Also in those same matches in a 4th innings run chase he averages 65 as well. What does this mean? it means he performs better when he is batting second and is chasing totals, kinda makes that point irrelevant especially when we talk about Ricky Ponting.
Now i agree some people do struggle more when pressure is on like big matches, big totals to chase or losing the toss on a pitch that heavily favours the first batting side. But when you look at his record he isnt one of them.
stereotype added 6 Minutes and 17 Seconds later...
the point could be argued the other way too, if Lara played for an all conquering team like Australia his entire career and had to play along side the like of Hayden, Langer, the Waughs, Ponting, Martyn, Hussey, Bevan, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, Lee, Taylor, Slater etc would his career have stood out as it did? would he have been head and shoulders above that crop like he is for the Windies? Would he have had the capacity or time to come in and score triple hundreds at 4 or 5 if he comes in and the score is already 3 for 320 or something? Would his spot even be secure?
And even worse if his career ended up being identical to it is now would we be trying to sell it short by saying it was done while playing for a dominant side so it isnt an even stat?