This could well apply to the Ricky Ponting of 2005. It could also apply, I feel, to Steve Waugh, who, IMO, only got away with his ultra-aggressive captaincy because he had a world-class side who he could always rely on to bowl a side out quickly (i.e - West Indies succumbing for 173 in 2000 after Waugh declared whilst only 200 runs ahead). When a side (often India) took the attack to him, or when he lacked a world-class bowling lineup, he often appeared a touch bereft of ideas. This is, I feel, part of the reason why India were able to generate that Kolkata partnership and also score a truckload of runs in 2003/04. Some of the bowling plans to Laxman over the course of that Kolkata innings were..well...erroneous (bowling short and around the wicket to a guy who can pull and who is strong through the legside? Please!).
I don't think Ponting would have let any of the above scenarios happen - at least, not to the point where it became terminal (in case you're thinking of Pietersen/Collingwood's 300+ run partnership). For instance, he (at his best, anyway) imparts a multitude of plans in order to get rid of batsmen. Dismissing Laxman at short cover by having him driving at a wide Brad Hogg delivery, for instance, was superb captaincy and good bowling, too. It was interesting to note that Mark Taylor (a highly-regarded captain) had a list of ideas which Ponting (at least in Sydney) often imparted.
Also, Ponting didn't have the luxuries that you listed as nearly as often as Steve Waugh did (with the exception of maybe Shane Warne, who was in a form slump for much of Waugh's captaincy career). In particular, he rarely got to unleash an in-form Jason Gillespie. He also had to cope with the disapperance of McGrath for much of 2006, Gilchrist's oft-terminal form slump (with the bat, but eventually with the gloves) and also Langer's injuries and inconsistency throughout 2005 and 2006. Waugh also had to cope with these things, but not to the extent that ol' Ricky did. Ponting also had the responsibility of handling a brand-new bowling line-up. He could've done this better (giving Mitchell Johnson the new ball was inspired initially, but became misguided later), but he could've been worse, too.
As for the original question, calling Brian Lara better than Ponting, in general, is a point of contention for mine. Certainly, Brian Lara was capable of scoring anywhere and at his best, was unrivalled by anybody else in the world (that includes Tendulkar and Ponting). However, despite Ponting's inexplicably poor record against India, I feel that his purple patches are more consistent and possibly more prolonged than Lara's (hard to tell with StatsGuru). It is indeed true that Lara's feasted a bit less against minnows in general...but his record against all countries isn't as consistent as Ponting's. Also, Ponting can still score some runs when out of form (i.e - vs India in 2007/08), whereas, often, Lara is barely capable of scoring any (his first four innings on the AUS/WI tour of 2000 provide a good example).
Ponting>Lara as a fielder and often as a captain, too.