Yeah he does, but I think the point he's making is you cannot just say X player batted well vs Australia in this era, therefore they're the greatest player of all time, or of their era. And if X players scored the bulk of his runs agains the attack India faced here their tour before last, you'd be right to bear that in mind to, because half way decent, let alone very good test players could play that attack with a stick of celery on flat wickets.
Laxman's record vs Australia is awesome, and he's rated incredibly highly here - but we tend to rate players highly who do well here, it's a fault of ours, even if their records aren't so great against other teams. I do it too - I rate Laxman enormously highly - imo he's a much,much better player than Ganguly who, one Brisbane ton aside (and it was a good one mind) I thought wasn't very good here at all. And I admit that clouds my judgment of him Ganguly a fair bit.
It's why a lot of Aussie cricket fans frankly think Gavaskar wasn't that good - he did well here only against depleted attacks. That's not right of course, he was a superb player, but it's the way many here think of him, especially those of my generation or older who grew up without blanket coverage of international cricket from overseas.
Contrast that with the view a lot of people here have of Vaughan, who had a golden series here in 02-03. Many here rate him very highly, when of course his record overall is, while not poor, hardly outstanding.
I guess it comes down to this - it would be no good scoring a **** load of runs vs Aus in their era of dominance if you failed vs every other test country. Same for the Windies in the 80s. Not saying that's what the fellas being considered here di mind you, but it must be too narrow a criteria I'd say.