Do these discussions imply that Royal Navy leadership and doctrine were always superior?
Short answerNo: the argument is that naval doctrine should fit a country's strategic geography, industry, logistics, and expected theatres rather than be judged by a single universal standard.
NotesNo navy had a universally best doctrine. American carrier practice suited a concentrated Pacific fleet backed by enormous industrial output and a large supply of replacement aircraft. Britain had global commitments but concentrated most of its industrial base on an island off Europe, so distant forces might have to hold out while reinforcements and spares crossed the world. British ships and aircraft therefore needed to remain repairable, while scarce air groups had to be carefully maintained and husbanded. A doctrine can be well designed for one navy's geography and logistics without becoming a universal model for every fleet.