Well no offence man, but your playercard shows all of 5 1v1 games, all of them with Soviets, and placement matches pretty much tell you nothing until you come up agaisnt good opponents.
In general, much of the, well, disagreements on this site (apart of course from the phenomenon of fanboyismo, ie. playing only one side, while accusing the "other" of being "Wehraboos", "Allied Buttboys", etc, you cant help that, most of them are just rabid chauvinists/morons) stems from the vastly different horizons of players. I for one at times suspected that the 4v4 players who harped about Axis superiority suffered from outright cognitive dissonance since my experience playing 1s and 2s was quite the opposite. After playing a few large teamgames I can understand them just fine and in fact concur to a point.
I played them a lot in the beta, but yes, I've not really done them since. This is because 1v1's bore the pants off me.
I play 3/4 of the game modes extensively and all four fractions with reasonable regularity. It's enough for me, and more variety than most.
But the people that argue for buffs of things that seem to underpreform in 1v1's despite the fact that they already preform too well in 2v2+ are a bigger problem than the reverse. A large part of that is to do, as stated, with the 1v1's being a minority of games.