What if I told you it doesn't matter if one faction has 100 players and another 1000, only 100 games can be played at the same time(simplicity sake, so you actually can understand how statistics like this work).
Statistic shows that same group of players got almost the same win ratios, therefore allied dominance you spoke of exists exclusively in your head at the moment.
Balance is NOT measured by singular player performance, but the whole group of them.
Political surveys are not based on the opinion of one random dude, but tousands of people.
Same way balance is being measured, by win ratios of players from specific group for all factions-if its close to each other, the game is balanced, which is exactly what the charts are showing.
Certain units might be op or up, but factions overall haven't been any more balanced ever.
You are wrong about a lot of things here. The charts are divided by rank brackets. There goes your first point out the window.
Though you seem to have a hard time with some of the deeper implications surrounding that. So let me try to break it down further. If there are 4000 players who play Ost (for the sake of argument) and say only 400 who play ukf, all taken from the random population with presumably a large range of skill in each population from noob to helpinghans, do you think an equal number of wins and losses in matches amongst the top 100 players of each faction demonstrates that the factions are balanced? Of course it bloody doesn't.
If you were to argue that it does then you would have to have some objective demonstrable proof of player skill in order to prove that this top 75th percentile of ukf players are actually really as skilled as the top 2.5% of ost players, or 10 times as skilled as the top 75th percentile of ost players. This would be required information in order to explain an equal number of victories with a larger sample of ost players.
Basically to cut a long story short, you can't make any of your claims without somehow accounting for the variable known as player skill. So a different approach to finding which factions outperform others is to remove this variable altogether by taking only win ratios of the same player. These singular performances are not a demonstration of faction balance in and of themselves since some people will have a knack with certain factions, but a larger number of these performances can be collated and have statistically valid conclusions drawn.
None of this even takes into account siphon x's point in his coh2chart article about how the matchmaking system is actively trying to bring about equality through matching players with a similar win potential - further muddying the coh2chart data.
Also I wonder if you did not happen to witness any of the three recent tournaments and qualifiers? There was a noticeable deficiency in wins from axis factions. This is not some figment of my imagination nor of the imagination of the general consensus (minus the glory supporters such as your notable self)