Sure any game will always have its better bunch of players, but the difference between these 'pros' and the average above-average player is incredibly smaller now. Look at Aimstrong for example, he had like a 98% win rate in automatch. And the other top players (Seb, DevM, Symbiosis, aljaz, Guderian, etc) were pretty close behind. Unless they got unlucky, they won almost every single game that wasn't against one of the top 10 players in the world. The people that are considered great now win 70-85% of their games against the general population, which isn't entirely their fault since the lower skill ceiling works both ways, but it just goes to show that the level of competition is a bit pale.
Those words aren't even mine, its more or less the same thing Twister (previous SNF winner) said just a few days ago. So if one of the top players feels the same way, its not really a personal l2p issue. I'm not sure what is the unit to spam these days since I haven't played 1v1 lately, but the lack of teching options and doctrine counter picking mechanic does make it a lot more difficult to outsmart a one dimensional player like that and instead you rely more on him making micro mistakes, which is pretty iffy since CoH isn't a very micro intensive game to begin with.
The pro winrate @ GM ladders @ SC2 is 75%, i don't get your point. Bonjwa's come & go.
The top players having lower than "99% winrate" should be a good thing, yet in your post you see it like something bad. This means that the ladder, players etc are getting stimulated. Since they actually are getting some competition