Roman Maniple vs Macedonian Phalanx

[Olimpian]

So history has proven the legion to be superior to the phalanx.But from what I have read,this was more due to other factors than military ones:lack of native greek population to serve in the army(hence superior numbers for the Romans),mediocre commanders that relied too much solely on the phalanx and didn't support it properly with cavalry(the hammer to the phalanxe's anvil) and flakers,lack of proper military training and drilling,etc.Still,Pyrrhus managed to defeat the Romans in "pyrrhic victories"(although the Romans suffered more casualties than him-from what I've read-but his were not easily replaceable).This leads me to think that the phalanx could defeat the Roman war machine if in the proper hand and supported by enough heavy cavalry to dominate the flanks and other supporting infantry like more mobile hoplites,spearmen or peltasts.Had Alexander fought against the Romans,I think he would have "hammer-and-anvil"ed 'em to their deaths,since the Romans had little cavalry or supporting troops,so their maniples would have been easy-pickings.
So,what do you guys think,in a historical "fair fight",phalanx or maniple?
(PS Sorry for the long post)