Funny thing is, my Pursuit of Empire, Philip Alexander and Rome course, the essay topic is; "The Roman legion is a far superior fighting machine than the Macedonian Phalanx. Evaluate and discuss."

I raised several major themes.
1, Roman Flexibility
2, Lack of sufficient Cavalry for Macedonians
3, Evolution due to lack of cavalry, Phalanx turning into an attack instead of defensive role when it was under Alexander
4, Roman determination
5, Roman Political and Military institution

I obviously talk about other things, and expand on those points majorly, but to boil it down, you cant blame Macedonia as having a poor commander. Philip V was quite capable and had already won many battles until he faced the Romans. Phyrros was perhaps the best general since Alexander, yet he still could not defeat the Romans. Also id like to add, Rome was not Rome when Alexander conquered the east, if he went west he would have crushed it like any other tiny city state. However, the Rome after the Punic wars would have abolutely and easily annhilated Alexander in battle. He had what...One main army? The Romans, according to Polybius, had over 700 000 men able to serve in the legions.
Id like to note, The Macedonian style Phalanx, was undefeated in battle by any other type of army until Cynoscephelae. That is too say, the only defeats ever suffered by a Macedonian Phalanx, were inflicted upon them by another Macedonian Phalanx, until the Romans defeated them.