Hum I do not agree. For instance, let's say you play midrange. Then it means that your deck should be able to deal with early threats, or even put up with agression until you are able to fight back.

For instance, when I go against mono red aggro, the thing is to exhaust my opponent hand until I can spam a card he won't be able to deal with. So it doesn't matter if I got the draw, or if he plays Kumano on turn one, because I'll most certainly be able to deal with it. And even if he manages to relentlessly attack me, and drop my life points to a low number, by turn 4 or 5 the tides should have turned if I have played my part right.

It is all about understanding what is your weak point when it comes to what the meta has to offer, and modifying your deck accordingly. If you have troubles with early creatures, then add some early removers. There are one mana removers in white, blue, red and black decks. Or maybe you also lack early creatures to use as fodder ?

For instance,you can't possibly be wanting to play in the current standard mode, with a midrange deck, without any solution to deal with "Rot Priest" based decks. The same goes against soldier decks, since you mentionned Thalia. An efficient midrange deck should be able to deal with the high volume of creature cards, only waiting to submerge you by turn 4 or 5.

Also, I feel by reading some of the post on this sub, that a lot of people fail to understand that the basic concept of the meta is that some cards are stronger and more versatile than the rest. Trying to beat the meta with low tier cards, or a strategy that actually requires the whole universe to be in harmony with your starting hand and following draws will most likely lead you to believe that the game is unbalanced as it is.