MF is a luxury of the slow realm of static subjects where the human eye and mind have the benefit in knowing exactly what the human eye and mind intend to be in optimum focus. AF has the disadvantage of having to guess as to what the human attached to the camera intended. AF does better then most people give it credit for, when often it is making the most logical conclusion based on the user's input. But it still gets blamed when the human gives it ambiguous data to work with.
In the film days, there was a lower expectation for things like FPS, more like FPM or FPH fit nicely with the focusing aids likely microprisms and split-D focus screens where there is pretty unambiguous visual feedback as to when the intended focus point was, in fact, well focused.
But shooting style and patience have changed, a lot. If a camera can't sustain over 6 fps it is a useless waste of metal and plastic for many people's thinking. If a camera can't guess the users intent among ambiguous clues give it, it has "AF problems". Ever notice those who complain the most bitterly about "AF issues" with every body are the same people and often show the same target ambiguity in examples posted? Some people are never going to be a good match for AF, but are too impatient for MF.
Personally, I am amazed how good, if fed with appropriate clues, AF is. I find it hard to fool my D800. It is easier to have my inappropriate clues fool the D7000 however, but give good targets and selecting targets on the same focal plane if the visual intended subject is too ambiguous, results in amazing AF performance.
I still like the visual sensation of a micro-prism snapping into focus, almost automatically, in the days before pixel peeping and labs doing all the post processing.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.