Originally posted by Ray Pulley
Those who shoot sports in dimly lit arenas with tele lenses and wide open apertures would get few usable shots with an AF system that performs like this.
I think you are on the right track. When the technological solution to a problem isn't up to the task then you fall back on the manual method (see Dana's post above).
Let's say for argument's sake that in the days before AF a good sports photographer may score one good photograph in 100. With AF, in conditions where the AF is working well he may now be up to 1 in 50. If the conditions are not appropriate for AF (low light, little contrast, etc. - RTFM

) then he may get no good results... until he goes back to manual focus, when he will be back to 1 in 100! It's a matter of knowing the right tool for a particular job - and if that means using a film camera to get better manual focus (larger viewfinder, split screen, etc.) then so be it - horses for courses.
I think it was Patrick Litchfield (glamour photographer, not sport) who said he was amazed to hear snap-shooters who were disappointed to get one "bad" photo from a roll of 36 - he on the other hand was pleased if he could get one good one out of a roll!
Simon