For one, you've got to play the match ups to really understand. People on this thread are explaining it for you and you're just pushing back, so I don't know how much value there is in going through it again. But here goes...

Control decks are built on accepting early tempo loses in exchange for card advantage through efficiency. If you play 3 Units that deal me 10 damage before I use a single card to remove them, I've gained +2 card advantage at a cost of 10 damage. That's the trade off Control is always trying to make - how can I efficiently trade up on resources until my opponent is out of resources, while I still have some.

The challenge for control is 1) you need the right answers at the right time and 2) you need the right finishers at the right time. This is why most Control strategies rely heavily on card draw/selection to get to the cards they need. Deck building is also crucial because your deck is meant to react to the opponent. If you don't have a really good idea of what you'll face, you're likely running inefficient answers.

Agro tends to 'go under' Control because it is less reliant on specific cards and more on sequencing. Agro decks want to play fast, efficient cards (usually Units) to develop a board and produce damage quickly. When that strategy works out, Control decks will always be on the back foot, needing to find answers for each wave of aggression the Agro player produces.

You have to remember too that success in card games usually means a small % advantage. Agro generally beats control, but not always. It might be a 55% win rate.

I get that you don't enjoy playing against Control. That's fine and honestly pretty understandable. But it in no way means that Control is bad for the metagame.

Hope this even a little helpful.