Does “perfect game” actually guarantee attraction?

Trying to understand a disconnect I keep seeing.

I’ve been thinking about something I see repeated a lot here (mostly from the same 2-3 posters, though. But they're very active). Along the lines of:

“If she rejected you, it’s a game issue. You weren’t her type because you didn’t run good enough game. Work on your game.”

The idea seems to be that with “good enough” game, you can create attraction in any single girl (and thus surely lead too a number an/or a lay), and if you fail, it’s because your execution wasn’t good enough.

But this is where I’m struggling too understand.

A lot of well-known dating coaches openly say things like:

They might only get laid once in 30–40 approaches.

They still get outright rejected lots, sometimes very quickly, by girls who are single.

And if you watch infield footage from experienced guys, you often see them get hard rejected by girls who are clearly available. Just a genuine, clear lack of interest/attraction. His attempts to go past 'friendly' into a 'man to woman' situation are met with hard resistance

These are people who, by most standards, are running “good game.” They’ve practiced for years. Decades, even. Teach this stuff for a living, and know what they’re doing.

So here’s the question I’m trying to reconcile:

If “perfect game” can create attraction in most single girls, why do even very experienced guys get rejected and/or fail to 'create sexual attraction' often by women who are clearly single and open to meeting people?

Is it really true that:

“You not being her type just means you didn’t do a good enough job of attracting her”?

Or is there a point where:

-Looks

-Her mood that night

-Her personal preferences

simply outweigh what you do or say?

I’m trying to understand whether the “it’s always a game issue” advice is actually accurate, or if it oversimplifies how attraction works in real life.

Would love to hear how people here reconcile this.