That depends on the variant and model of the T-72. In some cases, certain models maybe able to defeat the M1A2, however certain pre-existing circumstances have to be there. A T-72B2 Rogatka for example, though never battle-tested, may stand a better chance against the M1A2 in comparison to, perhaps a T-72M1.
Recent conflicts have showed the poor standing of the T-72 MBT, I agree. However, to completely base such a statement on these conflicts is unfair. For example, Saddam's forces had tanks 20 years old, which still would've sucked terribly 20 years back because they were cheap export models sold to the allies of the Soviet Union. The more inferior T-72M and M1 had less armor, degraded weapons systems, and many other associated problems. We have yet to see frontline T-72 variants fight in proper order. The T-72s lost in the taking of Grozny, along with their quality T-80B counterparts, were lost more to the fact that the tank was ill-suited to the CQB environment where range no longer becomes a factor. Moreover, these crewmen were also poorly trained, poorly briefed and were inexperienced.
However, in Georgia last year, Russian T-72s outperformed the Georgian ones, though this may have to do more with the fact that the Georgian Army is small, and lacks a proper air-force to cover it's airspace. If I recall, in the battle of Gori most of the tanks used by Georgia were blown by air-strikes from Su-25s and other bomber air-craft. In Chechnya in 1996, a T-90 MBT was reported to be hit by RPG warheads 7 times and managed to continue without error (A Jane's Defense Report I think, forgot the source). T-90s were also deployed in Georgia if I'm not mistaken and they too outperformed the T-72Bs in Georgian service.
I have yet to see a conflict between real Russian T-72s and Western tanks though. The Western tank-men have it easy so far, they've been fighting cripples and old men behind tank sights that can't see in the dark. Half the time, T-72Ms were destroyed by air power anyway.
The fact is that the poor showing of T-72s have been caused more by improper use, overall strategic and logistics errors (lack of air support/ air-defense, poor quality munitions etc...) and poor training rather than the faults of the tank itself, though there are general design flaws that should've been done away with with when the T-90 came about.
Such design flaws, at least in my opinion, is the fact that the T-72/ 90 stores it's ammo in the fighting compartment, making it prone to the trademark jack-in-the-box explosions. Cramped conditions for the crew have been a design flaw that has plagued Soviet and Russian tanks ever since the 1940s. Russian and Soviet tank designers alike however do not agree with the fact that they are flaws, rather they are designed that way to meet Russian and Soviet theories and doctrines of war.
Russian armor composition is still inferior to that of their western counterparts. The T-90 has an estimated thickness of only 720mm+ RHA thickness, in comparison to the M1A2 which is nearly 1 meter. An M829A3 APFSDS round could easily penetrate the ERA of the T-90 ; it's penetration is estimated to be nearly 800mm of RHA. The T-90's advantage lies in it's range, 5km. It's ability to launch ATGMs gives at a range advantage, however I doubt that all the T-90 units have enough ATGMs. The 9M119s are not cheap to make.
