Pershing was a good general in some respects, but I don't see greatness. He did indeed insist on the American Expeditionary Force acting as a whole, which delayed its effectiveness to the very end of the war. It seems to me that the largest effect of the US entry on the war was presenting Germany with a deadline: win in 1918 or lose, because in 1919 the US was going to have pretty much its full strength in the war.
The main rap against the Entente leadership was that the Western Front was a bloody stalemate for years. The assumption is that they should have thought of a way to avoid that. However, in a century of speculating, nobody's come up with a way to do it. Some people have named leaders, like Napoleon and the Australian commander Monash, who they thought could have broken through. Faced with similar situations, Napoleon did no better. Monash was an excellent commander, applying the offensive tactics of the day superbly, but he couldn't come up with a better solution.
The Germans are often lauded for their Stosstruppen tactics, but those weren't all that much advanced over contemporary British and French tactics. The major difference is that the Stosstruppen were attacking defensive systems far less sophisticated than what the Germans had. Even then, the Germans couldn't accomplish anything decisive.
Late war offensive tactics were perfectly adequate to coordinate infantry and artillery to take a trench line. When attacking Germans, behind that would be another trench line. If the infantry struggled forward to assault it, timing the artillery support was largely guesswork. There was no way to break through German lines without halfway decent portable radios. Even late in 1918, they were keeping a continuous line, although it was falling back pretty rapidly.