I'll start with a quote about the Modern Opening from The Road to Chess Improvement by Alex Yermolinsky:
The Modern Defense. This 'universal' method of solving opening problems has been widely popularized recently. Some of its protagonists even claim that White has no way of earning the opening advantage after
1. d4 g6 2. e4 Bg7. Some statement, isn't it? By the way, it can hardly be supported or overturned by statistical research. The thing is, in these days of open tournaments, there are many situations when Black feels obliged to play for a win. It could be the sheer difference in the player's strength that determines the choice of opening and, at the same time, affects the outcome. If we mostly see grandmasters playing it as Black against masters (USCF 2200) and experts (USCF 2000), what do you think we'll get? A statistical edge to Black, of course.
While the Modern Opening isn't bad, of course, the point is that we can't rely on simple winning statistics alone. If it really promised Black better chances than, say, the Ruy Lopez or the Najdorf, it would see much more play at the top level. What an opening can do, is make the game sharper with more chance on decisive results (whether that means a win or a loss for Black).
If you enjoy playing the Modern Opening, and score good results, by all means, keep doing it. Just remember that what works for you, doesn't need to work in general.