Many times I've seen on this forum people saying that player X was aggressive during a match because he hit more winners than player Y. I hold the view that this is a very simplistic logic, devoid of any real analysis, usually used by tards who don't understand the game.
Allow me to explain: While it is evidently usually the case that the more aggressive players make more winners, it's in some instances not the case at all. Especially not in today's era where the courts are slow allowing for long rallies. For example, let's imagine a defensive oriented player like Nadal or Djokovic. Both are able to sustain long rallies with consistency and both are able to counter-punch effectively. Thus, when they face a relatively offensive player, they are able to respond and cope well to a high amount of their offensive shots until they find a relative open place to pass him, especially if such "relatively offensive player" is aggressive enough to go to the net (in point of fact, adopting an aggressive stance like trying to volley a lot in today's conditions against those players could mean facing a lot of winners coming at you, in spite of your aggressive strategy!).
In conclusion, while the more aggressive player usually makes more winners, one can adopt a defensive stance (grind and counterpunch) and hit more winners than an offensive rival who likes to set the pace and aggression. It is for this reason that it is wrong to conclude that player X was more aggressive merely because he hit more winners.
I mean no offense OP but this is just an obvious observation. not surprisingly there are plenty of matches where the defensive player ends up with more winners just based on their opponent being out of shape / less physical / not getting to balls. but the reality is that if we make a general 'to be expected' rule, the aggressive player will hit more winners AS WELL as more unforced errors. there are exceptions clearly but obviously if a fit aggressive player is moving around the court well he's going to be going for his shots and either hitting winners or unforced errors so generally they do hit more winners than the defender. the defender his likely to have a low # of BOTH UE's AND winners because they're really leaving it to the aggressive opponent to dictate play, with the hope and objective that the aggressive opponent will be forced to hit errors rather than winners
it's certainly an observation OP, and not a surprising one that this happens sometimes. I will mention that sometimes players surprise me, for example last night Federer Vs. Murray, typically we think of Roger as more of an agressive player yet Andy was indeed playing much more attacking tennis than he typically does