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.
Nadal, Djokovic, and their ilk are disgusting defensive pieces of shit and anyone who has ever had the gall to suggest otherwise by pointing to the stat sheet are drooling simpletons who know nothing about tennis or logic.
TL;DR version II:
My butt hurts.