Why do people post this over and over like it's even remotely accurate?
He literally can't hit three topspin backhands in a row in the court and his forehand is what's holding him back?
Ok, that makes perfect sense.
You're right, it makes perfect sense.
Even today, where players are more commonly well-rounded, it is still perfectly possible to maintain decent success on tour as an incomplete, weapon-oriented player.
Harrison's issue is that his so-called weapon, his forehand, the shot that's erroneously mistaken as some big gun, really isn't a weapon at all. It's a highly inconsistent, mechanically flawed liability. He starts at least half his points in the fray because he struggles to take any initiative on it and it's very susceptible to going awry.
His backhand may never be world class material, which wouldn't be as big an issue if he had any hopes of commanding points and masking the shot altogether (as even greats have done before), but he can't do that consistently because his good wing isn't that good. Thus, he can only hope and grind.
So yes, it makes perfect sense to anyone who understands the dynamics of tennis, especially in the modern game, where the natural advantages of a forehand make it so important to have (see Murray's success before and after the improvement of his own).
Then again, you're the same guy who last week said his issue is that he isn't a shot-maker, whatever that meant.