Originally Posted by World Beater
on hardcourts, you could say andre was more steadier than federer. But i think federer's fh makes up for the difference in the bhs. Federer also has the slice which can hurt andre agassi. But i can understand that some would favor andre on the baseline strictly in terms of fh/bh with no footwork or movement in consideration.
On clay though, i would give the decisive edge to federer, and this is because fed's shots are weightier due to the spin he imparts on the ball.
On grass its a similar story except that federer covers up his bh inconsistency better with his slice which stays lower. The ball also stays in his strike zone longer on grass - fed likes the ball from knee to hip height. Andre like the ball higher especially on the backhand.
I guess it comes down to opinion now. Me, I think that Agassi's drive backhand was one of the greatest of all time -- in fact both his fh and bh wings are in contention (altho Fed's fh is definitely better), and to me that opens the flood gates in the comparison. I just think that Agassi didn't get consistently out-gunned at the baseline against other players (until his twilight years), whereas Fed lost a lot of battles to Nadal, Djoko, Murray etc. He had guys on a string more than anybody I've ever seen. There were more ways to beat Andre than Fed...but if some guy decided to be coy and play with no variety and battle him only from the baseline, Agassi would almost invariably win, whereas if ******** arrives you feel as if you had a feasible chance battling him from the back of the court. Agassi's fh/bh combo and ability to run guys ragged was just amazing to me, and I think strictly from the baseline he's a little bit better than Fed, although you make some good points and I respect the opinion.