this link has a SPOILER:
Q. In the ways that Roger can get out of a Love‑40 hold, like Pete did, seems like he's even got more tactical options than Pete ever did. I mean now you've had to play two of these geniuses.
ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah.
Q. Do you almost feel that Roger gives you less options because he can make the kind of adjustments not even Pete could make?
ANDRE AGASSI: Well, I think the biggest distinction inside the lines that I feel playing Roger versus playing Pete is there were a lot of lapses with Pete. You could play a bad set and, you know, possibly get into a breaker with him. With Roger, there's just no relief, you know. In every department, you have to be concentrating and ready to go because he'll take advantage of you on any part of the court.
That's not to say that Pete's upside wasn't just as spectacular, because Pete's ‑‑ when Pete missed a first serve, I still thought to myself, "God, just get this thing in play so you have a chance." With Roger, he misses a first serve, I'm thinking, "Okay, here we go."
Q. It seems like Roger always wants to break. Pete wasn't necessarily breaking.
ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, I think Roger has a better return than Pete. I think Pete volleys better. I think Roger moves better, is better from the baseline. But Pete's serve was probably better.
So, you know, you got ‑‑ I mean, I'm just assessing it inside the lines playing them. They pose different problems entirely, but Roger makes you do it from start to finish, and Pete made you do something incredibly special at a lot of given times.