Andre gave an two-part interview for Inside Tennis. I just got the second part, and he talks about the differences in playing Pete and Roger, and the differences in their games. I know we love to debate that here, but I think the best proof is what their opponents say. So I'll type up this bit for you. I highly recommend the whole interview, though: IT: Do you get excited about what Federer could achieve? AA: You look at everybody's potential when you see their weapons, and he certainly has great potential. You always leave room for the competitor's heart and spirit. Sometimes that accomplishes incredible things. Other times, it keeps you from reaching your potential. His potential is big, no question. His serve is very accurate. He is close to the lines. He never misses, leav ing it in your strike zone. He's a real good target server. He hits lines. Pete's serve was better than Roger's, but Roger moves better than Pete. Roger is much better off the ground and also better off the return, but he doesn't volley as well. So how do you rate how that's gonna play out? He's very explosive, has great hands. Great hand speed, feel, movement, all-court game. He can play from the back and beat the best, and he can serve-volley and take certain players out of the equation by coming forward. He has a game that can get around a lot of different types of players, and that's what's required to win a lot of Slams. One thing I know for sure, if there's an edge off my game, if I'm not moving, if I'm not able to reach for balls, there's no chance when you're out there.