No. If you're head and shoulders above the rest of the field you don't need to be clutch. You're not going to choke if you're leading 6-2 6-4 4-0. Federer won those you things you said be because he was insanely superior to 96% of the players.
He wasn't clutch and never will be. Even in his prime he would loose most of the matches that were close. Vs Safin in AO, Nalbandian at WTF, Gasquet in MC, vs Berdych in Olympics, Nadal in Rome, etc. And well, after that against Djokovic in USO 2010, in 2011, etc. How many times did he lose having MP or being really close to wining??
He is nowhere near as clutch as Sampras or Nadal.
If you're as good as Federer is, when you lose a match, it's going to be close. Hence when you focus on his defeats you get a distorted view of the situation.
Did Federer blow away the competition at AO 06, when he was taken to five sets by Haas, and 4 by Davydenko (winning the last two in tight tiebreaks)? Did he blow away Nadal at Wimbledon 2007, when he took two tiebreaks (one 9-7) because he was unable to break Nadal once in 3 sets? Did he blow away Roddick in Wimbledon 2009? Did he blow away Djokovic in USO 2007? Who came back from 0-2 down and 1-2 down in successive matches to win FO 2009? Who won the longest BO3 match of all time? And Wimbledon 2012 - that was a really easy victory right?
Here's a final question. Do you know who has the best tiebreak record of all time? Hint: it isn't Sampras.