Federer: Better Than Sampras?

So what that this guy won three of the four majors this year, the first man to do it since Mats Wilander in 1988. And so what that he made Lleyton Hewitt become the first man since Howard Taylor in 1884 to be double bageled in a U.S. Open final. He's still not better than Peter Sampras, nor is he as good as Peter Sampras. Even though Federer, who beat Hewitt 6-0,7-6(3),6-0, has been dominating the men's tennis game it is too early to make those kind of hasty comparisons.
Now I'm not trying to say that Federer is not an amazing player. I think he is the best player in the world right now and that he has the best all around game than I have seen in a long time. But prior to this year, Federer was a very inconsistent player. Until Wimbledon last year, he had never had the kind of showing in a grand slam that everyone thought he had potential for. After his breakthrough at Wimbledon, he went on to win the Australian open, but then had a disappointing loss in the third round at Roland Garros to Gustavo Kuertan. Then he repeats as Wimbledon champion, coming back from an early deficit after a few rain delays against Andy Roddick. But what happened to Federer at the Tennis Masters in Cincinnati, where he lost to Hrbaty in the first round. Who is Hrbaty? I'd never heard of the guy until then. And what about the Olympics, where Federer lost in the second round to Tomas Berdych of the Czech Republic. Again, who is that? Of course, Federer than capped of the year with a win at the US open, and also locked up the number 1 spot in the INDESIT ATP championship.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that Federer is still too inconsistent to draw comparisons to Sampras. Sampras dominated the men's game for about four years, and if Federer has three more years like this one, than we can start to compare him to the greatest players in the history of the game. But until then, he's just the best tennis player in the world.