why should they acknowledge that when Sharapova was the clear betting favorite (and bettors don't bet based on looks).
By the time of the Semi-finals Sharapova was no longer the clear betting favorite (in between Serena had also surpassed her b4 getting knocked out as well). Her and Kvitova were about around 3, with Sharapova a little lower and Petra at 3.40 etc. a little higher. But they were close enough!
Also, betting is not always based off of ability, but name recognition and fan support. And considering that Petra was a virtual unknown and received such strong betting support from the start of the tournament, only increasing as the tournament progressed, the writer had a point.
As a matter of fact, after watching the semi-finals, ESPN (except Chris Evert and Pam Shriver of course) and NBC analyst were already conceding that Petra was the much better player, and that Masha's only hope to win was off her experience or Petra implosion.
But we know why they played up Masha; name recognition, her glamorous image, having a story to tell, and thinking she could handle the pressure. Yeah. Okay! Lol.
But before that, it was quite clear, that most of the so called US TV experts, hadn't actually seen Petra play and just ignored her.
Yes, we can't take people too seriously who write articles on Bleacher Reports, as well. Lol.