Do you disagree that Maria was thought of as shoo-in at Wimby?
I'll help answer this question, though I was trying to avoid it, since your still asking the other poster. I didn't want to get into a Petra vs Masha discussion.
I think if you ask Sharapova fans was she the favorite (or shoo in as you asked), they would say yes. But she really wasn't a shoo in at all.
By the day of the semi-finals, Sharapova and Kvitova virtually had identical odds to win Wimbledon (Sharapova was about 3.3:1 and Kvitova was 3.71:1) for a virtual unknown to outsiders like Kvitova, compared to someone as famous as Sharapova, that was outstanding for Kvitova.
I can even show you odds/web pages, from legitimate bettors, that had Petra ahead of Sharapova, even during Wimbledon, before the semifinals. So perception was never actually reality.
Regarding ESPN (PS: It was Brad Gilbert & Ravi Uhba that picked Kvitova as well), if you listened to their broadcasters the day before the match, they all conceded that Kvitova was the better player ("if it was based on talent and ability Sharapova would lose" MJF, and Darren Cahill said), and only gave Maria a chance (if at all) because of her experience. They threw out all that Pre-tournament perception once they saw Kvitova in the semifinal. Same with NBC/John McEnroe.
John McEnroe had picked Kvitova to make the finals all along, and said he "stuck with Sharapova to win" cause that was his "original pick".
Sam Smith and Martina Navratilova picked Petra before the tournament even started, on the BBC and the Tennis Channel.
The media made it seem like a big upset, after Petra won, cause it was a nice story (Cause Maria was the more famous, well known one, and Petra wasn't on ESPN broadcast until the semi-finals; how could the general media big her up, after not showing her)? But people who followed the sport, and certainly the betting public didn't feel that way.
I hope that helps/explains (and I didn't want to be the one). Lol.