Originally Posted by wtftennis
Good point, but Vika was mentally thrown off her game by the mafia media thats why she was close to losing. I still believe if she lost, it would have been an insult to tennis, and the better player would lose. With your theory someone can organise a sabotage on a player, i.e drug them or attack them and weaken them before the match (just an example) and technically the other person would score the last point and win at the end because they were pushed off their game. Wheather this happens mentally or physically, its not a good result.
Its clear from these forums that people dont go on talent but on personality and who they like more. (a real shame). Tennis, like anything hard working should be "you reap what you saw". Not who I like more should take it, or whats best for the sport, etc.
No, it doesn't follow from my theory. Take for instance the match when Monica got stabbed. Does it mean she deserved to win that match? And maybe even subsequent slams?
No, all I am saying is that "deserving" is not even a well defined notion, and is usually used in the sam fashion as "good for tennis" - to garner popular support for a certain outcome. The only difference is that with this notion, as opposed to the "good for tennis" reason, usually one of the above listed reasons is provided, whereas with the latter the only reason is that tennis would become more popular.
The exception is if a player uses something to get unfair advantage, then you can say that this player DIDN'T deserve to win.
Still, she didn't say that for Vika (and a lot of people seem to think that she did); she said that Li played better and lost because she overplayed in the preparatory tourneys.