":It's not a question of whether the fact should be included. It's a question of the emphasis being put on them.  Changing the section name doesn't fix the problem, unless you want to head it ""A random list of matches that implies nothing"".  The difficulty is that someone has picked these matches out as having particular significance.  And in so doing they are voicing an opinion that they are significant, without any cite that says ""this was one of Sharapova's must notable matches"".  And that's even before we consider the match analysis that goes along with it.

To give an extreme example to illustrate; what would you say if I was to create a section called ""Maria's Greatest Moment"" and write about my favourite Sharapova match winning forehand smash (with a cite to a mention of the match).  All factual, but with an emphasis that is entirely my POV.  And even if we all agreed that, yes indeed, this was her greatest moment, it still would be entirely POV unsupported by reputable sources.  This ""Notable matches"" is obviously not as blatant, but it's the same thing.

The only way to remove opinion from the picture is to establish a factual measure for a match's inclusion, and I don't think that's something that can be established as a precedence on one tennis article alone.  I'm not saying its a big problem.  But anyone assessing the quality of the article is likely to ask ""Whose opinion is it that these matches are so notable/significant/special/whatever that they deserve a special mention in a separate section?""  (Talk) 

"