I'm not sure Italy didn't deserve to win the World Cup, but so many factors besides the skills of the players and coaches came into the competition, it hardly seems like a decisive win.
First, FIFA allowing the German Federation to decide the parameters of the seeding meant initial bias toward European teams; had the usual formula been used, the US would have certainly been a seeded team, and not have had to play three of the strongest teams in the first round. As it was, they went into the first game wound up tighter than a two dollar watch.
Second, FIFA's instructions to the referees would seem to have been, ah, unevenly interpreted. The result was that key players sat out games for marginal fouls. The best ref's steered a middle course, allowing play to go on when a foul wasn't bad.
The overall quality of play was uninspiring, largely, because teams played not to lose, rather than to win. Many teams played a single forward, electing to try to support him from the midfield, resulting in the single attacker not getting service. See: the US and England.
I thought Italy played a bit cynically. In their game against Australia, the smile on the face of the forward who "tripped" over the Aussie defender spoke a volume. They were skillful, though, but as in so many kinds of competition, that isn't enough. You need to be lucky, too, and they were lucky.
Zidane acted stupidly, no matter what Matterazi said to him. Zidane was fun to watch, though!
James Adams