Finale

I'm going to go ahead and say I think Natalie is a fitting winner for the title of Sole Survivor. Russell would also have been a fitting winner for the title of Sole Survivor. Natalie played the better social game, thus netting herself the votes to win the game. Yet, Russell played the better strategic game from day one. These observations are obvious.
Going a little deeper than strategy, let's try to gauge the amount of passion each player had for winning the game. Russell's passion for achieving the title was extremely prevalent, while Natalie's was not as glaring. This doesn't necessarily mean the reality of each players' passion corresponded with how much they showed it, but let's assume it does. Based on this, is Russell more deserving than Natalie for the title?

I struggling to properly articulate how I really feel about who should have won. There are too many factors to include to just say who I think is the most deserving. So, I'll just say this: in my opinion, both are equally worthy of the title of Sole Survivor.
It all comes down to the connections Natalie and Russell made with the other players. Those connections and what they entailed are what are responsible for how each jury member voted. Russell's connections were obviously more tainted than Natalie's, so he hoped the jury members would see the value of his strategy and give him the credit he felt he deserved. Turns out the grudges and bitterness stayed strong, influencing the jury greatly. As Jeff himself said, "The jury did not vote for Natalie, but against Russell."

Life lesson learned? Keep your connections with others clean and genuine and you'll find self-satisfaction in the end. But that's just my opinion, of course.