Right off the bat, let's say it: there is no "deserve" on reality shows. However, unlike American Idol or Dancing with the Stars or I don't know, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, Top Chef doesn't have a voting component or an unreasonable central star, so you expect this field of experts to weigh the whole thing wisely and pick the so-called most deserving winner.
With that out of the way, did Michael Voltaggio deserve to win Top Chef?
Speculations were rife that the Top Chef people were, for lack of a better word, manipulating the results / challenges this season in favor of a Volt vs. Volt showdown in the end. They probably saw the huge David vs. David thing on American Idol. Let's not give these rumors credence because, in all fairness to the V brothers, both really worked hard throughout this season and were obvious frontrunners en route to last night's finale.
But what's up with the Kevin snub in the end? Sure, Kevin had a little mishap, scarce as it was, when he overcooked the pork belly, but from how I observed it, Padma singled him out just to have a few moments of purely brother vs. brother time. On this note, finishing off an amazing season, did poor Kevin deserve third place?
We wouldn't go down the he's so arrogant route and that little comment that he made that he only wanted to beat his brother.
On to the core: was it a matter of creativity trumping skill? Probably. After all, dehydrated cream of broccoli against fried chicken skin with liquid squash casserole and a sardine casserole?
Throughout this season, Michael's forte had been creativity and originality (and arrogance), while Kevin always do things to perfection, simple as they sometimes were. Michael didn't mince words either: once or twice, he implied that he could make Kevin's dishes in his sleep.
At least we'll know who'll win fan favorite, and it isn't the robotic brothers. The reunion show airs next week.