While they aren't "technically" getting speeches, they kind of are when you look at what questions they jury is asking. Taylor, who was first asked why you deserve to win, which was essentially the opening speech, and then David closing's question allowed for a type of closing speech. Nonetheless though one speech isn't going to make a difference in who gets the votes, if final tribal is going to sway someone, it would be throughout all of it. They said what they needed to say.
I agree with you. At the end of the day jury management is a huge part of the game, and if you didn't do a successful job in that, then unfortunately you didn't deserve to win. It should be considered just as important a factor in physical or strategic in my opinion; the idea of being "screwed by a bitter jury" shouldn't be a thing.
And for the record, I'm not saying this is definitely why Hannah lost. She lost for a multitude of reasons of how she played a poor game. But ultimately I think she valued herself and her game much higher than she should have and ceased to try and understand others' points of view. As you said earlier on in the thread, everyone is the hero of their own story. Hannah probably felt like she was the mastermind a lot of the time, but she didn't really realize that others weren't perceiving her in the same way. While Will went about correcting it poorly, at least he was able to recognize this. It felt to me like Hannah didn't realize this until it was way too late, and tried to haphazardly convince the jury of her story (As Sophie put it in the finale Know It Alls, she went the wrong way about breaking down the perceptions. Instead of trying to slowly walk around the wall in her way, she tried just pounding and beating on it to try and get through, forcing a story that was essentially a regurgitation of David's arch that everyone saw as threatening).
People are given the opportunity to answer things w/o fear of what the exposure will do. That's why I think the focus needs to be on people giving their pitches.