Final Vote

[Cestriano]

I'm confused as to how working things out so that you have a F2 with everyone in the F4, at least a F3 with everyone in the F5, and at least a F4 with everyone in the F6 makes someone a coat tail rider. Like....isn't having multiple alliances often considered good game?

[Cestriano]

I'm confused as to how working things out so that you have a F2 with everyone in the F4, at least a F3 with everyone in the F5, and at least a F4 with everyone in the F6 makes someone a coat tail rider. Like....isn't having multiple alliances often considered good game?

[Mr. E of Yonago, Japan]

There have been some great observations in this thread about the game and how it played out.

It seems to me that the casting this season was also instrumental in helping JT. As rose pointed out, the jury was predisposed to favor JT going in, and it would have taken an Obama-style orator to pull off a victory against a player like JT in that situation.

While it might be argued that Coach stamped the game with his Warrior spirit, in reality TPTB set it all up with a cast of predominately 'nice' players, sprinkled with the usual non-playing 'extra's'. The real players in the game all seem to share some key core values, and putting Coach in the mix, as much as he annoyed the heck out of them, also served to remind them of what they value most on some basic levels.

Even though all the featured players talked about how they wanted to win the million (with the exception of Brendan, who confessed he wasn't in it for the money), the ones who seemed to me to be really hungriest for it were Stephen and JT. JT came into the game with all the advantages: charm, physical strength, and a leader's focus and determination. He didn't try to hide his talents under a bushel, because he knew that would be futile anyway, but he was determined to take home that million, no matter what he had to do. He didn't like what he was going to have to do, but he was determined to do it. But one of his biggest advantages was his ability to make other people like him, and also to get them to root for him. It seemed to me that early on, everyone on both tribes saw how hard JT was playing, and how badly he wanted/needed the money, and they all felt, 'wow, this guy is really a wonderful person; wouldn't it be great if he won it all?'

JT took on the aura of the homecoming king, and everyone seemed to want to bask in his glory. Even the person who should have been his arch-rival, the geeky uber-nerd Stephen, fell under his spell, and this probably cemented JT's win, from Day 2.

Everybody fell under JT's spell, and no one ever wrote down his name, or tried to blindside him. Again, probably because they knew it wouldn't work, and also, I think, that deep down, they couldn't bring themselves to backstab such a nice guy.

It seems to me that no one left in the game after the merge wanted to besmirch their honor/integrity by booting the most deserving player, which they all acknowledged was JT.

Tyson might have done so, but he allowed himself to be distracted by all the 'honor among warriors' talk, and failed to make the moves he should have against JT. (And in any case, his alliance would have fallen apart had he tried.) By merge, everyone left seemed to be on the same page: let the most deserving person win the game. Erinn exhibited some nice strategy, but after the Tyson coup she grew too indirect, and by the time she got into the finals, she knew that the others would never turn on JT. Stephen's webs finally tripped him up when Taj discovered that he had made an F2 deal with Erinn as well as herself and JT, and it was the fear that Taj would retaliate by taking JT to F2 if she won the final IIC that frightened Stephen into making his final mistake: backstabbing Taj at F4. Then, when JT played the "keeping my promise" card at final Tribal, Stephen was too flummoxed by all his own web-spinning, and the way he knew it must look to the jury, that he wasn't able to argue effectively for his strategic game. As JT himself admitted, it was a totally different thing for himself to keep their promise at that point than it was for Stephen to have kept it had the necklace been on the other's neck. (But this game, in a more subtle way than last season's, was all about 'worthiness' and 'deserves', in my opinion.) I think even Stephen was so won over in the end by JT's personality that he couldn't really defend himself: he was too conflicted over having to argue that his gameplay was superior to JT's, when Stephen himself didn't truly believe that. (I think Stephen, rightly, believed that both of them played the best game possible for themselves, and there was no perceived 'coat-tailing' felt within their bromance. But of course, the jury couldn't know that. To try and convince the jury otherwise would have been a betrayal of the bond between them: like Becky turning on Yul!) It did seem like Stephen was liked by the other players, but when he folded so badly in front of the jury, they went with their natural inclination and voted for the 'perfect' player, JT.

And yet, even mikey, unless I misread him, seemed strangely uninspired by the way this season played out. (Or maybe he just didn't care to rub everyone's face in it?) Everybody seemed to be doing the 'right' thing: trying to vote off the 'less deserving' people first -- except for Stephen and JT, of course! Perhaps it was this lack of suspense that made the season seem a little flat. The Bromance, combining the best of all possible attributes for the game of Survivor, simply rolled over the competition. They were never seriously threatened, and once they reached merge, it was a done deal. (Brendan conceded the victory to JT when they first bonded, remember?) Perhaps there can be no satisfaction in victory when it is so easily given, and not earned through the fires of battle, so to speak.

Edited for grammar

[Mr. E of Yonago, Japan]

There have been some great observations in this thread about the game and how it played out.

It seems to me that the casting this season was also instrumental in helping JT. As rose pointed out, the jury was predisposed to favor JT going in, and it would have taken an Obama-style orator to pull off a victory against a player like JT in that situation.

While it might be argued that Coach stamped the game with his Warrior spirit, in reality TPTB set it all up with a cast of predominately 'nice' players, sprinkled with the usual non-playing 'extra's'. The real players in the game all seem to share some key core values, and putting Coach in the mix, as much as he annoyed the heck out of them, also served to remind them of what they value most on some basic levels.

Even though all the featured players talked about how they wanted to win the million (with the exception of Brendan, who confessed he wasn't in it for the money), the ones who seemed to me to be really hungriest for it were Stephen and JT. JT came into the game with all the advantages: charm, physical strength, and a leader's focus and determination. He didn't try to hide his talents under a bushel, because he knew that would be futile anyway, but he was determined to take home that million, no matter what he had to do. He didn't like what he was going to have to do, but he was determined to do it. But one of his biggest advantages was his ability to make other people like him, and also to get them to root for him. It seemed to me that early on, everyone on both tribes saw how hard JT was playing, and how badly he wanted/needed the money, and they all felt, 'wow, this guy is really a wonderful person; wouldn't it be great if he won it all?'

JT took on the aura of the homecoming king, and everyone seemed to want to bask in his glory. Even the person who should have been his arch-rival, the geeky uber-nerd Stephen, fell under his spell, and this probably cemented JT's win, from Day 2.

Everybody fell under JT's spell, and no one ever wrote down his name, or tried to blindside him. Again, probably because they knew it wouldn't work, and also, I think, that deep down, they couldn't bring themselves to backstab such a nice guy.

It seems to me that no one left in the game after the merge wanted to besmirch their honor/integrity by booting the most deserving player, which they all acknowledged was JT.

Tyson might have done so, but he allowed himself to be distracted by all the 'honor among warriors' talk, and failed to make the moves he should have against JT. (And in any case, his alliance would have fallen apart had he tried.) By merge, everyone left seemed to be on the same page: let the most deserving person win the game. Erinn exhibited some nice strategy, but after the Tyson coup she grew too indirect, and by the time she got into the finals, she knew that the others would never turn on JT. Stephen's webs finally tripped him up when Taj discovered that he had made an F2 deal with Erinn as well as herself and JT, and it was the fear that Taj would retaliate by taking JT to F2 if she won the final IIC that frightened Stephen into making his final mistake: backstabbing Taj at F4. Then, when JT played the "keeping my promise" card at final Tribal, Stephen was too flummoxed by all his own web-spinning, and the way he knew it must look to the jury, that he wasn't able to argue effectively for his strategic game. As JT himself admitted, it was a totally different thing for himself to keep their promise at that point than it was for Stephen to have kept it had the necklace been on the other's neck. (But this game, in a more subtle way than last season's, was all about 'worthiness' and 'deserves', in my opinion.) I think even Stephen was so won over in the end by JT's personality that he couldn't really defend himself: he was too conflicted over having to argue that his gameplay was superior to JT's, when Stephen himself didn't truly believe that. (I think Stephen, rightly, believed that both of them played the best game possible for themselves, and there was no perceived 'coat-tailing' felt within their bromance. But of course, the jury couldn't know that. To try and convince the jury otherwise would have been a betrayal of the bond between them: like Becky turning on Yul!) It did seem like Stephen was liked by the other players, but when he folded so badly in front of the jury, they went with their natural inclination and voted for the 'perfect' player, JT.

And yet, even mikey, unless I misread him, seemed strangely uninspired by the way this season played out. (Or maybe he just didn't care to rub everyone's face in it?) Everybody seemed to be doing the 'right' thing: trying to vote off the 'less deserving' people first -- except for Stephen and JT, of course! Perhaps it was this lack of suspense that made the season seem a little flat. The Bromance, combining the best of all possible attributes for the game of Survivor, simply rolled over the competition. They were never seriously threatened, and once they reached merge, it was a done deal. (Brendan conceded the victory to JT when they first bonded, remember?) Perhaps there can be no satisfaction in victory when it is so easily given, and not earned through the fires of battle, so to speak.

Edited for grammar

[B*O*N*E]

Mr. E that last line is not a quote from Coach is it?  I tend to agree with Jasen.  The bromance was a tight alliance the didn't have a dominate leader.  I think JT and Stephen each knew their strenghts and weaknesses and was able to use each other to advance to the point they did.  I will say that after about the second episode I told myself JT will win this thing.  The last time I felt that strongly about a potential winner was in Earl's season.

[B*O*N*E]

Mr. E that last line is not a quote from Coach is it?  I tend to agree with Jasen.  The bromance was a tight alliance the didn't have a dominate leader.  I think JT and Stephen each knew their strenghts and weaknesses and was able to use each other to advance to the point they did.  I will say that after about the second episode I told myself JT will win this thing.  The last time I felt that strongly about a potential winner was in Earl's season.

[Strategy1st]

That's funny, BONE, since I felt the same way about Stephen being telegraphed as the winner.  He so often would provide the narration for the strategic angle that the alliance was taking, and that usually seems to be a winner thing to do.

I read a very entertaining but short interview between the two here.  Of relevance to this thread are the following quotes:

QUOTE

You would have taken Stephen to the final two no matter what? JT: There was no doubt. Well, maybe I considered Erinn for five minutes! I expected that he’d think about getting rid of me because it was harder for Stephen to carry me to the final two than it was for me to carry Stephen. I can see that and I understand why Stephen would have taken Erinn. But that didn’t stop me from really playing it up and carrying on like I was hurt and disappointed when he admitted that at tribal. Stephen, at that moment it seemed that your friendship with JT was in jeopardy. SF: That’s what I thought, too! I thought we built this incredible bond and we were just ripping it apart. He acted even more miserable than you saw on TV. He was rubbing his face and trying to squeeze out tears, but the minute the light went off, he cracked up! It was good acting on his part. He killed it!

QUOTE

SF: Our minds worked together and that surprised me because we have no life experiences in common and we couldn’t come from more different backgrounds. Yet we approached topics from similar perspectives and our minds work the same. I was an over-worrier and he would keep my paranoia in check. And I would keep his confidence in check and analyze the endgame a little harder. JT: I could talk with him without having to explain things and vice-versa. It was very fun to know I had someone I could trust out there because two votes do more than one. It started out totally strategic and developed into something that will be life long. I couldn’t have done this without him. I will be buying him drinks for the rest of my life!

I've calmed down from my initial reaction to the finale now (I always over-react to Survivor finales.  I'm such a geek!) and am much happier with the outcome.  I'd still have preferred Stephen as a winner, but it's clear that JT was a better actor than I realised, and I'm delighted that the bromance is continuing!

[Strategy1st]

That's funny, BONE, since I felt the same way about Stephen being telegraphed as the winner.  He so often would provide the narration for the strategic angle that the alliance was taking, and that usually seems to be a winner thing to do.

I read a very entertaining but short interview between the two here.  Of relevance to this thread are the following quotes:

QUOTE

You would have taken Stephen to the final two no matter what? JT: There was no doubt. Well, maybe I considered Erinn for five minutes! I expected that he’d think about getting rid of me because it was harder for Stephen to carry me to the final two than it was for me to carry Stephen. I can see that and I understand why Stephen would have taken Erinn. But that didn’t stop me from really playing it up and carrying on like I was hurt and disappointed when he admitted that at tribal. Stephen, at that moment it seemed that your friendship with JT was in jeopardy. SF: That’s what I thought, too! I thought we built this incredible bond and we were just ripping it apart. He acted even more miserable than you saw on TV. He was rubbing his face and trying to squeeze out tears, but the minute the light went off, he cracked up! It was good acting on his part. He killed it!

QUOTE

SF: Our minds worked together and that surprised me because we have no life experiences in common and we couldn’t come from more different backgrounds. Yet we approached topics from similar perspectives and our minds work the same. I was an over-worrier and he would keep my paranoia in check. And I would keep his confidence in check and analyze the endgame a little harder. JT: I could talk with him without having to explain things and vice-versa. It was very fun to know I had someone I could trust out there because two votes do more than one. It started out totally strategic and developed into something that will be life long. I couldn’t have done this without him. I will be buying him drinks for the rest of my life!

I've calmed down from my initial reaction to the finale now (I always over-react to Survivor finales.  I'm such a geek!) and am much happier with the outcome.  I'd still have preferred Stephen as a winner, but it's clear that JT was a better actor than I realised, and I'm delighted that the bromance is continuing!

[rose]

I love your posts Mr. E., always so insightful.
I think most of us agree that either a Stephen win or a JT win would have been satisfactory, we all just have our own preferences, but that's what makes life interesting.

Stephen certainly made some strategic moves; however,  deciding who to vote off next is just one aspect of good strategy.  An equally important aspect is the ability to understand what has to be done to actually win, and Stephen wasn't as accomplished at that as JT was.

As for why it was a unanimous vote, why Stephen didn't get at least one?  It's not so much that no one thought Stephen was deserving or deliberately voted AGAINST him, I just think there wasn't anyone who felt they had any reason to vote against JT.

[rose]

I love your posts Mr. E., always so insightful.
I think most of us agree that either a Stephen win or a JT win would have been satisfactory, we all just have our own preferences, but that's what makes life interesting.

Stephen certainly made some strategic moves; however,  deciding who to vote off next is just one aspect of good strategy.  An equally important aspect is the ability to understand what has to be done to actually win, and Stephen wasn't as accomplished at that as JT was.

As for why it was a unanimous vote, why Stephen didn't get at least one?  It's not so much that no one thought Stephen was deserving or deliberately voted AGAINST him, I just think there wasn't anyone who felt they had any reason to vote against JT.

[Mr. E of Yonago, Japan]

Bone: I was paraphrasing what I believe Coach would say about the lack of (melo)drama this season.

I remember reading one of Jeff Probst's blogs near the end of last season, where he wished for once that the jury would just get over themselves, admit the Finalists played a better game than they did, and be good sports about handing over the million dollars.

Well, TPTB gave Jeff his wish this season, and I am glad for it, but I also have to admit that it might not have made for the best 'television'.

Still, this season did have one of the best group of players post-merge, by which I mean, all of them were playing the game the whole time. Perhaps Taj was the only one who was actually coasting, especially after Tyson's boot, and if she hadn't been complacent, she could have given herself a much better outcome, so, in that respect, she reaped what she had sown.

This season showed us how the game can be played 'sportingly', when everyone is a good sport. The script got away from the typical 'hero, villain, and sweetheart' scenarios that usually take precedent.

[Mr. E of Yonago, Japan]

Bone: I was paraphrasing what I believe Coach would say about the lack of (melo)drama this season.

I remember reading one of Jeff Probst's blogs near the end of last season, where he wished for once that the jury would just get over themselves, admit the Finalists played a better game than they did, and be good sports about handing over the million dollars.

Well, TPTB gave Jeff his wish this season, and I am glad for it, but I also have to admit that it might not have made for the best 'television'.

Still, this season did have one of the best group of players post-merge, by which I mean, all of them were playing the game the whole time. Perhaps Taj was the only one who was actually coasting, especially after Tyson's boot, and if she hadn't been complacent, she could have given herself a much better outcome, so, in that respect, she reaped what she had sown.

This season showed us how the game can be played 'sportingly', when everyone is a good sport. The script got away from the typical 'hero, villain, and sweetheart' scenarios that usually take precedent.

[Cestriano]

I dunno, I don't think any jury has ever been less bitter than the Cook Islands jury.

[Cestriano]

I dunno, I don't think any jury has ever been less bitter than the Cook Islands jury.

[DiNoM]

(Cestriano @ May 22 2009,12:55)

QUOTE

I dunno, I don't think any jury has ever been less bitter than the Cook Islands jury.

Guatamala -gigglz-