Since Wednesday night's Survivor: Kaoh Rong finale MOST of the talk on the Survivor Facebook page and other social media has been about how Aubry should have beaten Michele at the FTC. Let me be clear for a second. If I was on that jury I too would have cast my vote for Aubry. In my opinion she played a SLIGHTLY better game than Michele.
However, I believe that they were far and away the two best players this season. No question. It was wonderful to see them both make the FTC. And the jury decided that Michele was more worthy. I do not question that decision and have ranked Michele just inside the top half of winners.
In fact, I rarely "question" a jury's decision. They were out there, experienced the contestants' game play first hand, 24-7. We get a tiny 45 minute peak for every three days. Based on those tiny 45 minute peaks alone there have been 7 seasons where I would have voted for a non-winning finalist (name of season, then who I would have voted instead of who actually won) (Australia--Colby instead of Tina, All Stars--Rob instead of Amber, Gabon--Sugar instead of Bob, Samoa--Russell instead of Natalie, Heroes vs Villains--Parvati instead of Sandra, South Pacific--Coach instead of Sophie, Kaoh Rong--Aubry instead of Michele). However, only two of those times, do I believe the jury actually made the WRONG decision: Samoa and Heroes vs Villains. Both those seasons it was EXTREMELY clear to me that the wrong person won and the winner played a MUCH more lackluster game than the runner up. In fact, both seasons several jury members that voted for the winner admitted that if they had a chance to redo their vote they would have voted for the runner-up.
However, the other five seasons I mentioned I do not think that the jury made the wrong decision, and if I was actually out there, I very well may have voted for the winner too. This season is absolutely no exception. Michele and Aubry both played very good games. From my armchair, I preferred Aubry's style of play. It was flashier and she had more moves that were "hers". However, Michele was truly a triple threat (physical, social and also strategic) and deserved the win. Hands down, no question.
When someone wins four challenges, makes relationships with everyone on the jury including people she wasn't voting with (Scot and Jason), successfully rides the middle ground, makes several subtle and one not so subtle (voting out her ally Julia) strategic moves, evicts the correct person off the jury and performs well at FTC but people still rant about her being an "unworthy" winner, it bugs the heck out of me. Natalie White rode Russell's coattails and SORT OF blindsided Erik C. Russell played one of the most masterful strategic games ever in Samoa. Natalie W is an unworthy winner. Comparing Michele to Nat White is like comparing a Holiday Inn to a Motel 6 because you are bitter that the Hampton didn't win. C'mon people, we just had a great season of Survivor, a great finale and a WORTHY winner. Let's celebrate like we have all season and not pout that the second (or arguably first) best player won!
Final thoughts: Michele played a very good game and was a deserving winner of this excellent Survivor season. Aubry also played a very good game and would also have been a deserving winner. Because Aubry was better TV a lot of people wish she had won but all things weighed, they overall played equally well. Michele would be a worthy inclusion on an all-winners season.
No comments:
Post a Comment