Honestly, I'm conflicted.
So many people are saying that Abry deserved it.
She played the best game.
But did she?
Did she play a better game than Jonathan?
That's what I'm struggling with.
I think they were both strategic.
I think they both made big game moves.
I think they both fought hard and made good points in the final tribal council.
Abry only won ONE immunity challenge.
But it was the last one.
Arguably, the most important one.
I think Abry was well-liked by the jury.
Jonathan, not so much.
We don't get to see what goes down at Ponderosa.
We aren't privy to conversations and strategizing.
Is it a disappointing season when the person who wins the show only wins one challenge?
I'm a huge fan of Cirie, and she never wins anything.
I was thrilled that she won the fan vote.
So why wasn't I thrilled that Abry won?
In one sense, it's cool that someone can win without being a competition beast.
The goal of Survivor is to "outplay, outwit, and outlast"
You don't HAVE to win challenges to accomplish that.
One of my other favorite players of all time is Cochran.
I think the only challenge he won in his two seasons was a gross food eating challenge.
Yet he played a masterful game and won by a unanimous vote the second time that he played.
So, is it a popularity thing for me?
Am I not thrilled that Abry won because I like Jonathan better?
All I can say is that I think Jonathan played a better game.
I also think he presented a strong case at the final tribal council.
I was surprised and disappointed that he only got three votes.
I liked many of the players this season: Cirie, Jonathan, Joe, Kamilla, Kyle, Q, Mike, Charlie, Kyle, Tiff, Cody
It was a fun season.
librarianintx
No comments:
Post a Comment