The jury's kind of vicious tonight on Survivor.

What a parade of jackassery. Between Lisi's belittlement of Dreamz's intellect and Cassandra's capacities, Alex shouting down Cassandra's response to his uninformed, inane question and his implied assertion that Dreamz was a lesser role model than he, Boo's "What an awful Christian you are-iness" and the chunk of also-rans hung up on some niggling aspect of the fact that the finalists didn't offer up their bodies as willing sacrifices, I had to pause to complain to my totally uninterested friends about how much I was being annoyed. I was unconvinced that some jury members were as odious as their edits suggested but no, they were. Especially Alex. God, he sucks. And this whole 'Yau-Man was the best player here' talk lodged itself firmly up my nose. Had Yau-Man been the best player, he wouldn't have come fourth.

So, yeah, I was sad to see Cassandra misjudge the jury so spectacularly but I had been strongly suspecting Earl for the win since it became clear that his 'masculine yet generous mastermind' edit wasn't quite aligned with reality. I'm glad he did though, he seems lovely.

I think Yao was the best player but everyone caught on (which happens) and then he wasn't able to get immunity, which has been the downfall of smart players before.

I wanted Earl to win if Yao wasn't. Earl was smart and never let on about how he and Yao were working together. He did vote for Yao but he was sort of forced into it, if he had it would have revealed his alliance and then he was in danger of being the final person kicked off (I think at that point they were still assuming 2 were going to the final).

I think Earl was the best player because he won. I think Yau-Man fell because he failed to cultivate a support system stronger than the communal urge to boot him. Which is... all I really said there was what happened and that's because, for me, where one places is the only measure of how well one played in such a fluid game; if you come fifth, that's because you did or didn't do something important the person that came fourth did or didn't do.

He did vote for Yao but he was sort of forced into it, if he had it would have revealed his alliance and then he was in danger of being the final person kicked off

It was fairly well known that Yau-Man and Earl were aligned and it was announced at the last immunity challenge that it would be an F3. I'd like to think Earl was happy to boot Yau-Man though; Yau needed to be not there for Earl to win.

if you come fifth, that's because you did or didn't do something important the person that came fourth did or didn't do.

Oh, I think there's more to it than that. Take Michelle - that shake up that got her out wasn't her doing, and impacted both herself and a number of other players. While losing certainly does lose you a few points in the final rankings, there are elements of the game that can bite someone out of nowhere, and conversely put the "undeserving" up a few notches. Merit doesn't guarantee a win, but neither does winning retroactively make you a good strategist.

ETA: I don't think the extent of Earl and Yao Man's alliance was really understood, though its existence certainly was no secret. "Dreamz", for instance, really didn't get how much of a fourth wheel he was in that alliance at the end. Not that that's a very high bar, I know. But Alex also seemed not to see it.

Take Michelle - that shake up that got her out wasn't her doing, and impacted both herself and a number of other players.

That was unfortunate for Michelle but it was also an aberration in the game. And she could have been saved by Yau-Man, Earl and Cassandra had they thrown the challenge. And she could have agitated against Stacy or brokered a deal with Mookie and Dreamz rather than twiddling her thumbs as Alex pinned the world's unsubtlest target to her forehead. Something as simple as 'Stacey hates you, Dreamz' would have kept her in the game.

but neither does winning retroactively make you a good strategist.

I agree but I don't think a good player necessarily has to be a good strategist; winning makes you the best of all the contestants because, whether intellectually or instinctively, it shows you were the most attuned to the vagaries of the game and the specific players involved. Yau-Man may have only been a light cajoling of Dreamz away from winning but he misjudged and didn't. I guess my essential point is that while you can never fully realize the ripples your behaviour will cause, if you're voted off it's always because of your behaviour.

winning makes you the best of all the contestants because, whether intellectually or instinctively, it shows you were the most attuned to the vagaries of the game and the specific players involved.

I don't agree with this at all. Due to the nature of the game and the way it has played out over the seasons, there are a number of players who have made it to the final four/three just because they were non-threatening. And then some of them have made it to the final two due to the luck of the draw with the last challenge. Kudos to them for making it, but I don't think it makes them good players. Some have done that as a strategy, but most of them I think were clueless.

Yao was a really smart player, he made a lot of very smart moves, but once you get down to 4 players it starts to be obvious who has played the best game and at that point the smartest player has to start winning immunity challenges because there is a giant target on their backs.

Yao really need to win that challenge and he didn't, he thought he made a deal with Dreamz that would secure him Immunity anyway but it didn't work out. It was a smart move.

Merit doesn't guarantee a win, but neither does winning retroactively make you a good strategist.

I agree. I think it's been a very long time since the best strategic player has won the game, actually -- there's a herd instinct now to vote out the smart players that didn't exist in the first few seasons, and the winners too often end up being people who simply weren't threatening enough to be voted out earlier. And that's without taking the value of immunity challenges into account -- is Yau-Man a worse player than Dreamz because his arms aren't as strong? I don't think so.

Being new to Survivor, one of the things that really hooked me last season, and that I enjoyed about this season, was that the people who were really players made it a very long way into the game. Yul and Becky last season came to play, and they made it all the way to the final three. And Yul, by far the best strategist from last season, won. And Johnathan lasted a lot longer than I thought he would and managed to do some damage to the dominant young and hot alliance while he was at it. Then this season, I thought that most folks were trying to really be players . . . some more successfully than others. But really, there wasn't anyone like Ozzy this season who wound up just being a beast at immunity challenges. There was flipping and strategizing all over the place. I think I would hate seeing a season where all the interesting players were booted and it just wound up being a lot of non-threatening hangers-on and challenge monsters.