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.

And Cereal Post (I haven't had one of these in yonks!)

Mindy Doo singing "Nutbush City Limits" tonight on AI was the highlight of my month! She is made of awesome and if she doesn't win, there is something just not right with the world. I also loved Blake tonight and I am normally not a fan. Loved the "Roxanne" cuz that is just a great song and he did it up right. I had forgotten that he could actually sing sometimes when the mood strikes. Loved the Maroon 5. Thought it sounded better than the original. I even liked the crazy Robin Thicke song, although I thought that was his weakest one vocally. Did not like Jordin at all tonight. I hope she is gone tomorrow. Melinda/Blake would be a heck of a final. I would love to hear their takes on the same crap final song (which should be coming with side of extra crappy with the whole AI songwriting contest).

I'm finally catching up on some old episodes of Dirty Jobs that I pulled off my Tivo. This episode is wine making and a cattle farm. I don't watch this show nearly often enough.

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.

I don't think they were clueless so much as they were thinking 'Acting in such a way has kept me from elimination so I'll continue to act like that.' In many cases, it hasn't been much more sophisticated but since that's the fundamental thread that informs every player's behaviour from a Yul to a Lydia, it's difficult to criticize it, especially when it's being pretty successful.

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,

If being the best strategic player is getting you booted, then, I think, you're not actually the best strategic player because your strategy isn't conducive to staying in the game.

is Yau-Man a worse player than Dreamz because his arms aren't as strong? I don't think so.

I think he's a worse player because he didn't create a comfortable position for himself in the game and his arms weren't as strong. Yau-Man fudged around with aggressive deal-making which didn't help him much when he should have been approaching Boo and Earl with talk of a Dreamzless final four.

I am interested though in finding out what the original final immunity challenge was going to be before the producers changed it so Dreamz would win and the deal drama could happen.