Without further ado -
Final Standings:
Fifth Place - Goody Two-Shoes (28 points):
1. Good Russell (5 pts)
2. Liz (3 pts)
3. Kelly (20 pts)
Fourth Place - Pizza Place (73 points):
1. John (28 pts)
2. Brett (42 pts)
3. Ashley (3 pts)
Third Place - Cutesiness (83 points):
1. Monica (22 pts)
2. Mick (29 pts)
3. Laura (32 pts)
Second Place - Dachui (101 points):
1. Jaison (29 pts)
2. Dave (22 pts)
3. Natalie (50 pts)
Winner - Evil 'Box (126 points):
1. Evil Russell (72 pts)
2. Erik (32 pts)
3. Shambo (22 pts)
For our pool there was no blind side at the end. But as with the rest of the season, the show finished with an oh-so-satisfying blind side. Dachui put in a valiant effort at the end, getting almost half their points from Natalie's win, but it just wasn't enough to overcome the immunity-idol machine that was Evil Russell.
This season we consciously decided that we wanted it to be possible for someone to win the show and not have that be the deciding factor in who would win overall. And it actually turned out to be true. Which is kind of ironic since Danielle was one of the biggest supporters of the change in point amounts. There has already been some discussion of changes in the point system for the next season (see my future blog for thoughts on how awesome that's going to be). Suggestions such as earning and losing points based on players' success at the auction certainly seem entertaining.
For the record, here are the total number of points LOST for sitting out challenges:
Pizza Place: -6 points total
John -4 pts
Brett -2 pts
Goody Two-Shoes: -8 points total
Good Russell -2 pts
Kelly -6 pts
Cutesiness: -10 points total
Monica -4 pts
Laura -6 pts
Dachui: -10 points total
Dave -8 pts
Natalie -2 pts
Evil 'Box: -13 points total
Evil Russell -5 pts (but that's because of an idol misplay)
Shambo -8 pts
The difference seems negligible in this case. If anything, we should be grateful for the negative points, because it helped hold the leaders in check, if just a little bit.
A more interesting topic, though, is the fact that Natalie, a coat tail rider in many peoples' opinions, beat one of the craftiest players in the game, Evil Russell. I watched with a large group of survivor fans, and I think that all of us were confident that if Evil Russ made it to the final 3 he'd beat everyone else easily. How wrong we were!
I know a lot of people are claiming that Evil Russ was more deserving of the win because he set up most of the blind sides that happened, and that Natalie wouldn't have gotten that far if it weren't for him. I disagree. We have no idea what Natalie would have done if Russell wasn't on her tribe. She adapted to her situation and chose a strategy that optimized her longevity in the game. (I guess that's obvious since she won.) Some people claim that riding coattails isn't a strategy, but from my count, it worked for 7 of the 19 winners in Survivor so far: Tina (Australia season 2), Vecepia (Marquesas, season 4), Jenna (Amazon, season 6), Amber (All-Stars, season 8), Chris (Vanuatu, season 9), Bob (Gabon, season 17), and now Natalie.
I think coattails is a valid strategy, but players need the right counterpart to make it work. Namely, the counterpart needs to piss off a lot of people, while the coattail rider needs to be sweet and gain friendships. That way they make the jury vote more on an emotional basis than a strategic basis. Which, in the end, is just as strategic as the strategist's game... just on a different level. It's a symbiotic relationship in a way - the strategist needs the coattail riders to get enough votes and protect them from other strategists voting them off, and the coattail riders need the strategist to take the spotlight and the fire when it comes their way.
I could go on about this, but I used up a good amount of time researching previous seasons, and now it's almost time for me to go home. I will add one thing that I was very wrong about. It felt like lately there was an advantage to coming into the merge with a minority... somehow the majority alliance seemed to keep cannibalizing themselves before dismantling the other tribe, thus giving them the advantage. So I looked into it, and so far as I can tell, this has only worked for 5 winners: Chris (Vanuatu, season 9), Danni (Guatemala, season 11), Yul (Cook Islands, season 13), J.T. (Tocantins, season 18), and now Natalie. So I was wrong about that... but it does seem to be a more recent trend, at least for now.
Final Individual Power Rankings: The Most Impressive Wins
1. Richard Hatch
2. Earl
3. Parvati
4. Yul
5. Amber
6. Tom
7. J.T.
8. Brian
9. Tina
10. Natalie
11. Danni
12. Todd
13. Sandra
14. Bob
15. Jenna
16. Ethan
17. Aras
18. Vecepia
19. Chris
p.s. Congrats Bag!
p.p.s. Excellent showing for the rooks, congrats for a strong 2nd place, Dachui!
p.p.p.s. I have no idea what the standings are now... can someone verify this for me? Number of wins: Michal (2), Doug (2), Bag (2), Tom (1)*, Alia (1), Dachui (0)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Good post Pickett. I definitely cannot argue that Coattails is a strategy that wins, but I'm not sure Natalie played a super-conscious Coattails strategy (a la Bob Gabon). I think she is pretty weak and naive and really didn't know what the hell she was doing. That's what makes me not like her win at all. During the interviews she never talked in depth about her strategy - all she said was "This was the hardest thing I've ever had to do." and "Nobody thought I could do this." I think that is bullshit. From a fan perspective, watching someone who was not Russell win is completely lame. He played such an amazing game the whole time until the cocky ending. I would rather have had Brett win this season and lose the fantasy myself because at least he showed some game when it counted. Anyway, I also want to point out that OUR fantasy Survivor certainly does not reward Coattails as Natalie had FIVE points prior to her win. Five.
There is a vast difference between riding coattails because you choose to and riding them because that's all you are capable of.
Susie from RW:RR Challenges is a great example of the former. Natalie seemed to me (from limited watching) to fit more into the latter.
grizz
my thoughts:
-evil russ WAS an excellent player and played the game really well in many aspects...except the social aspect. he definitely outwitted (is that a word?), he definitely outlasted, and he definitely outplayed. but while those are three important "themes" of survivor, there's more to it than that, and russ let that part of his game slide. many of the people he back-stabbed (i.e. lied to) he really didn't need to (john, brett, jaison). but he did it to feed his ego it seemed. so while he deserved the win from many viewers' perspectives, its the jury who decides, and in that sense, he did NOT play the game well
-with regard to natalie not deserving....here's a question for you -- if it had been a vote of either Russ or Mick, who do you think would have won? in my mind, i think people would have actually voted for russ over mick. and b/c of this, i think this shows that "ratalie" did actually play a pretty good game. notice not a single vote for mick who could also be called a "coat-tailer", right?
A lot of the arguments for Natalie seem to surround what others did not do instead of what she consciously did. I agree with Courtney that Mick would have lost to Russell as his interview answers were terrible and the jury seemed to have a lot of disdain for him. I also agree that Russell botched a lot of the social game and that hurt him in the end. But my problem with Natalie's win is that she didn't do anything! She only won because Russell and apparently to some extent Mick did not play a good social game. She was just the lesser of the three evils because she was nice and made less money than the other two. While people do vote with their emotions, it would have been nice if they looked at who deserved to win based on tangible evidence instead of relying on childish popularity.
I do think that the final vote was more against ER than for Nat, but I'm not sure that it is fair to say that she didn't do anything. ER was pretty amazing in his ability to eliminate the competition, but overall, he didn't play a good and smart and complete game or he would have won with all the other assets he brought to the table. For instance, he went out of his way to lie to people when there really was no strategic reason to do so. In the end, that just pissed people off and made sure that they didn't vote for him. With regard to Nat., what she did do was play a great social game, and that is a positive, not a negative or doing nothing, and she was honest and straight with people as opposed to ER. I agree with a lot of what Bag said. When the winner was declared I felt like it was the wrong vote, but the more I think about it the more I think it was the right one. I guess within the broader cultural context, it is great that being honest and a straight shooter and one who builds community instead of one who tears it down and poisons the well are wonderful values to affirm rather than lying, pettiness and screwing everyone over even when it is totally non-productive to do so. What I'm interested to see is how this vote might influence future seasons. Will people be playing more with an eye to the social game and honesty? To bad they shot this next episode before this one was broadcast and dissected. Still, it was a very interesting season, all in all. And of course, Merry Christmas!
ok, my final thoughts:
natalie's problem is, how do you verbalize the social game she played? and how do you do it in a way that wont piss off the jury more? for instance, she totally played up the brett vote by connecting with him in a religious way. she played up the female galu votes for her by connecting with them. but how do you say that to the people who are voting for you? it's almost better not to say anything than to say something that might make those people vote against you, ya know?
what it comes down to is, the reason why she got votes and mick didnt (because you could say they were both "coat-tailers") is that she connected with people and played a better social game than mick. so i dont think you can say she did nothing, cause she obviously did, otherwise some votes would have gone to mick as well...
also, after seeing ER's response to the final vote (both on the finale show and on the morning show), i'm kinda glad he didnt win. he's a very very sore loser. and an egomaniac.
however, that being said, i would love to see him in next season. however, i doubt that will happen due to timing :(
on another note, how do i get into the pool?!? :)
Post a Comment