Amber may have won on ASS but she may not have won in front of another jury. Her strategy was good for ASS but not necessarily good for another Survivor show.Originally Posted by PIMguy
The ASS jury were made up very poor players. They didn't like the player who showed them up. He wasn't rude to anyone but he offended them by outwitting them. So they gave the win to the player who was mediocre.
Amber was the better player at the end because she was the worse player than Rob throughout the show. Second best will do it for this sort of jury.
This also explains why it's hard for her to explain exactly what she did that was so brilliant on the show - all she can say about her strategy is that she rode Rob's coattails hard. Even Jenna L can take credit for doing some strategizing (setting up Rob and Tom), although she was more vocal and brash than Amber.
She was just fortunate because this jury was bitter and voted for the person who did less ouwitting, and outplaying than the other player. In ASS if you played the best ( in outwitting and outplaying) and made it to f2, you would lose to the player who did this second best.
The best overall strategy in ASS was to be the worse player than your f2 partner, the worse player in the sense that you could not play the game as well as your partner in getting both of you to f2.The only person who can claim to have had the best strategy is the winner. End of story. Rob's strategy was good, but not good enough due to the sensitivity of the jury members. Nice try, Rob.
But once actually having made it to f2 mostly by the efforts of your partner, you then became the better player of the f2, as judged by the jury. They don't like the player who outshone them. Lex barely remembered who Amber was. Amber was very good at being mediocre, not terrible, not great, just mediocre.
Oxymoronically she won by being the less competent player of the final pair.Amber won so she can claim that her strategy was the best and she has historical data to prove it (SHE WON!).She has to go around and keep emphasizing the supposed 'negatives' in his game because if she were to talk about the positives in HER game there would hardly be any.Now, I don't necessarily disagree that Amber is showing bad taste in putting Rob down, but that's her choice. Should be an interesting marriage.
If it had been left up to her to make all the decisions, I doubt she would have made the kinds of decisions needed to last in the game. In Australia she did no strategizing or switching of alliances. She's no Tina (another UTR player but one who had much input into the decision-making). She is too meek, polite and obedient to be anything other than a hanger-on. Even her helpful suggestions were ignored.
Her win goes to prove that if the jury is made up of less intelligent or less OTR-friendly players, a less competent player can win the game.
She lucked out with the jury.