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.
One could also say that Rob's strategy worked for this show, (for final two), but not necessarily for another Survivor show. Like, oh, the one he was on the first time... :lol
Originally Posted by Gher
This is my point. You like Rob's way of playing, and that's wonderful, but it doesn't mean that it is the BEST way of playing. It hasn't worked on a previous Survivor, and other ways of playing have worked in other Survivors. It's a matter of opinion and what kind of strategy an individual respects.
The jury didn't drop out of thin air. Rob, in part, created that jury and their feelings toward him. I find it curious that from posts I've read, that people seem to think Rob is responsible for all the scheming and strategizing, but not responsible for the negativity that resulted from that scheming and strategizing. He made his bed, and he had to lie in it.
Originally Posted by Gher
Deserving to Win
The close vote indicated that the jury was thinking at least somewhat with its head. It was, in a large way, reminiscent [sp.] of Richard Hatch's win and his theory towards the jury. Hatch said that it was not supposed to be a popularity contest, nor was the jury supposed to give the money to whomever they liked better. The money is supposed to go to the player that outwitted, outlasted, and outplayed the other players. HOW one does that is not relevant. Sandra as much as said that she did nothing besides not tick anyone off. Vecepia was pretty much the same. Tina played pretty much the same game as Hatch but was just 'nicer' about it.
I don't think Amber is being 'greedy' when she says Rob deserves the other $1M. Deserving the money in this case is not about who's the nicest, who's going to give the most to charity, who got screwed the worst, or who the audience generally feels sorry for. Deserving prize money means having played the game the best. The NFL didn't give additional money to the Carolina Panthers merely because they played the Super Bowl very well, the only ones that got winners' money were the Patriots because they won the game.
Well, actually it worked just great for Brian in Thailand. Rob modified the way he played the game this time. He was much less outwardly annoying, deciding to keep those comments to his confessionals.
Originally Posted by touque
Brian backstabbed and infuriated his jury as well. They weren't friends to begin with though, so I think they got over it slightly better than this jury. The vote was far closer than it should have been, and that season's "Amber" who was Clay, nearly won it himself, even though he did even less than Amber did.
It did work for Brian. I agree. But I still think Clay lost that one because of the way he acted at the final tribal.
Originally Posted by Bill
My point was:
YOU liked Rob's way of playing the game, great. Doesn't make it necessarily better than Amber's.
It's a matter of opinion. If Rupert had won that one immunity challenge, he would probably have a million already. Dumb of Rob to let someone that well liked get so close to the prize.
Eh, I am not saying I liked the way Rob played necessarily. I think against any competent group of players, and no idiotic Lex there to pave the way, that Robmer would have been blasted by the middle of the game.
What I am saying is that there is no question Rob played far better than Amber, and she says so herself in the jury questioning repeatedly pointing out she was there by luck.
Rob a pyscologist?
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not but when Rob was on Regis and Kelly a few weeks ago he said that he got a degree in Psycology. Then he became a construction worker. ???
Why would he pursue construction if he has a pyscology degree?
Psychology degrees are a dime a dozen nowadays (no disrespect to any with psych degrees). To get any decent work in the field, you usually need to go on to a masters and/or PhD. I would imagine Rob was needing the cash so he went for the quick fix.
You never know; I didn't figure out until after it was too late that getting a degree in visual arts isn't a real good way to support yourself if you don't want to teach and you don't want to run all over the country to promote youself (with no guarantee of any sucess), nor are you interested in being a 'starving artist'.
Originally Posted by laura000
Besides, some construction workers, for instance steel workers or tower crane operators, even good finishing carpenters make quite a bit of money! And there's always the possibility that Rob's Dad or another relative owns the construction company.
There could be any number of reasons.
I loved this Survivor over the others.
I was a Rob and Amber fan right from the start. I am glad she won and even happier that it ended up in a romance.
Looking forward to the next one and right now I am having a Survivor withdrawl!!
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.