Not really. It was all based upon Kyle playing Joe like a fiddle with lies.
There were moves earlier, but that alliance held up a lot in the later game.
One thing has started to annoy me. It used to be mostly only the “Final four”. now it is the final five, final six, final seven, and soon- final 17.
Eva has an idol, which she would play on Joe if needed. Also they were playing a friendly game.
Mitch, Kamila and Kyle vote one of them out.
She won immunity once. Mitch hasnt. 8 players have won individual immunity- Joe X4, Kyle, David, Kamilla and Eva each 1X. Eva also did well in several other challenges. Mitch is the only one who has done little but be likeable.
The three who are slam dunks if the are there without the other two are Eva, Joe and Mitch.
IIRC that was for Sai- who NOBODY liked and got on everyone’s nerves- which is why she was voted out before the jury, Sai was really bad about grudges and hating people due to them. Or at least that is the way the edits showed.
Yes, she was confident enough to not play her idol at the last TC, which of course means a blindside would have been a smart move. If nothing else, had they gotten wind of it it would have flushed the idol.
The minority alliance has been passive enough to let her hold her idol until literally the last possible moment. Eva is now guaranteed final four, and if either she or Joe wins the next challenge, so is Joe. Which will mean game over for everyone else.
I understand this sentiment. But, for me, Eva has done nothing but follow along. And Joe has just bullied and brooded his way to the top. True enough, every person’s vote counts as much as the next person’s, and they are allowing themselves to be bullied but that doesn’t make bullying interesting to watch.
I’d rather not see Joe win (and certainly not Eva) but if the other players are not ballsey enough to play to their potential, then so be it.
Joe’s at least done stuff to get to the end like winning so many immunity challenges. Eva just glommed onto the strong men and had her own Very Special Episode.
Eva won or did well in some challenges. Joe did Extremely well in challenges. Just becuase they aint lying and backstabbing doesnt mean they arent playing the game well. Those are just a small part of the game, and often lose votes from the jury.
Well, If DrDeth were on the jury, it would mean something. We don’t know how much it might mean to the people who are on this jury, since there are no objective metrics for the final vote.
I like that unpredictability. It may be the only thing that will make the end of this season interesting.
I think when evaluating player quality, you have to take into account the skills and limitations that player is bringing to the table, and how they maximized their skills and limited their liabilities when executing their strategy.
I think Eva was pretty upfront about both: she has a good level of athleticism for a smaller player, and she has a very big liability in her inability to accurately detect when people are lying to her (this is her own admission, so it could be inaccurate).
So her plan was very clear: make a two-person partnership with someone she could trust implicitly, ideally someone that was likely to win multiple challenges. And, to be honest, she absolutely nailed that strategy.
I can totally understand not valuing that strategy as much as a more dynamic social/tactical strategy, but Eva just doesn’t have the skills to play that kind of game, and I think it’s kinda cool to see her find another way to make it through.
I do think it’s a bit reductive/sexist (not accusing anyone in this thread!) to claim that any strategy where a weaker or female player makes a social connection to a physically stronger male player or players and uses that connection to advance in the game is a bad or less “honorable” strategy.
Uh, I have to bootleg it, but if you have not seen Australian Survivor, it is the superior show at this point in almost every way…even the host is equal to Jeff. Love Jeff, though.
They get better personalities, build superior challenges, and have a lot better game overall. My wife and I enjoy it quite a bit more.
Not that you’ve accused me, but I’ve never intimated that that strategy is less honorable. There have been many past players who have used this gambit very successfully but, they were also involved in the strategy of who should go and why. You don’t have to be physically strong to voice your opinion - or have an understanding of game play. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t heard her discuss strategy at all. In fact, when it was suggested to vote out David she had the deer in the headlights look - not understanding why it was a power play.
“Coat-tailing” without contributing has rarely worked for anyone in the past.
And while it’s true I don’t like Eva as a player, my frusration stems mostly from the other players not breaking up the power couple. That’s Survivor 101.
Way upthread, madmonk nailed it:
(Emphasis mine)
And yet, here we are at the end and they are still together.
It is more than nothing. Outplay remember? So, claiming she has done nothing is not true. Yes, she hasnt backstabbed or lied a lot.
We dont know who the final three are yet. Remember, David and Shauhine are pissed that Joe, Kyle and Eva turned against that, And they will work on the rest of the jury- one of the weaknesses of Survivor, the jury members collaborate, leading to near unanimous votes season after season. That is why we- the viewers’ pretty much know who is gonna win and who is the goat (not G.O.A.T). If Mitch gets into the final three, things might get weird.
A lot of fans want to see blindsides, backstabbing and lying, which is why “villains” have been- sadly- popular.
Africa and Brazil were really bad. The Producers have a base now in Fiji and a deal with the government.
Again, Eve has contributed.
Eva had two advantages, won once and Joe kept winning. There wasnt a lot of opportunities.
If Mitch gets into the final three, things might get weird.