Many feel that there was no way Stephen could have beaten JT. However, failing to get a single vote must rank as one of the worst ever jury performances.
What could he have done to at least make it competitive?
Here's my take:
He should have started at the F3 TC. Instead of waffling on and making Probst say that he was making Erinn's case for her, he could have been decisive and point out that JT had no choice but to take him to F2. He could have pointed out that not to take him would have meant a negation of the strong, warrior opponent image JT had cultivated. He should've pointed out that even Coach would've found it hard to vote for JT if he took the 'cowardly' option and picked the weaker player. That would've shown him to be decisive and strong in the face of danger - something apprently valued by this jury.
At FTC:
1. Brendan's question: Having opened with the personal growth theme, he had no choice but to defend it in Brendan's question. He should have pointed out that underdog victories are valued much higher because the victors have to fight much harder to overcome their natural physical disadvantage. Far from relying on a handicap for assistance, underdogs like him have to rely on actually overcoming the handicap of physical talent. That there is more merit in working hard to improve than on just relying on what one is already born with.
Given Brendan's and JT's specific references to sports and to football, he might have mentioned that footballers catching a football with difficulty doesn't result in a greater score than having it easily caught by gifted footballers, but the most memorable victories are still by those who were, on paper, less gifted. All Stephen had to do was bring up the Miracle on Ice. Or, when JT brought up football, Namath's Jets beating the Colts and the Giants beating New England. Granted, he didn't know who Eddie George was, so he probably couldn't mention those specific instances. However, the general principle that underdog victories are more valued was a sound response to Brendan's question.
2. Erinn's question: He should have reminded Erinn that she had to navigate herself in and out of alliances almost as much as he had. That if there was one person who should understand the importance of flexible moves it should be her. And that she should know that because they apparently spent a good part of the game discussing that very thing.
3. Debbie's question: This, more than any other, was the question that killed Stephen. I think his best chance would have been to throw it back on Debbie and pointed out that, even if he had decided to take Erinn, it would have amounted to exactly the same strategy that she herself had used. She had stuck with her closest ally, (with whom they hopefully they would be remain great friends) until it was no longer possible to do so. 'At least', he could have told Debbie, 'I would've stuck with JT almost till the end'.
Then he could've really turned the screws on and suggested to Debbie that her vote should go to him because to do otherwise would be to invalidate her own strategy and contribution to the game. That if she voted for JT she would be admitting that dumping Coach was a low act that deserved contempt.
4. Coach's question: As with Debbie, he had nothing to lose here. This was a freebie which he could've used to indirectly talk to the other jurors. He could've said that the warrior codes that Coach subscribes to all mention respect for one's opponent to be one of the most important qualities an honorable warrior can have. And he could've therefore asked Coach which one of them had treated him with more respect. He should have reminded him that it was JT who lied to his face, that it was JT who sent him to exile when he'd asked not be sent, that it JT who appeared to show the least concern when he was finally vanquished, that he (Stephen) really appreciated the heroism involved with how Coach played, blah, blah, blah.
5. Sierra: Despite the non-question, he should have interjected to compliment Sierra on her ability to survive and on her honesty in the face of insurmountable odds. More than any other juror, Sierra needed to be validated. Then, he should given details of how he took control of the game, especially taking out Tyson, the game's strongest player.
6. Tyson's question: He could've pandered both to Tyson's vanity and to his appreciation of good trategy by saying that although he was responsible for his ouster, it had to be done because Tyson was the stongest player there, as evidenced by his challenge wins and that taking him out was a testament to his awesomeness(!). He should then have given other examples where he took the lead on strategy.
7. Taj's question: This is the juror to whom grovelling would've been in order. Lots of reminders of how he was the first to approach her when she was down, how he took her to the reward, how he loved her, how they were going to be friends forever, how he was sorry but he let himself be swayed by JT thinking that she would be too tough to beat at F3. All Stephen needed was to channel Chris when responding to Julie in Vanuatu.
Any thoughts?
Here's my take:
He should have started at the F3 TC. Instead of waffling on and making Probst say that he was making Erinn's case for her, he could have been decisive and point out that JT had no choice but to take him to F2. He could have pointed out that not to take him would have meant a negation of the strong, warrior opponent image JT had cultivated. He should've pointed out that even Coach would've found it hard to vote for JT if he took the 'cowardly' option and picked the weaker player. That would've shown him to be decisive and strong in the face of danger - something apprently valued by this jury.
At FTC:
1. Brendan's question: Having opened with the personal growth theme, he had no choice but to defend it in Brendan's question. He should have pointed out that underdog victories are valued much higher because the victors have to fight much harder to overcome their natural physical disadvantage. Far from relying on a handicap for assistance, underdogs like him have to rely on actually overcoming the handicap of physical talent. That there is more merit in working hard to improve than on just relying on what one is already born with.
Given Brendan's and JT's specific references to sports and to football, he might have mentioned that footballers catching a football with difficulty doesn't result in a greater score than having it easily caught by gifted footballers, but the most memorable victories are still by those who were, on paper, less gifted. All Stephen had to do was bring up the Miracle on Ice. Or, when JT brought up football, Namath's Jets beating the Colts and the Giants beating New England. Granted, he didn't know who Eddie George was, so he probably couldn't mention those specific instances. However, the general principle that underdog victories are more valued was a sound response to Brendan's question.
2. Erinn's question: He should have reminded Erinn that she had to navigate herself in and out of alliances almost as much as he had. That if there was one person who should understand the importance of flexible moves it should be her. And that she should know that because they apparently spent a good part of the game discussing that very thing.
3. Debbie's question: This, more than any other, was the question that killed Stephen. I think his best chance would have been to throw it back on Debbie and pointed out that, even if he had decided to take Erinn, it would have amounted to exactly the same strategy that she herself had used. She had stuck with her closest ally, (with whom they hopefully they would be remain great friends) until it was no longer possible to do so. 'At least', he could have told Debbie, 'I would've stuck with JT almost till the end'.
Then he could've really turned the screws on and suggested to Debbie that her vote should go to him because to do otherwise would be to invalidate her own strategy and contribution to the game. That if she voted for JT she would be admitting that dumping Coach was a low act that deserved contempt.
4. Coach's question: As with Debbie, he had nothing to lose here. This was a freebie which he could've used to indirectly talk to the other jurors. He could've said that the warrior codes that Coach subscribes to all mention respect for one's opponent to be one of the most important qualities an honorable warrior can have. And he could've therefore asked Coach which one of them had treated him with more respect. He should have reminded him that it was JT who lied to his face, that it was JT who sent him to exile when he'd asked not be sent, that it JT who appeared to show the least concern when he was finally vanquished, that he (Stephen) really appreciated the heroism involved with how Coach played, blah, blah, blah.
5. Sierra: Despite the non-question, he should have interjected to compliment Sierra on her ability to survive and on her honesty in the face of insurmountable odds. More than any other juror, Sierra needed to be validated. Then, he should given details of how he took control of the game, especially taking out Tyson, the game's strongest player.
6. Tyson's question: He could've pandered both to Tyson's vanity and to his appreciation of good trategy by saying that although he was responsible for his ouster, it had to be done because Tyson was the stongest player there, as evidenced by his challenge wins and that taking him out was a testament to his awesomeness(!). He should then have given other examples where he took the lead on strategy.
7. Taj's question: This is the juror to whom grovelling would've been in order. Lots of reminders of how he was the first to approach her when she was down, how he took her to the reward, how he loved her, how they were going to be friends forever, how he was sorry but he let himself be swayed by JT thinking that she would be too tough to beat at F3. All Stephen needed was to channel Chris when responding to Julie in Vanuatu.
Any thoughts?
