Had Amanda played in an earlier season against Parvati, she likely would have won.
Now, Survivor juries reward double-dealing, deceitful backstabbers, as it is seen as strategic play, whereas Amanda's loyal and physical game is no longer seen to be as active. Amanda stayed loyal to her main alliances (Todd, Parvati) and that cost her the game. I think Peih-Gee said it best in China... if a player can make it to the same position playing honourably and loyally, they deserve it more than someone who got far lying, backstabbing, etc.
Just my opinion. It's all part of the game, and I realize there's no way to change what people perceive to be good gameplay.
Now, Survivor juries reward double-dealing, deceitful backstabbers, as it is seen as strategic play, whereas Amanda's loyal and physical game is no longer seen to be as active. Amanda stayed loyal to her main alliances (Todd, Parvati) and that cost her the game. I think Peih-Gee said it best in China... if a player can make it to the same position playing honourably and loyally, they deserve it more than someone who got far lying, backstabbing, etc.
Just my opinion. It's all part of the game, and I realize there's no way to change what people perceive to be good gameplay.
