MikeHaggarKJ wrote:
Trixiego wrote:
MikeHaggarKJ wrote:
ive actually changed my mind quite a bit after reading jt interviews.
what pissed me off is that noone ever recognized stephens strategic gameplay, not even probst at the reunion. he shouldve asked the jury something like "now that youve seen the show and how well stephen controlled the game, do you think the votes might have been cast differently?". most people in the jury said in their interviews that they didnt realize how well stephen was controlling things, and/or that he was controlling things at all. WHY DIDNT YOU ADDRESS THIS PROBST? WHY? FUCK YOU.
what pisses me off even more is that most people somehow think that jt was more deserving and a good guy because he had a sultry voice or whatever it was that made people think he was the second coming of christ. his jury speech was vanuatu winner level of ruthlessness

jt was a great winner for sure, but he wasnt the most strategically deserving.
What really would be the point of addressing it? The fact that several jurors stated after the fact they didn't realize how much Stephen did do only solidifies the fact that Stephen unfortunately didn't present himself at FTC as he should have. Jeff doesn't owe Stephen (or any contestant) segment time to confirm or negate something that the contestant should have done themselves. Stephen did play a really good game but he tried to mitigate what he did at the FTC instead of owning it and lest anyone think that JT didn't perform at that final TC perfectly is not giving him enough credit. JT capitalized on how that jury viewed him and his "aw shucks" attitude just sucked them in even further. He knew exactly what he was doing. I don't think it is a fair assessment to not credit JT with strategy - he read these people and gave them exactly what they wanted. The fact that he was viewed like the second coming says a lot about his social skills which IS strategic.

That being said, JT himself admitted that he could not have gotten where he was without Stephen and I think Stephen feels exactly the same way. For me, either one could have won and I would have been happy with the outcome because they really utilized each other's strengths to be successful and their friendship/bond was an added bonus. I don't think either would have been this successful if not for the fact they balanced each other perfectly.

idk how you misunderstood my post but i never said that jt's jury speech wasnt perfect, it was. but it was also ruthless and mean and pissed me off that the jury didnt see through it (just like chris from vanuatus speech in other words)
i dont hate jt for that he did the right thing to win the game

I don't think I misread your post at all.....and the jury didn't see through it because they fell in love with JT and the person they fell in love in with was smart enough to capitalize on Stephen's unfortunate fumbling at the FTC and what you saw as ruthless as mean probably was viewed otherwise by the jury.