askepticoptimist

I don't buy this either. I can't count the number of times excellent strategic players didn't make it far just because they landed on the wrong end of the numbers in a merge with a strongly loyal tribe (such as in the Coach uber-religious season). Or say the season when Boston Rob was running his mafia game of not letting people speak in secret and everyone just went along with it. Getting the numbers is part of the game. It's not the whole game. If people aren't willing to work with you, it's not always your fault.

I have no idea where all the Hannah respect is coming from here. From the season I watched, I have the same view all the jury members had: she played a kooky almost scatterbrained game where she was in a position to influence lots of decisions, but the end results often made little to no strategic sense (such as saving David at the 5-person vote AND the 7-person vote AND the 10-person vote). I remember multiple times over the course of the season being amazingly frustrated when the better players in the game would try to get a coalition together to take out the power players of the game (like Zeke and David), just to have Hannah derail it and vote off some nobody like Sunday. Hell, the only reason they went to rocks is because Hannah refused to get on board with taking out David. Another one of her plays was leaving the power couple of Figgy/Taylor in the game in Episode 2, taking out a nobody instead (a move that boggled both Zeke and Adam). It was another braindead move that anybody who has watched the show knows you never do: never leave power couples in the game, especially in small tribes. Adam had the correct play trying to split up the couple, but couldn't get the numbers. Later in the game, from what I saw, David pretty much ran the show and Hannah/Ken protected him. Adam was constantly trying to make moves to target strategic threats, but could never get the numbers. Bret had a similar experience in the endgame, where he exhibited exasperation that so many strong players were allowed to go as far into the game as they did with no one willing to vote for them. Carrying David to final 4 was downright insane...that "strategic" move alone should literally disqualify you for a million dollars as to how ungodly stupid it was. And that's why the jurors viewed Hannah the way they did. Her decisions that mattered (such as aforementioned Episodes 2, 11, 13, and 14) were logical errors. She kept the best players in the game, never tried to flush idols or get rid of players with idols, kept power couples in the game...she basically was the strategic "anti-survivor". I've rarely if ever seen someone win this game willfully carrying the best players to the end. It's simply not a good strategy. Adam, despite his failures in getting traction with his plans was logically sound...he was targeting real threats in the game: ringleaders, people capable of winning challenges, strategic players, people with idols (at least to attempt to flush it). Worst of all, Hannah constantly positioned herself as the "swing vote" with other people (such as David or Zeke) earning the credit for moves. You earn credit in this game by spearheading decisions to take out the best, not by derailing better players that are trying to make those moves and using your numbers to take out goats. She was incredibly lucky to be there in the final 3, largely because she had a strong threesome with David and Ken.