Change my mind
I think it's fair to say that he walked away a winner from All-Stars regardless. He got the girl (and by extension her $$$) in the end, and eventually came back to win the biggest gimme season of Survivor ever in Redemption Island.
By that definition, John Fincher played a good game on FvF.
The name of the game is make it to the finals AND convince the jury to vote for you. Rob made it to the finals, but he FAILED to convince the jury to give him the money, therefore, he did not deserve to win.
Jury management is a part of the game. If you fail to manage the jury, you don't deserve to win. Rob didn't deserve to win. Russell didn't deserve to win. They both FAILED at the jury management portion of the game.
It's really as simple as that. There have been great players who have done a good job with the "make it to the finals" part, but they have failed on the "convince the jury" part. Convincing the jury to give you the money IS A HUGE PART of the game. He failed to do that.
Yeah, a large part of survivor is knowing your jury: Whether they will respect good gameplay or vote for their friends or for whoever lied to them the least. Personally, I prefer it when a jury rewards gameplay, but that is not always the case and survivor is all about adapting.
Yes, I agree, Boston Rob should've won All-Stars... had he won All-Stars, than Redemshit Island never happens and I might not have a problem with him being on WaW because the latter might have been his third or fourth time playing (assuming he's still cast in Hv.V) and NOT fifth time playing... competing four times should be the limit to how many times a contestant plays IMO.
4 of the 7 jurors voted for Amber so she won. If you can't get the jurors to vote for you (Todd proved you can convince bitter jurors to vote for you) then you don't deserve the win.
@CharlieGatley You make a good point, but I must point out that what you consider good gameplay is not necessarily what the jury might consider good gameplay. If I was on a Survivor jury, I might say it's good gameplay to lay low and let a bigger target take all the heat for moves that you also had a hand in deciding, which is basically what Amber did.
@YouBetterShopAround Exactly, you HAVE to know your jury. This is one of the biggest parts of the game, and Rob failed to do that. In a game about social politics, knowing the people you are playing against is HUGE, and Amber was clearly more adept at this.
No because Rob was too out of touch from what the jury feels while Amber put out flames for him. The jury will always vote for the person they feel good losing to, and they didn't feel that from Rob.
Winning Survivor is not formulaic. Juries vote differently because each season comprises different people with different criteria. Sandra was voted for because of her street smarts, Sarah was voted for her cutthroat game play, Fabio was voted for because he was likable, and Michele won because of her social skills. Just because Rob played aggressive does not mean he had to win. If that was the case, Survivor would not have lasted as long as it did because all winners played a monotonous strategy. You treat people as people, not as chess pieces.
I still need to see All Stars....
What do you think?