Yuku free message boards

I'm getting a little sick and tired of people degrading Fang's success in this game as "luck" - you NEED luck in this game, you NEED to be lucky enough for things to go your way, lucky enough that you can trust what your tribe mate, ally, hell even enemy is telling you. If the game had gone Kota's way, and they had fully dominated, would we attribute their success to luck?

Probably not, no, because Kota dominated in challenges and the Onions held sway at Kota. That's a typical part of the game. Having two switches is less typical. This doesn't excuse the poor gameplay Marcus and Bob showed after the second switch.

There's nothing wrong with having luck, but when a team loses as much as Fang did and made as many highly questionable strategic decisions as Fang did, then I tend to focus more on the luck (especially the luck of having people come to the tribe who already have issues with Kota and are looking for a reason to jump). The thing is that Ken doesn't seem to see himself as lucky. He sees himself as a mastermind. If Ken could say, "Boy, did I luck out, now I just hope I can ride this to the end," then I would enjoy his game more. Instead it's all kinds of bragging about how he can keep people to do what he wants, and isn't it wonderful to be a rat.

We can't simultaneously say that Survivor is based on luck and also say that it's somehow wrong if Ken and Crystal don't beat Matty. Matty's first alliance was broken up by the first switch. He was then dumped over with majority Kota for the second switch, and had to win a challenge singlehandedly in order to avoid the boot. I don't like Matty all that much, but I can't say that after managing to survive all this, he's less deserving than two players who have had their share of breaks.

Well, getting rid of Kelly did not hurt Fang. Getting rid of Charlie did not hurt Fang. They still have the majority, so those weren't bad moves at all.

Getting rid of Kelly at the time they did meant they had to manipulate Sugar to go their way against Ace, and Ken would have then had to manipulate her a second time if he wanted to get rid of Matty. The second switched saved them from that mess. Getting rid of Charlie was a vanity move, according to Ken, so it didn't even involve the game.

Have they shown any real brilliance? Maybe their gameplay hasn't been perfect but when you look at Marcus's game play

If the most we can say about them is that their gameplay is better than someone who is already gone, isn't that all but saying they haven't done enough to deserve to win? They aren't competing against Marcus now.

As for Matty whining about his team, if that's a reason not to win, then wouldn't Crystal be automatically disqualified?

Not to mention they owned Marcus and Charlie who he liked.......

I didn't like Marcus. We never knew Charlie enough to like or dislike him.

I think the bias tends to come more from people who like Ken and Crystal. The idea is that they're brilliant players, entertaining, and therefore the Onions had to suck and had to be awful people. Everything Ken and Crystal do is wonderful, everything the Onions did is terrible.

That's fine, if people think Ken and Crystal are entertaining. But if people are saying that they should be in the final three based on strategy, I have yet to see any good reason why they're more deserving than anyone else left in the game.