I do agree with most of this assessment of George’s game but I think that it’s down to a bit of a fault with how Australian jury votes.
This may seem ridiculous, but for me personally, winning does not necessarily equal playing the best game…. I guess in some ways it means they have played it correctly with the people they are playing with.
I don’t know how to properly articulate what I mean.
But I legitimately think in terms of the strategy side of the game, George has a very impressive resume. And it’s the type of game I guess I enjoy watching the most.
I think David may be the only Australian winner I think truly embodies the best gameplay combined with a win.
I can hands down agree George has played the best game in terms of dominating who goes each round. But IMO the game of survivor is essentially human chess. It's making moves that aren't "flashy" but more so just position you closer to a win. You may lose pieces (pawns) along the way but eventually once you reach checkmate you've won. It's not about dominating and making big moves IMO it's just simply doing what needs to be done correctly.
The thing with Survivor (and Big Brother for the North American fans) is that with the jury involved there becomes an increased importance of the human element. The jurors will vote how they vote, that's their choice. It's the player's responsibility to rationalise their game to the jurors and appease them if they have to. If a juror is bitter at you it is up to you to fix that. Jury management is so vital for your game. It literally makes or breaks it.
From studying psychology I probably focus too much on the social aspect of these shows. But to me, the jurors are likely to be bitter, salty, jealous or annoyed, what ever you wanna call it. Even if taking them out was right for the finalist's game, an angry juror will go on a power trip with their vote. Almost every human has a complex, some jurors will almost force the finalist to apologise, admit regret or just simply admit what they did was wrong. As human beings the jurors will want to feel relevant and powerful to some degree. It is up to the player to maintain a good relationship with the jury in order to get their vote.
You can be the most physically dominating player and win the challenges, you can be the smartest player and get to the end without any struggles. But if you do not bother to get to know these players, if you do not treat them with respect and if you do not humble yourself at FTC you will not win. I think players like Pia and David really did show that. Hayley as well IMO, I don't care that she got twist saved.
In a perfect world I'd love to see juror's vote for the biggest flashy player. But, in reality when a game involves humans, emotions do come into play. It is why I utilise the social aspect in my every day life. I go to work making sure I bond well with the staff, and I make sure at uni to be kind to those in my class when doing group work especially. People will not give their all to you if they do not respect you.
That's how I perceive the game of survivor. Everyone will have their own opinion. This is mine. For me, Hayley is the most well rounded player of Survivor AU.