May 14, 2007 01:02 AM by Joe Blackmon
Earl Cole won Survivor Fiji by a unanimous vote of the jury, but during
the reunion show, Jeff Probst posed the question of how the jury would
have voted if Yau-Man had made the final three. Six members of the
jury raised their hands that they would have voted for Yau-Man, which
would have been enough to give him the victory.
Yau-Man played a brilliant game with his only mistake being that he trusted Dreamz to keep his word. By making a deal with Dreamz to trade the truck he won for a promise of individual immunity in the final four, Yau-Man put into motion a series of events that ultimately cost him his chance at a million dollars.
If Yau-Man had not made that deal with Dreamz, then Earl and Yau-Man would likely have voted off Dreamz before Boo. In fact, after Yau-Man asked Earl if he thought Dreamz would live up to his deal, Yau-Man added “Cause, otherwise we’ll take him out this round.” If there had never been a deal, Earl and Yau-Man would likely have kept Boo, who probably wouldn’t have fared as well in the final challenge.
When Boo addressed the final three survivors, he started by saying “First of all, I want to tip my hat off to this man Yau, I think that by far he was the greatest all around player.” When the question was posed to Earl on why he didn’t want to take Yau-Man to the next level, Earl admitted “The reason why I would not want to go against you, because I would not win, because you played the best game by far.”
Given that the majority of the jury and even Earl seemed to think Yau-Man played the best game, should he have won Survivor Fiji? Or did Yau-Man deserve to lose because he made the mistake of trusting Dreamz? Shouldn’t Yau-Man have known not to trust Dreamz based on how Dreamz betrayed his four horseman alliance? Post your opinion below on if Yau-Man should have won Survivor Fiji.