And yet: when you say:
Having a chance to win is not the same thing as having the ability to make a case as to why you should. Courtney, Sash, Chase, Susie, and Ozzy each had absolutely no case to why they should win the game and coincidentally they didn't have a shot either.
Isn't it exactly what happened to Coach too? I mean, can you say that Jud had a better game than Chase or Sash? He just had an IC run. If he didn't, Holly would have been there instead and Chase would have won. Ditto Susie: she didn't lose because Bob was that much more better than she was, she lost because the jury was composed of three of her allies and four of his. You could say that Chase's game, for all his blunders, was far more involved than Jud's, because he juggled several alliances, most of whose members voted for him in the end, whil Jud did nothing except be nice. Ozzy had a very strong game: he made friends with several of the Raro jury and had a incredible physical game. How can you say that Jud was more deserving when you say Ozzy wasn't when they played roughly the same game?
And ditto for Parvati: while she needlessly alienated the heroes, you could say that Coach needlessly alienated the Savaii with his religious bullshit. It was not needed, or if it was to keep Brandon in check, certainly not to that extent. His move to flip Cochran was great, but so was Sash weaseling in with Holy and Chase for protection or Susie flipping on the Kota to reach the top. Before FTC, they had a shot like Coach had. But in reality, they never did because for one reason or another, Coach included, they poisoned the jury against them. This is why I don't think you can say Coach is the first one with a legitmate case for the win: either there are a lot of them, or there are none.
Edited by Isuzu, May 8, 2012 @ 2:19 AM.