I LIKE strategy. Strategy can liven up a season with great characters (see Kaoh Rong). I just hate when strategy becomes the basis of the season, rather than a garnish. And I hate when jurors get up on their soap box to insist that "strategic" winners deserve to win the jury vote just because they made big moves.
But on the same front weren't you the one who called JT a tryhard and that Stephen was more strategic and should have won Tocantins? Where it was JT whose social game was so strong that he basically had the other players brainwashed.
The problem here is that Coach was practically playing for JT to win. Not to a Sugar -> Bob extent, but all JT had to do was charm that one crazy man and he had it in the bag and did very little else.
But the truth is that in almost every single season, with MAYBE one or two exceptions, the winner is the person that the jury likes more, plain and simple, regardless of how they played.
Everyone was playing for JT to win Tocantins. Don't you remember the confessional where Brendan said "How can I get JT to win?" ---
""Love" is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope." HK-47