This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
I know we don't have our winner yet, but a lot of folks will agree that Michael is one of the best players to not win the game.
Looking back when we talk about him like we talk about Vanessa and some other greats, what will be the consensus on the difference between him being a top tier winner vs a top tier non-winner?
Playing "too hard"?
Overconfidence?
Winning too many comps/too early?
Or just the specific issue of holding onto the Kyle controversy until it suited his game?
Or something else?
I'm always fascinated by the great players and what separates the ones who actually make it to the title vs those that don't.
Going too hard in comps and not cutting Kyle when he saw how dynamic of a player Kyle was. Red flags should’ve gone up when Kyle was looking to snipe a potential counter alliance(no I do not feel like discussing the race aspect AGAIN), but instead of mike taking Kyle out he thought he could weaponize him by having him blow up the leftovers. That bit him in the butt Forsure when dyrefest happened and Kyle felt betrayed by mike when he wasn’t picked.
I think it’s debatable when exactly they would have picked him off yes, but it’s plausible they wouldn’t have seen him as a worthy threat to prioritize during a double eviction were it not for the comp wins. He made it so he had to comp win it out from final 8 which made his odds plummet IMO.
Did you miss the first part of my comment where I mentioned his unnecessary comp wins being a fatal flaw?
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 2 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/BigBrother/...
Not if he had picked Kyle instead of Jasmine and owned up to what he knew. He deliberately put Kyle outside to blow up the leftovers and didn’t consider that Kyle would be pissed about it.