I am delighted that Ian won. I think he and Dan both played great but very different games.

I have no problem with the things Dan did to make it to F2, he pretty much had to if he was going to stand any chance of progressing through the game. His manipulation and tactical awareness were simply astonishing. Telling Shane that Danielle had been playing him all along just as Shane was leaving was inspired (if unsuccessful) and highlights the deep level of thought Dan was putting into his game.

As for Ian, he played a great all round game. He won comps when he really had to, had a decent social game, and with the possible exception of the last week or so was tactically astute. In his own way Ian's game was just as impressive as Dans for me. I dislike Jenns description of him as a rat. Ian was treated like a 2nd class citizen by Boogie and Frank and soon realised he was expendable to them. It was a brave and smart move to find himself a better alliance.

Both made mistakes, Dan for instance should have got rid of Shane the first time he had a shot but let Danielle talk him out of it, and Ian was well and truly misted by Dan himself in the final week or two. Overall though they played the two best games of the season and both deserved to be F2.

A lot of people seem to be saying the the jury was bitter, and to some degree they may be right, but with Ian in the final 2 they had a legitimate alternative choice to Dan. To maintain that Ian only won due to a bitter jury I think is unfair. If Dan had managed to make F2 with Danielle I honestly believe the jury would have got over themselves and Dan would have won it.

Either way I am very happy with both the final 2 and the result and think Ian is a more than worthy winner.

Did anyone see Julie tell Dan right at the end of the show that she thought he is now one of the best players to ever play the game? Shows who Julie wanted to win

couldn't happen to a nicer guy ,dan winning would just be plane wrong and would have killed the show for me .

I think we knew who the producers liked as Julie said something intimating that at every live show. And the HLs show was turned into the Dan Show.

Russell Hantz was a brutally effective Survivor player like Dan was this year.
The only trouble being that people tend to hold grudges if you do them down.

Ian won 4 HoH's and 1 PoV .. he played a good game and I'm happy with the result

Russell Hantz was way better, he was funny, a character, found idols, won competitions at the end. And here Dan clearly failed to take Danielle to the end. The whole funeral speech just seemed peculiar rather than convincing to me and in the DR I found him annoying rather than charming.

From before halfway through the season I was pretty much working towards a Frank win, with Ian picking up the fan prize.
The fact it ended up the other way round is pretty funny to me.

Wanted a Dan win, but Ian was my second choice so happy with that. I think Danielle deserved the fan vote simply for the assortment of faces!

I don't get this. It's not a personality contest, it's a game! At least that's how I've always thought of it, but I do question that now. It's funny when comparing BBUS and BBUK people on here tend to say they prefer BBUS because of the strategic element of it, but those same people thought the "nice guy" deserved to win more than the player who without question was more strategic. I'm not talking about the jury, because I get it, feelings are involved blah blah blah, but in terms of the viewers what type of game do people actually want to see? Are some BB fans genuinely offended when they see people lie, stab people in the back etc.? Would they prefer it if the game was less about strategy and more about competitions and the winner should be the person at the end who won the most HoH/PoV competitions? Cause I've always thought everyone accepted lying as part of the game, but now I see lots of people would prefer it if the winner played a cleaner, nicer, more honest game like the criteria for a BBUK winer. It's a genuine question btw. What do people think?

No and I am surprised by the result of this poll, seemed obvious Dan deserved to win and I thought most fans would be up in arms about the bitter jury not voting for him.

Ian wasn't terrible (if Danielle had won I would have been spitting feathers) and he did play hard and have to make some tricky moves in the game, in most other seasons he'd have been an OK winner but in this season Dan wiped the floor with him and every one else.

PS this is my first post this season but I have really enjoyed it, it's easily my favourite BB for several seasons, just a shame it ended with the wrong winner for me.

The problem with this argument is that sometimes it's true, others it isn't.

There's no set rule because each jury is different. A different jury would have voted for Dan for the way he played the game - dirty tricks and all.

People underestimate the power of a good social game, Ian was able to pull off the moves he needed to in order to reach the final two whilst still keeping most of the jury on side. Dan failed to recognize that by consistently stabbing people in the back and then sending them to fester in a house together he was going to create a sense of resentment against him that would come back to bite him. He pulled off some great moves to stay in the house but he failed to tailor them to sway those he had evicted to vote in his favor, in that sense yes, Ian was the right winner. Its alright saying "Well Dan did this and that and he evicted X and Y" but if at the end of the day that makes X and Y not want to vote for him then he has done it wrong. He knew that in the end these people would be deciding his fate yet he still didn't do enough to keep them on side.

Compare and contrast BB14 with BB8.

Evel Dick was hated by that Jury, but still got the vote over his daughter who was perhaps, equally hated. The BB8 Jury voted for the organ grinder instead of the monkey. But I'm convinced Zach would have beaten either of them, with that Jury, if he had won through to the F2, even though he was a nonentity in the game.

Dan's strategic error (not the only one) was believing he could beat Ian, who offered a viable alternative (much worthier than the likes of Zach LOL) to a Jury which still hadn't recovered from all of the Dan inflicted knife wounds in their backs.

The strategic lesson being that, if you are going to play as Dan did, then you must work to drag someone to F2 who is just as unpalatable, or otherwise unworthy, to the Jury.

Dan may well have realised he couldn't win like that but thought his only way of getting to the end was by playing it that way. From an audience perspective (surely the most important one lol, as there would be no show without an audience) I didn't think he was that interesting and it annoyed me how the producers made it into The Dan Show.

The bitter jury? Frank and Jenn were also bitter towards Ian. Remember Ian the guy that turned the entire tide of the game. Am I the only one that heard Jenn call him a rat and a snitch? Joe has said he was going to vote for Dan but the speeches changed his mind. Ian's speech off the cuff was BRILLIANT! Dan was a babbling buffoon, trying to get out his heavily rehearsed speech. His decision to "compliment" each one and tell each and every one what a "great" player each was and that's why he had to get rid of them....was so hollow and pathetic, IMO that alone turned Jenn and Joe. That speech is part of the game and it was yet another face to face he came way short on.

I respect Ian getting rid of Boogie more than I respect Dan for swearing on his bible to get rid of Frank. Ian continued to survive even after Dan rolled over on him. Ian made it to the end by winning competitions and making smart moves. Not everything he did was smart but then not everything Dan did was smart either. Dan survived by betraying himself, his religion, his beliefs, his allies and riding Ian and Danielles coattails. Fact is the jury decides the game and the only way to win being a "villain" is having someone who was a follower or floater sitting next to you.

Dan executed his evil game to a degree but he failed to make sure no one as worthy would sit next to him. His getting rid of Shane was his only chance to assure his seat next to someone unworthy. Ian played alone... Dan always had his minion(s). A solid pair will always have a better chance in BB and in Survivor. While it was Dan's plan that was followed most of the time, Danielle was the one winning the competitions and she did get her way a couple of times. And in the end Dan's plan for the end game was a total failure. It was brill he got Danielle to give him the power she won in competition but when he used it to get rid of Shane instead of Ian that was a vote for him lost in Ian and a vote against him gained in Shane.

Ian had the way better end game and in BB it's the END GAME that matters. Ian won the HOH and got to choose the person next to him. He chose the guy who played a hideous social game.

No....Dan wiped the floor with everyone re gameplay so deserved the win imo.

In saying that,he only has himself to blame.I said here it was a mistake to keep Ian over Shane and it proved to be so.He would have beaten shane or danielle in final 2 had he got there but there was no way he was beating Ian.

The way i see it is with that decision to evict shane.He chose a probable 50k over a less probable but reachable 500k.which is still a good payout for him i guess.

Everyone EXCEPT Ian.

IMO Ian's reveal about the gold pendant lost it for Dan. Very likely the jury found that one trick too far as far as Dan's game was concerned.

I was rooting for Dan myself until that reveal.

including Ian.

Perfect final two (for once!), they both played the best game, but Dan was a far superior player and deserved the win. I think Ian's nice little speech swung him a couple of votes actually, it's a shame.

Janelle and Wil were spot on. No grudges should be held, shame on them for falling for it, and Dan not winning is an absolute travesty. He's proven himself to be the best player to ever play the game, it'll be hard for anyone to beat such a magnificent performance in future seasons.

Loved that face after Shane's eviction, absolute classic

What was up with Frank winning the fan vote? Err...huh?

I voted yes.

At the beginning, I disliked Ian. He just seemed to want to keep EVERY option available to him and one scene I particularly remember is when Britney asked him at the snooker table if he was going to vote out one of her players, and he avoided a direct answer.

Things like that irritated me about him because he was playing the game extremely safe which is dull.

I realised soon after the game "reset" though that he had to play like that because he was playing Mike's game, not his own. As soon as he was able to free himself, he started playing his own game which was much better viewing.

He also stayed loyal to the group he made a deal with (the QP) and I respect players for that.

After Britney left, Ian was the only remaining housemate that I wanted to win. The odds of that happening at the time were very short, so I'm very happy that he managed it!

Says who? According to Britney, there was so much hate for Dan he would have lost even if he was up against a bottle of ketchup. Dan would have got her vote and Ian's; most or all of the others would have voted for Danielle.


That's not a problem with the argument, it's a problem that every finalist has to face. As Dan said in one of his interviews, he could'nt know for sure who would vote emotionally and who would vote based on game but he behaved as they would all vote based on game and he was man enough to admit that this ultimate flaw in his plan was his own responsibility rather than castigating the jury for their bitterness.

I think Ian has a lot to catch up on BBUK wise, I know he said in the house he wondered how Lauren was doing

And then the Australian one.