Yeah, I see what you mean. But still, I don't necessarily see it as a bad ending to see any possible F2 including Albert, Ken, or Spencer. My reasoning was that if you switch any F3 to a regular F2, it's very likely that the winner of the season will instead come in 3rd place, and we get a "less deserving" winner. It's almost always the case that the most threatening player will either win immunity or get voted off, while one of the 3 is going to be taken to the end no matter what as someone easy to beat. (There are exceptions to this, of course, like Australia and Cagayan, but they are infrequent IMO.) So this means that in a F2 season, a lot of pressure is put on the Final Immunity Challenge, and Terry/Rafe/Cirie/Rob/Kathy/Lex/etc. is out because they failed at a specific physical challenge. Personally, I feel like the challenges are the least important aspect of the game, and it's not great to place so much importance on one challenge. I'd like to think this is part of the reason why production switched to the F3, although the F3 comes with its own share of issues, and so a lot of fans want the F2 back. Personally, I've always had a sweet spot for the F2 as well, although I acknowledge the problems with it. I think having a F2 but splitting the FIC up into a physical and a social part as OP suggested brings some strategic endgame dynamics that are missing from F3 seasons, but it's also less swingy than a F2. I think most winners would have been able to win either a physical or a social challenge, based on the idea that someone who is neither a physical nor a social threat would be very unlikely to win a jury vote.