I don't understand how Russell knew he lost the first show he participated in. Didn't he say last night during the actual show (not the one hour after show) that he took two idiots to the final three and lost and that this time he was going to take two to the final three that weren't going to get votes? If the all star show was recorded before the first show results how did he know that? Because Russell was correct last night in saying he played one long season. He was out there a long time, two seasons, back to back.. and never got voted off... that should amount to something, hence the $100k. Now, I'm not sure where Survivors ratings are, but lets not forget its the audience that ultimately decides the longevity of the show (by ratings) and if the majority of viewers are upset how things unfold at the end, they'll show their disdain by simply not watching. We shall see. It was a great season. I've watched every season except the very first one. And I'll continue to watch because it is a great show. But when it comes to the final three (two) the stronger you are as a "leader" the less likely you are to win. It's not absolute though.
So Sandra wins again because she's such a piss-poor player. Pathetic. Once again, the jury proved me right. These people are simply INCAPABLE of admitting to themselves that they were bested. So, rather than vote for the person who DESERVES to win (Russell), they vote for the girl who rode Russell's coattails the whole game, or the gigantic turd who didn't do JACK in the game (again), let alone beat them. Every single one of those spiteful, bitter fools on the jury knew damn well that Russell was the best player. They didn't vote for him because they wanted revenge against him, plain and simple. I'm glad that Russell got the Player of the Year award. To me, that is far more meaningful than the joke title of Sole Survivor.
Part of the reason Russell makes it to the end is that everyone wants him there. And welcome to the real world, people are spiteful and bitter. But I don't agree that makes Russell the best player. It just makes him a guy who doesn't understand the whole game. Ten years ago when Survivor was first being advertised, the discussion was about how you had to get to the end and then rely on those you voted out to win. This is the basic and primary premise of the show. That meant it mattered how you got there as much (or more actually) than that you got there. Everybody understood that you had to walk a line between lying and loyalty. It's very unlikely that anybody can get to the end without lying, but if you lie too much or too blatantly then you be seen as worthy but just as a liar. So subtlety and social skills matter. Russell doesn't know how to walk that line. And the fans who think he should have won seem to think that the premise is about who controlled (or appeared to control since IMO Parvati controlled more than Russell and Sandra at times manipulated Russell) the game. That has never been the premise. If it were it would be a much poorer show and one I doubt would have lasted 20 seasons (10 years).
Russell did say that but his strategy was flawed in that he just did in too many, all of the jury, in one way or another that made it easy for the jury to vote for anyone else but him. But the show is what it is and Probst explained that by saying that Russell may win that game but not this one. Anyway, the fans ultimately decide how long a show runs and so far the show itself has survived in spite of that. However, no show lasts forever and it will eventually leave but not because the fans "forced" it off but just that we will likely lose interest and will look for something different. But I will make this one prediction right now, if Russell comes back at a later show and if he continues his strategy and play the same way again, he'll likely be voted off early and not make it til the end. I don't think Russell was out there back to back that long. Sure he was in back to back seasons but they're not produced like that. If so, that would be the equivalent of starting the next nfl season right when the last one ended, IMO.
Because you wanted Russell to win doesn't necessarily mean that he deserved it. There are 9 jury members who will disagree with that. Sandra wasn't my fav to win going in but was out of the final 3. She had a better strategy of trying to bond with the heroes, even tho it failed but they, the heroes realized that and ultimately voted for her. 5 against 4 wins every time. Russell and Parvati, to a certain degree, backstabbed too many to win. Russell dicked over the heroes bad, twice, and thus dicked himself. But he just can't see that.
IIRC there was 14 days between the finish of the last show and the start of the next one for Russell.
Strategy? That's funny. Sandra had no strategy other than trying to get Russell out. Her strategy failed miserably. She is a failure strategically, she is a failure in the challenges, and she is a failure socially, becuase she had no friends other than that stick-figure. IMO, she is the biggest turd in the history of Survivor. Both times she played, she got to the end for one reason - because she was the worst player. The ONLY reason why she won either time is because she didn't do anything "bad" to anyone on the jury. It's sad, but that's how Survivor works.
Wrong. The entire post is 100% wrong. #1. Why is it that controlling the game (through backstabbing) more legitimate than any other strategy? #2. There is no criteria the jury has to follow. Every person has the right to vote for someone based on whatever they deem valid. Revenge is part of the game. Russell is a jerkoff who treated people like garbage and his chickens came home to roost. If Russell had just relaxed, and let the game play out more organically, or used more subtle manipulation, than he wins. Instead he bullied and threatened people on a daily basis. That's his fault, no one else. As Boston Rob correctly pointed out, Russell plays to get to the end, but not to win because he doesn't consider the consequences of his actions. And in the game of cause and effect, it's the biggest blunder any player can make. It's why Johnny Fairplay would have lost Pearl Island had he made it to the final 2. Fairplay lied and manipulated like no had ever seen before him, but it wasn't intelligent endgame strategy. I'm curious what you think Sandra could of done better. If she's so awful, what could she have done to earn the win?
#1 - It's not more legitimate than any other strategy, but it's sure as hell more legitimate than doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like Sandra, or riding coattails like Parvati. #2 - You're right. I thing Russell severely underestimated the level of bitterness and spitefulness the turds on the jury would harbor. He thought that they all would "man up" and have respect for the fact that he was the kingpin. He was dead wrong. He shouldn't have been so honest at the end, he should have continued the lies and told people he was sorry that he had to "do them wrong". Bitter turds like to hear that type of thing. Instead, he fueled their revenge. That was his only mistake, IMO. Sandra had ZERO to do with herself getting to the end. The only reason why Sandra was ever still in the game is because Russell chose to vote out somebody else. Sandra could have done EVERYTHING better. If she had a strategic bone in her body, she could've gotten Russell voted out. She is CRAP in challenges; she's simply physically and mentally inferior. She is a mindless drone that gets to the end because she's so weak mentally and physically, the people who run the game are confident the jury will not vote for such a sack of ****. It just so happens the jury likes to get revenge on the people that put them there, and the sack of **** ends up with the money.
So you think it's a news flash or something that was in question (since you said you were proven right) that people don't like to be lied to and treated like crap? You seem surprised that those same people don't applaud the person who treated them that way? And Russell only thought he was the kingpin. He wasn't in control when Parvati played her idol that he knew nothing about. He wasn't in control when Sandra tricked him into voting out Coach. He wasn't in control when Parvati and Danielle forced him to vote their way (Russell even admitted it at the time that he had no choice but go with them). Just b/c Russell keeps saying he's in control doesn't make it so. Reality is that he wasn't nearly as good as Parvati was at reading people's intentions and at the challenges. He also was often predictable enough that he was manipulated by Sandra and others into doing the dirty work. He also never understood that subtlety is immensely valuable. It's at least as good of a strategy as playing hard. In fact, in this game, it's been proven to be the better strategy. IMO if the vote by the jury had been cast after they watched the show then Parvati would have won and Sandra would have been second. Parvati got hurt by the perception by the jury that she was riding Russell's coat tails. If they had got to see more of her conversations with Russell (like Danielle did) then it was obvious that she was controlling him. Sandra's scrambling would have got her second place. Russell was simply too arrogant and mean spirited and his lies crossed the line in most people's minds. I also think he got really lucky that both Tyson and Candace were such idiots. Without those two boneheads, Russell never makes it to the final. Of course, he's too arrogant to admit that luck plays a factor.
Question... A. Who wins between Jerri, Russell and Parvati? B. Who wins between Russell, Parvati and Danielle? C. Who wins between Russell, Danielle and Jerri? A = Parvati... B and C = Russell. IMO
So why didn't Parvati deserve to win over Sandra? She was better in every aspect of the game. Sandra did not control the game. Not even close. A guy she wanted to get rid of from day one made it to the final three. She made herself as invisible as possible and stole a win from someone who deserved it. Half the people in the jury deserved it more than Sandra as well. Not just Russell and Parvati. If people played the way Sandra does the show wouldn't be worth watching. I learned last night that the final jury vote isn't worth watching anyway. They all had every chance to get rid of Russell. It's not like it was a big secret that he was a scoundrel. They failed. Get over it. They were beat by somebody who was a better strategist than they were. And was also better at challenges than some of them. Challenges are a part of the game and half***ing them should not be ignored IMO. Instead of trying to decide who played the best game they voted for the person who pissed them off the least. [Except coach who I respect for picking Parvati for all the right reasons]
IMO Parvati was the best player from the final five. With Russell coming in a close second. His only problem was always keeping his ego in check. I think that hurts him more than his doublecrossings. He can't stop gloating when he succeeds. Rupert was owned a couple of times in challenges by Parvati. But the idiot was so butthurt by Russell he didn't vote for the right player. That jury was a joke. Sorry, it's the truth. Why did they even let Courtney go in front of the final three and waste airtime?
Here's what I want... to solve the issue of people not winning anything, being totally uncapable of doing anything physically and yet still winning the show... have an entry requirement for contestants to have to pass before they get on the show. Make sure you can lift this much, run this fast, swim this fast. Courtney, Sandra, Sirie... OUT! How long would each of them last (SURVIVE) on an island all by themselves?
Even if they just put forth an effort that would be OK. Sandra never put forth a serious effort to win a challenge. I have a hard time believing that she wasn't physically capable of performing better than she did. Not to mention she was playing the 'dead mom, deployed soldier husband' card hard the entire time. It was all over her Tshirt for crying out loud. If your strategy is to stay lowkey and you are competing hard that's one thing. Jerri did that. Others did that as well. Sandra played like she didn't want to break a nail and thrived off of other people generally not noticing her. Her winning twice to me questions the integrity of the entire competition. The way the winner is decided needs to be fixed. The jury of competition losers might work if some of them even attempted to put their personal feelings over being bested aside and be impartial. At least Coach did that. He respected the best overall player in the final three and voted accordingly. Nobody else did that.
I don't think Russell wins under any scenario. His lies crossed the line. He gloated extensively. And he treated everybody else horribly. You simply cannot win when you do that. There's a reason he didn't get a single vote.
I hope you haters enjoy your extra time on Thursday evenings. I think this was one of the best seasons yet, and I am amazed at how well its simple formula has endured.
Re-read my first post on the previous page. I said I thought Parvati deserved it. My guess is that the heroes tribe voted as a block to ensure Sandra would win, since she was the one trying to help them by getting them into an alliance, and they wouldn't listen. Control of the game allows for easier access to final 2/3, not a win. Not just Russell and Parvati. If people played the way Sandra does the show wouldn't be worth watching. I learned last night that the final jury vote isn't worth watching anyway. They all had every chance to get rid of Russell. It's not like it was a big secret that he was a scoundrel. They failed. Get over it. They were beat by somebody who was a better strategist than they were. And was also better at challenges than some of them. Challenges are a part of the game and half***ing them should not be ignored IMO. Instead of trying to decide who played the best game they voted for the person who pissed them off the least. [Except coach who I respect for picking Parvati for all the right reasons][/QUOTE] Challenges don't mean ****... Plenty of players never won a challenge who were great players. Hatch won only one, and Tina Wesson won 0. Both great players... It's pointless to argue though. As i said before, people who understand the dynamics of survivor get why Russell lost and those that don't, are upset. which is weird since Russell admitted he didn't care about one of the most important aspects of the game.
Cirie is one of the best players of all-time and a master of social and strategic gameplay. Twice she was voted out right before the finals because she was such a huge threat to win. Also, what about Rob Cesternino? One of the greatest strategists ever and revolutionized the game. Not very good at challenges though. Hatch was a great swimmer and strong (like 6'5" 260) but wasn't athletic. Challenges are one aspect of the game... There are two other aspects (3 if you count luck) that are equally important. Don't want Sandra to win? Then don't take her to the ****ing finals! It's not that hard. I suggest you guys read the interviews with Jerri, who is really enlightening as to why Russ lost. She was going to vote for him, but voted for Parvati instead. One of the reasons is because she said Russell, while a great strategist, was a nightmare to live with and disrespected people all the time. But don't take her word for it, keep on praising the idiot known as a Russell. 2x loser of Survivor.
Rob and Hatch met what I would call the minimum athletic requirement... they don't have to win challenges at all, just be able to compete in them and not embarrass themselves. Courtney? Come on... she'd break if she fell the wrong way. I don't know how much Cirie weighs, but if a plane crashed in a remote area and the survivors turned to cannabilism... Cirie stew would be the first course. As to Russell... i will agree... he is an idiot for taking Sandra to the finals, he should have known better although he didn't learn from the first season results show because it played live after the end of his second season. His game is missing that key ingredient of being able to manipulate the jury.
Don't know if you guys go to CBS...I just discovered this last week....They call it Ponderosa and show the contestants as they were kicked off and are greeted by the jury.....It's about a 7 minnute clip
Come to think of it, there may have been a short break in between the seasons. Russell kept saying how he is the greatest to ever play the game. Obviously he didn't know he had lost the first one. But "IIRC", they typically shoot the next season while the current one is being broadcast, so i guess he wouldn't have known. Anyway, not a big deal tho.
Look, we all know you wanted Russell to win and that is fine. But however sucky you think Sandra's strategy was, it was better than Russell's regardless of what it was. It was proven when she won and for the second time playing the same way.
I think the challenges are more important early on as the weaker ones are generally weeded out then. Sandra survived that aspect because she didn't piss off anyone early on. Then after the merge, more emphasis is put more into who will help me get further along ar who is my biggest threat, etc. JMHO
Good point except there are more things to the game besides physical abilities. I guess we could watch track meets if that's all that mattered. But, i do agree that some can look pretty ridiculous tho. Sandra certainly did but she still won.
That I am. He's the most arrogant egotistical maniac that's ever played this game. If he truly deserved to win, as many claim, then he would have. As it stands, he batting a big fat 0. getting to the finals is only one aspect of the game. HOW he gets there ultimately decides if he wins. Zero votes from the jury pretty much says it all. If he had 4 votes and lost, then one might have an argument. I'm ready for next season already just as in football.