tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post8921533790116040491..comments2023-09-26T06:39:22.992-04:00Comments on Polivision?: The Best Survivor Players Ever (Winners Edition)Question Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00267485396018087075noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-2869153274489297532013-01-04T17:25:30.078-05:002013-01-04T17:25:30.078-05:00I don't know why you say Russell was being car...I don't know why you say Russell was being carried. Didn't you see him making the decisions for his group each episode? Why are you so much more inclined to believe the exit interviews than the edit? In the exit interviews I read, his allies admitted he lead the group. As seen in this exit interview with Mick.<br /><br />http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/exclusive-mick-trimming-talks-about-his-survivor-samoa-journey-10129.php<br /><br />And in this quote, he admits Russell was leading the alliance.<br /><br />Reality TV World: Do you think there's any way you would have made it as far as you did without Russell?<br /><br />Mick: Oh... With those numbers going into [the merge], we absolutely needed a guy that was playing that hard. He was almost possessed out there. (laughing) It would have been pretty damn hard. I don't know if the rest of us three would have or could have stepped up and played that hard. I think without that dominating of a player, it is going to push you more to kind of fill in that sort of gap. But I think he was definitely necessary to make it that far. <br /><br />You say Jaison/Mick/Natalie said Russell wasn't leading, but Mick clearly stated that he was. <br /><br />What do you mean Mick would have beaten Russell for votes? Russell beat Mick for votes (2 vs 0) and at the reunion show, 4 jury members said they would have voted for Russell and 3 for Jaison, so he would have beaten Jaison. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-39130425479885144402013-01-01T14:21:30.909-05:002013-01-01T14:21:30.909-05:00You say Russell isn't a great player because h...You say Russell isn't a great player because he can't handle the jury? Well, by that logic you could say everyone who didn't win isn't a great player, because there was clearly a part of the game they couldn't handle, hence the fact that they lost. And Jaison wouldn't have beat Russell. Remember, at the reunion show, Jeff asked the jury how the would have voted in a Russell-Jaison-Shambo final 3, and they said Russell would have won 4-3-2. What makes you so convinced that Russell was at the bottom of his alliance? He was the one leading it. If you're going to disbelieve the edit, why not say Richard Hatch was at the bottom of his alliance? Or that Brian was at the bottom of his? Or that Tom and Rob and Kim were at the bottom of their alliances, and that their allies only carried them because they thought they could beat them? You believe the edit for some people, but disbelieve it for others, which seems kind of biased.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-60997583094018524952012-12-30T21:17:59.196-05:002012-12-30T21:17:59.196-05:00Just because you're being carried doesn't ...Just because you're being carried doesn't mean you don't have a say in the FTC. Survivor history is full of people on the bottom of alliances flipping things around. Russell was at the bottom of that alliance, make no mistake about it, Natalie/Jaison/Mick just let him do all the dirty work and burn every bridge he had with the other jury members.<br /><br />Russell's only chance of winning Samoa would've been if he'd been at the end with Shambo and it was a Final Two FTC. He loses to anyone else --- Natalie obviously crushed him, Jaison would've won, Brett or any of the other ex-Galus would've obviously gotten all the votes from their ex-tribemates on the jury, and even a non-entity like Mick would've easily coasted to victory had he been there against Russell and Shambo at the end.<br /><br />I said it before and I'll say it again: you cannot consider Russell to be anything close to a great player since he had absolutely no awareness of how to handle the final tribal council portion of the game, which is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF SURVIVOR by far.Question Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00267485396018087075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-3045475685152579862012-12-30T19:04:26.224-05:002012-12-30T19:04:26.224-05:00I am noticing a inconsistecy. You say that Russell...I am noticing a inconsistecy. You say that Russell's alliance was carrying him, instead of the other way around. Then you say "Russell's strategy in Samoa should've been to get to the end with Shambo and Mick."<br /><br />But if Russell was being carried, then how could he have determined who was with him? First you say he's being carried, then you say he should have brought different people, stating that he DID carry Natalie, Sandra, Mick, and Parvati. Either he was being carried, and had no say in who was at the end, or he was carrying the group, and determined who was there. By the way, you're wrong. He's an incredible player. Just because he didn't win doesn't mean he's not great.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-59223895246262215922012-12-06T17:20:36.126-05:002012-12-06T17:20:36.126-05:00I just don't get this. You have Todd ranked la...I just don't get this. You have Todd ranked last because he was up against finalists who had no chance of winning a jury vote. Brian was up against someone who would never win a vote, Earl and Chris were,Tom was, Boston Rob was also against weak finalists.You don't appear to have docked any points from them over this. But here's the big thing. Parvati was up against the SAME finalist that Todd was. Amanda had the same speech in Micronesia as she did in China, guaranteeing Parvati the win. You put Todd last because he beat Amanda, but Parvati beat Amanda and she's second. I just don't understand your reasoning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-6824096452653992092012-11-20T19:55:02.072-05:002012-11-20T19:55:02.072-05:00I've looked at some of your other posts. You ...I've looked at some of your other posts. You believe the edit when it portrays somebody you like (Kim, Brian, Richard, Tom, Parvati) as a good player, but when the edit portrays somebody you don't like (Russell, Coach) as a good player, you say the edit is wrong and innacurate. That seems pretty biased to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-32288731233393359502012-11-07T23:11:08.596-05:002012-11-07T23:11:08.596-05:00Your theory that Russell's allience was carryi...Your theory that Russell's allience was carrying him instead of the other way around doesn't make sense. If you're going to ignore the edit and come to your own conclusions, why not assume that Brian's allience carried him, instead of vice-versa? Or that tom westman was carried by his allies? You say they said this in interviews, but that is just because they don't want to look like followers. Ashley (redemption island) said the same thing in an interview, that rob wasn't carrying the group. She said they made group disicions. I notice you didn't mention that too. If Natalie, Jaison, and Mick were the ones leading, wouldn't they have mentioned it at Final Tribal? They didn't, because they weren't the leaders. The jury called them both coattail riders. If Natalie was really one of the leaders, she would have been edited as one so that the audience would be satisfied with the outcome. Natalie helped get rid of Erik, but Russell was the one who got rid of Kelly, flipped John and Shambo, and beat Brett for immunity. HE brought Foa-Foa back to the end, not Natalie. I am noticing a lot of inconsistencies. Todd is ranked low because of poor final tribal opponents and a weak cast. Boston Rob had weak finals opponents and a weak cast, but he is in the middle. The fact that you are insulting Russell on so many of the winner's entries just shows that you are biased. You are ranking based on your personal favorites, not who played the best game. Earl's win wasn't 7-0, it was 9-0-0. Look it up. The fact that you didn't know this shows that you didn't gather enough information to make a good list. Amber and Natalie should be lower BTW. Riding coattails=doing nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-75708359988308773902012-05-13T22:24:08.830-04:002012-05-13T22:24:08.830-04:00how the hell do u put todd last? he played one of ...how the hell do u put todd last? he played one of the best strategic games in the history! behind that douche aras, lucky duck danni, and (even though i love him) fabio? ...come on...come onAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-23135293035775624222012-01-05T22:22:45.166-05:002012-01-05T22:22:45.166-05:00Sandra sucks. Parvati completely deserved to win &...Sandra sucks. Parvati completely deserved to win "Heroes vs. Villains," but the jury was so bitter towards her, and I have three possible reasons why:<br /><br />1.) They all had their crosshairs on her before they even began filming and she beat them all. I remember an Amanda quote from the episode JT was voted out: "If [Parvati] makes it to the end, she's gonna win again." She probably theorized that and hoped that it wouldn't come true. When it did, she was bitter because Parvati made her settle for second in Fans vs. Favorites.<br /><br />2.) Heroes were bitter that she single-handedly led to their demise by double-idoling JT out of the game.<br /><br />3.) Her alliance with Russell, which was probably the most powerful and intimidating alliance in Survivor history. They lumped them together and if they hate one, they hate both, and voted for Sandra by process of elimination.<br /><br />I hated the bitterness of the jury. These were supposed to be the greatest players ever and they hated the fact that the most powerful alliance in Survivor history eliminated all of them. <br /><br />Sandra's MO the entire "Heroes vs. Villains" season was "Get rid of Russell." I'll give her credit though, as she did a good job of playing to the anti-Russell sentiment of the jury and evoking their pity by basically saying, "I tried to get you guys to vote him out, but it didn't work." By saying "Get rid of Russell" for pretty much the entire Final Tribal Council, she sealed up all six of her votes. That's probably all they wanted to hear. But they should have seen the obvious. Sandra's entire strategy for 38 days was "Get rid of Russell." Who was sitting next to her at the Final Tribal Council? Russell.<br /><br />Parvati was robbed. She entered the game with the biggest target on her back, gained Russell's trust to never vote her out, won challenges when she had to, changed the course of the game in throwing out JT, and made her way to the end again. If she ever comes back and makes it the the end again, they should just call the game and give it to her right there. Because she'll once again have the biggest target on her back. In my mind, she's the greatest player of all time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-28312234342276536062011-11-27T23:08:40.375-05:002011-11-27T23:08:40.375-05:00My (much briefer) list of the best non-winning Sur...My (much briefer) list of the best non-winning Survivors ever is here...<br /><br />http://polivision.blogspot.com/2011/09/abandoned-list-posts-survivor-hockey.html<br /><br />As for a 'worst Survivors ever' list, I'm not sure I would legitimately write one that would contain so many of the early eliminations. It's tough to judge just how good/bad a player is if they're knocked out in the first few votes.Question Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00267485396018087075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-83142935770112390372011-11-23T21:51:27.693-05:002011-11-23T21:51:27.693-05:00you should do a post about greatest survivor playe...you should do a post about greatest survivor players of the game (not including champions)<br /><br />and then maybe a worst player listAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-51162461973999378412011-11-10T16:04:49.438-05:002011-11-10T16:04:49.438-05:00Luck is unquestionably a huge part in the game. F...Luck is unquestionably a huge part in the game. For all we know, maybe singin' Wanda was the best Survivor ever but we'll never know since she was eliminated in that dumb "immediately vote two people out" twist.<br /><br />However, I believe the phrase is "once you're lucky, twice you're good." Sandra no doubt caught some big breaks along the way to her two wins, but the fact that she was able to navigate her way to victory TWICE through all the ups and downs that Survivor brings is unquestionably impressive. You realize how silly it is to say that "Sandra sucks" when she's won the game twice? Even if you don't agree she's the best, she certainly doesn't suck.Question Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00267485396018087075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-23134556578746766872011-11-09T06:49:20.190-05:002011-11-09T06:49:20.190-05:00You attribute Rob's win to luck, that is, bein...You attribute Rob's win to luck, that is, being placed on Ometepe, and you should because that is partially true. Yet you credit Sandra's wins to skill when she lucked out twice thanks to Outcasts and her strategy completely failing. Think about it. Her heroes vs villains strategy after the merge was horrible: umm, take out Russell and betray the villains... Okay, take out one of the only two people you can beat in a final 3 and screw your whole tribe over and go to the end with heroes who will vote you out at 5 or 6... And even if you get to the end with them you get no votes from the people you flipped on. yeah, she seems great. No luck there.... She is just lucky that her strategy failedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-68328915545218025522011-11-09T06:43:50.709-05:002011-11-09T06:43:50.709-05:00Umm. Sandra sucks. You are completely result-orien...Umm. Sandra sucks. You are completely result-oriented, especially when you have a sample size of only two. You ignore the fact that the game involves elements of luck and therefore cannot guarantee that the best player wins. You also ignore the fact that Rob M and Heidik played the most dominant games for a winner. Stop looking at 2 for 2 when many winners have played once. Your logic is childish. If player A finishes ahead of player B then player A is always better? No. You are illogical. Someone has to win. Take a season of the 20 best players ever and player A wins. Take a season of the 20 worst players and player B wins. So now all of a sudden player B is no longer one of the worst players and is now better than the 19 great players who lost? No! You're wrong. Besides, if the wind had been slightly different, Christa's cannonball hits the target and she wins immunity and Sandra is voted out and never heard of again. Or if Russell stumbles, he drops the statue and Brett wins immunity and he still finishes 2nd but now Natalie finishes behind him in 3rd. How can you rationalize this? You can't, I can, because you know nothing of game theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-91147405337963767502011-11-08T22:03:04.930-05:002011-11-08T22:03:04.930-05:00Wow. Todd... last? I am glad you at least acknowle...Wow. Todd... last? I am glad you at least acknowledge the placing as very uncommon among fans, but personally, I couldn't disagree more. He's a top 10 winner for me, no question. But hey - at least you're not afraid to make big calls.<br /><br />Interesting read overall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-86263258334622551062011-09-02T20:53:13.565-04:002011-09-02T20:53:13.565-04:00"If Natalie gets just one, on-the-record ment..."If Natalie gets just one, on-the-record mention outlining her strategy to beat Russell at the end (as Parvati did in the Heroes vs. Villains season), she gets a lot more credit as the winner of that game." <br />Natalie said in her first ever confessional in Episode 4 that she wanted to be in the finals with someone more repulsive than her on every level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-14287535359561702212011-05-17T20:53:33.249-04:002011-05-17T20:53:33.249-04:00I would rank Tom higher because of the fact that h...I would rank Tom higher because of the fact that he BEAT the Ulong tribe into the dust, they didn't just lose. just rewatched that season, and he literally led his team to victory in every single challenge, and managed to control the tribe with such grace that nobody blindsided him even though everyone knew he would win in the final 2 hands down! he was like an athletic yau-man who managed to manipulate/control his alliance so well that they were blind to the million dollar prize at the endAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14435634.post-46997494782667807112011-05-16T20:04:13.476-04:002011-05-16T20:04:13.476-04:00thanks. nice blog :o) who do you think will be the...thanks. nice blog :o) who do you think will be the 2 veteran players to return to redemption island: south pacific? - Ryan -survivor fanatic from PhilippinesRyan Zaratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12982194842635033052noreply@blogger.com