# Survivor Finale - Who's It Gonna Be?



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

My money is on Parvati.


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

As much as I am a fan of Russell,I don't think it will be him.I like Jerri at this point.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Boy did you see the look on Ruperts face last night right before he walked off? He was p*****!

I say Russell or Parvati.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I think the producers edited last night's show to throw the viewers off track.
That whole Sandra v Russell thing looked contrived to me.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

Sandra or Parvati.


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

I want Russell to win and only Russell….. He truly is the best player to ever play the game


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

oldschoolecw said:


> I want Russell to win and only Russell&#8230;.. He truly is the best player to ever play the game


Russell's biggest weakness is the jury.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Russell's biggest weakness is the jury.


So true! I'm not sure if he would make it to the final 2, he would get a single vote.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

the jury has it out for Russell.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Let's not count Colby out just yet! All he needs to do is win the last 2 challenges. If that were to happen, I would think he was a lock for the million. 

However, my money is on Sandra..


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

fluffybear said:


> Let's not count Colby out just yet! All he needs to do is win the last 2 challenges. If that were to happen, I would think he was a lock for the million.
> 
> However, my money is on Sandra..


:nono:Sandra:nono: What has she truly done to deserve the million?:nono2:


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I say Sandra.

But I wouldn't rule Russel out so fast. This is a different game than his last one. You have more experienced players who may actually vote for game play rather than personality.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Russell's biggest problem is ... Russell. I don't see him coming anywheres close to winning. If he were to somehow make it to the final 2, the jury vote against him will be a landslide. I think a woman will walk away with it.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Boy did you see the look on Ruperts face last night right before he walked off? He was p*****!
> 
> I say Russell or Parvati.


I think that look was aimed at Russell.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

I think Colby and Jerri are going to be voted out. Colby as the last Hero and Jerri since she's at the bottom of the villains alliance and I don't see either winning immunity.

Russel won't win for the same reasons he lost the 1st time - he's just too in your face with the way he goes after people and the jury members absolutely despise him.

I suspect that the jury is going to view Pavarti as too alligned with Russel most of the game to vote for her.

That leaves Sandra, the one villain who alligned with the Heroes after the merge and was considered by them as not linked to any of the remaining villains. I think Sandra wins.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

I don't see Russell even making it to the end unless he wins immunity. Sandra has had it out for him for a long time and I think Parvati is on board after he got Danielle out.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Russell should have one last season if you actually applied the mantra. Outwit, outplay and outlast. Problem is that people on survivor don't generally look at the game as a game and award based on game play. Instead they play the spilled milk vote and tend to vote for who did not piss them off them most. 

The only two I don't want to win is Parvati an Sandra. Sandra bascally did not play 3/4 of the game and she rarely has a target on her head. I don't respect her game play though she is good for entertainment. 

Parvati has had to play the game and has had to make some moves, but basically she does not have the risk that Russel has and has not played nearly as a powerful game as Russell. Even if Russell sweeps he will not win. You got a jury full of sour loosers.. I mean look at the Jury.

Cortney
Dragon Slayer
Candice Who
Rubert 
TJ
D something or other .. What survivor was she even on.  

Couldn't have a worse jury for getting a vote for outwit and outplaying. 

If Parverti makes it to the end she will win against everyone but Colby. 
If Jerri makes it to the end with Sandra or Russel she most likely will win. 
If Sandra makes it with Russell she can win. 
If Colby makes it to the end he will win, but will have to sweep. 

I got my money on Jerri. Don't think she deserves the win, but the person at the end is usually not the person that deserves it. 

So the big question running through my mind... What is up with Colby. The guy that was dominating appears weaker than Sandra. Could he be sandbagging as a strategy or is really sucking that much.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

oldschoolecw said:


> :nono:Sandra:nono: What has she truly done to deserve the million?:nono2:


Same as she did last time: hang around and be a useful vote to those in power. Then at the end after those in power have ticked off everyone on the jury, there is Sandra sitting there having really not lied to anyone.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

say-what said:


> IRussel won't win for the same reasons he lost the 1st time - he's just too in your face with the way he goes after people and the jury members absolutely despise him.


I agree to a point. That was his downfall last season. But these are all experienced players that just might respect his "game" a little more even if they hate it and him.

Plus I don't think he has mentioned that he made $1.7M last year. I think that hurt him last season.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> That was his downfall last season. But these are all experienced players that just might respect his "game" a little more even if they hate it and him.


Not based on the comments most have made about Russel. They seem to view him as the perfect patsy to go against in the finals. Then there's the looks he gets from the jury whenever he speaks. Even though these people have played this game before (some multiple times before), they still take things way too personally. About the only one who didn't take getting voted off personally was JT.

I just don't see Russel as having more than a few votes, if any.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

The only thing that Russell's game is missing is the likeability factor. He spends so much time making people scared of him (which is why has makes it so far in the game) that when they get voted out it's payback time. I like to watch him play and strategize but I don't think he will win.

Parv or Jerri will win.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Like I said above. Look at the Jury.. Russel does not have a chance in hell. Of all the people on the Jury, I have respect for one of them.. Rubert.. and I even think he will not evaluate game play but will vote for the either the one they like the most or the one that screwed them the least. 

They will take the final council as a opportunity to get there last few minutes of fame. 

I mean.. How can you not give nod to Russel if he was able to get into the finals based on his gameplay. I mean.. He actually got someone from the other side to give them his idol. I know he did not ask for it, but he definitely picked up on the situation and played it perfectly. Same goes with given the idol to pav early. He took some major risks, has played people well, has controlled a good portion of the game. But if he does get to the end.. My gut tells me one vote max given past spoiled milk juries. 

Pav has also controlled a good portion of the game, but to me given her position in the tribe and other players it is a lot easier to do it from that position. 

I sure hope Colby is sandbagging, but my guess is he is not.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Getting the Jury to award you the prize is just as much part of the gameplay as getting to the end of the game.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> I sure hope Colby is sandbagging, but my guess is he is not.


That's funny, we sit there each week and try to guess when he will "be back". Didn't he lose last time because everyone thought he made it to the finals only because he won most of the challenges? Is it possible he can turn it back on and win the last challenge? I'm starting to think like you, guessing he's not sandbagging.


----------



## donbean (Mar 13, 2010)

Russell is a great player.. One of the best ever... But as stated here allready , his weakness is and will allways be the jury... He will never make it past #2 because of this... I would bet on Jerry myself... Sandra , Parv... I that order...


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

oldschoolecw said:


> :nono:Sandra:nono: What has she truly done to deserve the million?:nono2:


Not much of anything.

I'm thinking (my personal opinion) this is how it will play out:

Jerri will win the next immunity challenge and Colby will get the boot.

Sandra will win the final immunity challenge forcing Jerri out the door.

When it comes to the jury, it is obvious from seasons past that the 'best player' does not always win. Russell has no friends on jury so he will be lucky to get a vote. Parvati also has made her share of enemies so I really do not see her getting more than maybe 3 votes. That leaves at least 5 votes left over Sandra.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Sandra winning final immunity over Pav and Russel. Given that usually the last challenge is some balance or strength one my money is on Pav to win the last one if it is based on balance and Russel if it has to do with strength. I don't see Jerri getting the vote off either. I think Russel would like to be next to her in the end and same goes with Parv. She can be painted as a coat tailer. But then again.. That is who one last season against Russel. 

I have said this before.. I would never want a survivor jury to seal my fate. In real life as a Jury member you are asked to given the points of the case valuate the facts against those point and and base your vote on that. Survivor has shown time and time again, that is not the thought process. 

Now that I think more about it. Russel might have a shot to get to the end... I mean given past seasons.. Why would you not want him next to you.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

donbean said:


> Russell is a great player.. One of the best ever... But as stated here allready , his weakness is and will allways be the jury... He will never make it past #2 because of this... I would bet on Jerry myself... Sandra , Parv... I that order...


Agree in principle. You can't expect to win it when you are burning all of your bridges. That to me is a fatal flaw that tarnishes the wide contention that he is one of the best players ever. Even an idiot knows that when your fate relies on the jury's vote, the last thing you should be doing is sending people there with your knives in their backs.

He thinks he's smart and wily, but he's proving to be quite the opposite.

I don't think Colby has the time left for a comeback. I still think it'll be a woman, but I won't venture to guess which one.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> Sandra winning final immunity over Pav and Russel. Given that usually the last challenge is some balance or strength one my money is on Pav to win the last one if it is based on balance and Russel if it has to do with strength. I don't see Jerri getting the vote off either.


That is the fun thing about immunity challenges, anything can happen.

Even if Russell were to win the final immunity challenge. I personally believe that Russell might think he stands a better chance with the jury against 2 past million dollar winners (and who made some enemies) then someone like Jerri who for the most part flew under the radar for most of the game..


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Colby, then Jerri out.

Final 3: Russell, Parv, Sandra

Parv wins by 5-4-0 vote to Sandra & Russell.

Russell deserves it, though.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

(All of this is my speculation only .. No clue who really wins)
I think Sandra has as good a chance as any .. But ..

In a Sandra/Russell/Parvarti final 3



Contestant|Vote
Coach|Parvarti
Courtney|Sandra
J.T.|Sandra
Amanda|Parvarti
Candice|Parvarti
Danielle|Parvarti
Rupert|Sandra
Colby|Sandra
Jerri|Parvarti

[strike]Sandra wins simply because she befriended the Heroes tribe just enough.[/strike]
Parvarti wins 5-4

If it's a Jerri/Russell/Parvarti final 3



Contestant|Vote
Coach|Jerri
Courtney|Jerri
J.T.|Parvarti
Amanda|Parvarti
Candice|Parvarti
Danielle|Parvarti
Rupert|Jerri
Colby|Jerri
Sandra|Jerri

Jerri Wins 5-4

If it's colby/Russell/Parvarti



Contestant|Vote
Coach|Parvarti
Courtney|Parvarti
J.T.|Colby
Amanda|Colby
Candice|Colby
Danielle|Parvarti
Rupert|Colby
Jerri|Parvarti
Sandra|Parvarti

parvarti wins 5-4

You'll notice I have zero votes for Russell, so bottom line .. anyone that is left should actually want Russell in the Finals as I'm pretty sure that from a contestant/jury point of view .. Russell gets the ax. That means it will be the best of who is left.

[strike]Parvarti should want to bring Colby as I think that is actually her best chance to win. What has Colby done? Nothing .. absolutely nothing and folks will see that so Parvarti wins.

Sandra probably wins against either Jerri or Parvarti or Colby (if somehow that happens), so all Sandra should care about is making the final 3 and she's probably won.

Jerri could probably pull in enough votes to win as long as she doesn't go up against Sandra ..

So, my vote as to who will win the whole thing.

Sandra .. I think the odds are in her favor.[/strike]

After getting the jury right (Duh!) .. I'm changing my vote. Parvarti wins this thing as long as Jerri doesn't make the final 3.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Boy Doug.. that is a Sad commentary on this season. Sandra is the odds on favorite to win.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> Boy Doug.. that is a Sad commentary on this season. Sandra is the odds on favorite to win.


As long as Russell doesn't win, they can give it to Jeff for all I care. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Boy Doug.. that is a Sad commentary on this season. Sandra is the odds on favorite to win.


It's only sad because I left out two jury members :lol:

I've fixed my post.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> That leaves at least 5 votes left over Sandra.


Nope. Can't handle that after the Amazing Race winner. 

Russell should have gotten rid of her when he had the chance, but the girls wanted Candice gone.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Given that usually the last challenge is some balance or strength one my money is on Pav to win the last one if it is based on balance and Russel if it has to do with strength.


I hope that last one is based on the concept of "who wants it the most". I have to give Parv credit. For someone who could have coasted through life with everything being given to her based on her looks and personality, she is a tough competitor.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'd like to see Russell or Colby win, but don't think either one of them will.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Nope. Can't handle that after the Amazing Race winner.
> 
> Russell should have gotten rid of her when he had the chance, but the girls wanted Candice gone.


It wouldn't be my choice, I would prefer to see Colby or Jerri win but I just don't see either of them going to the final 3 unless one of them wins back to back immunity challenges.

Mrs. Fluffybear and I were discussing it last evening and she was of the opinion that the only way Russell were to move on to the final 3 was to win both immunity challenges.
She agrees with me though that while may have played the best game, there is zero chance that he will be named ultimate survivor thanks to the Jury system. She thought that the deciding factor more or less in Sandra/Parvati/Russell final 3 would be Jerri especially if she feels like there is a knife in her back with Parvati's name on it..


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> After getting the jury right (Duh!) .. I'm changing my vote. Parvarti wins this thing as long as Jerri doesn't make the final 3.


The wildcard vote (at least in my opinion) in a Russell/Parvati/Sandra final 3 is Jerri. While I personally believe she will give the million to Sandra, I could just as easily see her vote Parvati

In either case the chances for us having the first 2 time winner is very high.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

Outwit, Outplay, Outlast....

Russell - has 2 of them but outplay is the tough one. To outplay you have to go all the way and win the million. That's where Russell falls short. Even though I like the guy I don't think he can go the distance. If it came down to him and Sandra, I would give it to him.

Sandra, might have all 3 but I can't stand her.

Parvarti might have all 3 plus she is smoking hot

Colby might have all 3 as well and if he wins immunity he can win it all.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

-Draino- said:


> Outwit, Outplay, Outlast....
> 
> Russell - has 2 of them but outplay is the tough one. To outplay you have to go all the way and win the million.


To me, outplay is a reference to reward and immunity challenges. Russell gives them his all and does pretty well.

Colby, on the other hand (even though I wouldn't mind seeing him win), is terrible at the playing part of the game. He's the first one out all the time.

So, I don't see Colby or Sandra having all 3. Just Russell and Pavarti.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Outplay to me is the strategic part of the came. The ability to adapt your stratagy to the changes in the game and make moves that result in furthering yourself. That is way I have always giving a lot more points to the person leading the effort vs. the "Fly on the radar" people that usually end up winning at the end. I also add how you do in the challanges. 

Outwit is how well you did at getting your opponents out without them knowing it. How you use the idols to your advantage. How you blindside someone that is trying to blindside you. How you smell it out and adjust.

Outlast, I give big points to people with targets on their back that take action to save themselves. Remember season one when kelly swept. To me that was huge, but in the end she fell short. It has happened a number of times over the years and these people usually don't win. Sucks in my opinion because that to me defines Outlast.

Well based on the above. Russel has outplayed, and outwitted everyone. Parv would be next followed by Sandra and then Jerri. I don't see any big favorite in the outlast arena. The only way I would give Colby the nod is if he swept the final challenges and claimed he dogged the whole way to keep the target off his back. If that is the case huge outwit and outlast points.  Otherwise.. Nope.

In the end.. Still thinking it will be a woman as everyone else believes. Jerri and Sandri are the favorites given the Jury as I see it. If you apply my reasoning under the Outwit, Outplay, Outlast mantra the node should go to Russel with Parv next in line, but as with past seasons it is rarely the case. Usually the spoiled milk rules apply and that would give the node to Jerri or Sandra with Jerri most likely winning.


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

While Russell has made it an entertaining season I'd hate to see him be rewarded for being a bully. Basically Russell intimidates the other players into doing what he wants untl they're voted out but just doesn't comprehend that he has nothing to hold over the jury members so he wont be able to control their votes. If I were on the jury there's no way I'd give him my vote. Ron may call that "sour milk" but part of the game is to vote people out while at the same time convince them you're most deserving. Whatever that means. Russell has done a really bad job at that. If you can't do that then by definition, you're not deserving since that's the point of the game.


----------



## waynebtx (Dec 24, 2006)

Anybody but Russell ....................cant stand him


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I am DEEPLY disappointed in the outcome. :nono2:


----------



## Jimmy 440 (Nov 17, 2007)

I knew Russell wasn't going to win.He P ed too many people off.I wish Parvati won it.
Sandra just rubs me the wrong way.I can't stand her.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Marlin Guy said:


> I am DEEPLY disappointed in the outcome. :nono2:





Jimmy 440 said:


> I knew Russell wasn't going to win.He P ed too many people off.I wish Parvati won it.
> Sandra just rubs me the wrong way.I can't stand her.


Totally agree with both points. Russell should have one, he "played the game".


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

TomH said:


> While Russell has made it an entertaining season I'd hate to see him be rewarded for being a bully. Basically Russell intimidates the other players into doing what he wants untl they're voted out but just doesn't comprehend that he has nothing to hold over the jury members so he wont be able to control their votes. If I were on the jury there's no way I'd give him my vote. Ron may call that "sour milk" but part of the game is to vote people out while at the same time convince them you're most deserving. Whatever that means. Russell has done a really bad job at that. If you can't do that then by definition, you're not deserving since that's the point of the game.


By sour milk, i mean that people tend to vote for the person that did not screw them the most not the person who actually played the game the best and to me that takes away from the game. I get their is a social aspect of the game and as seasons have gone on the social aspect as been a bigger and bigger role into determining the outcome.

By best player of the game, I mean if you take everything into consideration, key moves, challenges, control of the game etc. and base your vote on that I think you are voting with the spirit of what the game of survivor was suppose to be. But basing your vote on who was the least evil in the game or who did not stab you in the back or casting your vote for someone that rode coattails but did not really do anything to control the game because the other one did the dirty work is really not voting in the spirit of the game (Outwit, outplay, outlast). That is become a joke in my mind.

I personal find that sad, because when the game first started there was a survivor aspect to it, there was a physical aspect to it, and there was a social aspect to it. I believed both the survivor aspect and the physical aspect have been watered down. No longer do you need a provider and did you see how many change of clothes the contestants have had lately. Combine that with voting for your Friends "Believe Sandra said something like that" and you have a formula for an outcome like tonight.

Personally if you look at the mantra of the game I believe Russel should have one. Heck Sandra kept making his point, the reason those people are sitting there and Russel in the final 3 was because of Russel. Even with Sandra yelling as load as they could. Now.. am I surprised he did not get a single vote. Nope.. I don't think there was a single vote tonight from any jury where gameplay was the only consideration. I think it came down to voting for the person that did the least evil in their eyes not who played the best game and that to me is sour milk because they should be evaluating the person that outplayed, outwitted and outlasted and that for sure was not Sandra and if Jerri would have made it she would most likely would have one also.

I do disagree that fan voting should be the way. Perhaps the voting should be done by a panel of experts evaluating the game against the Mantra.

Well lets see how the next season goes. My guess will be more of the same. Would be interesting to here what people thought of the season.

For me it was Ok. Not the worst but I would say below the mid-line. Just don't like the ones where people have played before. To much external influences from past games.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

A while back, I commented on how good Parvati looked after X days on the island, dirty and grungy.

After the reunion show last night, I wish to recant that statement.
She cleans up even better! :eek2:


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Totally agree with both points. Russell should have one, he "played the game".


Did he?

No Offense but isn't part of "playing the game" getting 5 people on the jury to give you the million dollars? He made it to the finals in 2 different occasion and both times came out with nothing.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

fluffybear said:


> Did he?
> 
> No Offense but isn't part of "playing the game" getting 5 people on the jury to give you the million dollars? He made it to the finals in 2 different occasion and both times came out with nothing.


Read Rons post above, I think it sums it all up nicely.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> ByNow.. am I surprised he did not get a single vote. Nope.. I don't think there was a single vote tonight from any jury where gameplay was the only consideration.


I didn't think he would win, but I though he would at least get Coach's vote.

Sandra's strategy, and it worked, was to be a reliable vote for whomever was in power. I have to wonder if she would have made the final 3 if she had been able to get rid of Russell after the merge. I think the Heroes would have rolled at that point and she would have been on the jury. So from that standpoint, I think her "strategy" would have failed her. Instead, she rode the coat tails and ended up a winner again. 

Russell has to regret keeping her instead of Courtney.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

That was Sandra's strategy last time too. Her motto was "As long as it is not me". It is a strategy that a number of winners have deployed and obviously a good one for the game and that is one of the many reason why I think the game has become untrue to its mantra. 

I mean.. How many questions were really asked in the final tribal council? it was like one or two questions with a bunch of speeches. There was no probing going on. It was a bunch of people getting their last minutes of 10 minutes of fame. They should have never let the Sue speeches into the final counsel if the purpose truly was to gather important information to make a 1 million dollar decision. I totally laughed when Jeff said that a lot of good information was obtained. Not.


----------



## cdc101 (Jan 9, 2007)

IMHO, a lot was lost when they went from the 2 person final tribal council to the three. You always had that last endurance challenge to widdle the 3rd player out. 

I have never liked the 3 person final and I hope they decide to go back the the original way sometime.

Again, just my $.02


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> That was Sandra's strategy last time too. Her motto was "As long as it is not me". It is a strategy that a number of winners have deployed and obviously a good one for the game and that is one of the many reason why I think the game has become untrue to its mantra.
> 
> I mean.. How many questions were really asked in the final tribal council? it was like one or two questions with a bunch of speeches. There was no probing going on. It was a bunch of people getting their last minutes of 10 minutes of fame. They should have never let the Sue speeches into the final counsel if the purpose truly was to gather important information to make a 1 million dollar decision. I totally laughed when Jeff said that a lot of good information was obtained. Not.


Well remember too, there is a LOT of creative editing going on. So we really don't know what all happened during the TC that ended up on the cutting room floor.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

elaclair said:


> Well remember too, there is a LOT of creative editing going on. So we really don't know what all happened during the TC that ended up on the cutting room floor.


If that is what they kept and the rest was left on the cutting room floor I would have to say pretty pathetic. I do know that there is lot that goes on during TC that does not make the cut. My guess though with the final one that is minimized given the different format.

However, the trend has definitely been more and more speeches at the end and not a lot of questioning which shows a lot about where the show has gone in my opinion. I remember a few seasons back someone blantly putting on what one could only call an audition during tribal council. It sent shivers down my spine.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

cdc101 said:


> IMHO, a lot was lost when they went from the 2 person final tribal council to the three. You always had that last endurance challenge to widdle the 3rd player out.
> 
> I have never liked the 3 person final and I hope they decide to go back the the original way sometime.
> 
> Again, just my $.02


Totally agree. It should be the final two.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Totally agree. It should be the final two.


There should be no jury at all. The "sole survivor" should be just that, not a "who-pissed-me-off-the-least" vote by a bunch of disgruntled, hypocritical losers.

The immunity winner at 3 picks who they want in the finals and they do a combination challenge utilizing all the "tools" they should have in order to be the winner.

Anything else is not a competition, it's a farce.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Russell plays the game like no other.
That is both his strength and his weakness.

Most people, when put together with a group of strangers, begin to choose who they like and who they don't like. Those decisions are generally based on first impressions and physical attraction. Social bonds are made with some expectations of loyalty and commitment.

Russell is a machine. He turns off the human side of himself and focuses completely on the game and how he is going to be one of the last ones standing. He understands that he's not there to make friends. He's there to win at a game that has little to no rules.

He keeps his head in the game 24/7, never losing sight of his objective. He is the best player to ever play the game, hands down.
The problem is, the best game players don't win. They only get to the end.

Then it's a matter of who has kept at least some loyalties and respect intact. It is a social game when it goes to the jury. Emotion is back into play.

Russell doesn't understand how others can't put their emotions aside and respect his skills at the game. He is unable to articulate how he feels about that, because he thinks that they already must have some idea. After all, they were playing the same game..... but they weren't. Not really.

His best shot at final tribal council would have to been to say something like, "Look, I know I have done bad things to most of you here. But I also want you to know that this is not something I do in real life. I'm playing a role in this game. 
I don't have Parvati's charming smile. 
I don't have Sandra's lost puppy eyes and underdog demeanor.
I don't the Coach's physical abilities and zen philosophy to keep me on track.
I don't have Rupert's universal appeal.
I don't have Jerri's magnetic personality.

I have my little troll body and an ability to lie so well that a polygraph would be stumped to tell the difference.

I used what I have to get to this point. I played the hand I was dealt. I played with what I have against people who have so much more, and yet I still made it this far.

I can't undo what I have done to get here. I can't apologize for getting to the finals. I can say I'm sorry that it happened to you.
But remember, this. 
I have but one vote. Nobody on this jury was put there with just one vote."


----------



## cdc101 (Jan 9, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> "Look, I know I have done bad things to most of you here. But I also want you to know that this is not something I do in real life. I'm playing a role in this game.
> I don't have Parvati's charming smile.
> I don't have Sandra's lost puppy eyes and underdog demeanor.
> I don't the Coach's physical abilities and zen philosophy to keep me on track.
> ...


Wow! He'd have won with 7 of 9 votes if he would have quoted that. Very nice.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I had a question running through my mind. Russel kept referring to having played one game. Did he actually do back to back where he did not find the outcome out until he returned from playing the 2nd game or did he play game 2 having gone through the results of game one?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

cdc101 said:


> Wow! He'd have won with 7 of 9 votes if he would have quoted that. Very nice.


As much as I would have hoped that would have changed the jury, I strongly believe that everyone sitting in that jury already had their mind made up and have already written their speeches.

I would say that Russell did not articulate well his position but I don't think it would have made a difference. I give him props for sticking to his guns and not waffling into the "I am sorry" routine that a number of past finalist have done (Yes I am talking about Amanda).


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Ron Barry said:


> I had a question running through my mind. Russel kept referring to having played one game. Did he actually do back to back where he did not find the outcome out until he returned from playing the 2nd game or did he play game 2 having gone through the results of game one?


I have no proof to point you to but I'm 99% sure Heroes vs Villains was all done except the results show when the Russells first season results show happened. He knew he was in the final 3 of both seasons before he knew if he would win either of them.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

pfp said:


> I have no proof to point you to but I'm 99% sure Heroes vs Villains was all done except the results show when the Russells first season results show happened. He knew he was in the final 3 of both seasons before he knew if he would win either of them.


Yup .. This is true .. 0-2 .. so close yet so far. He really could not have used the first results show to gauge what to do in the second season.


----------



## lucky13 (Nov 27, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Yup .. This is true .. 0-2 .. so close yet so far. He really could not have used the first results show to gauge what to do in the second season.


Exactly, Doug.

When Heroes/Villains began, I thought it was a great advantage to Russell that none of the other contestants had seen him play on the previous season.

That advantage held, but it was a greater disadvantage to Russell that he didn't know before going into H/V how his tactics turned off all the jury members in the previous go-round.

I'm not at all sure that Russell could have altered his tactics successfully. Any attempt by him to play a more "social" game might have weakened the very tactics that enabled him to get to the end twice.

Personally, I feel that Russell deserved to win. But--

He is a student of the game of Survivor. He wisely figured out a strategy to get him through 39 days, twice. Yet, as adept at Survivor as he was, he forgot to factor in how the jury makes up its mind. And by not remembering that, he didn't really deserve to win.

There are many comparisons in sports to the "best players" who don't go home with the trophy. The Atlanta Braves won 14 consecutive division titles, and only one World Series in that span. The Washington Caps this year--best record in the regular season, a quick exit in the playoffs. And Russell--78 consecutive days on Survivor, and no votes from the final juries. Sometimes what gets you to the end just isn't enough to get you over the line.


----------



## subeluvr (Jan 14, 2007)

It seemed to me that Russell knew about halfway through the final tribal council that he wasn't going to win so it was no surprise to me that he _stuck to his guns_ cause he wasn't going to give the jury members the satisfaction of backstroking.

There is no doubt that Russell played hard but as one jury member put it, and I can't remember who, Russell played to get to the final tribal council in both Survivors he was on but he didn't play to win either time and he didn't.

For those who admire Russell's game remember what Einstein said... _the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome_. So, was Russell all that smart or a million dollars worth of stupid... TWICE?


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

subeluvr said:


> There is no doubt that Russell played hard but as one jury member put it, and I can't remember who, Russell played to get to the final tribal council in both Survivors he was on but he didn't play to win either time and he didn't.


that was Boston Rob who was not part of the Jury.



subeluvr said:


> For those who admire Russell's game remember what Einstein said... _the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome_. So, was Russell all that smart or a million dollars worth of stupid... TWICE?


To be fair... he did not know the outcome from the first go round when he did the same thing again. He only knew it got him to the final 3.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Ron Barry said:


> I had a question running through my mind. Russel kept referring to having played one game. Did he actually do back to back where he did not find the outcome out until he returned from playing the 2nd game or did he play game 2 having gone through the results of game one?


Yes, there was only a week or two between the end of filming of his first season and the beginning of this one. All the film was in the can for both before they started airing the first one.

So, while everyone else had not seen him play, which surely helped him survive past say, day 1, he also had no chance to refine his gameplay (though based on his comments on the reunion, I am not sure he would have)

Marlin Guy, I agree he would have had a much better chance if he went with a statement like you gave. In fact a couple of jury members basically begged him to say essentially that but he did not.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> I would say that Russell did not articulate well his position


Yep, that might have cost him both times. He went into the jury assuming everyone would think he was great and deserved to win. He didn't realize he needed to state his case and convince them. Maybe he's not capable. In the tribal council's he spelled just about every name wrong when he voted, so maybe he just doesn't have the intellect that's needed in the last stage of the game. There was many things he could have said (in both seasons) to get some votes, but he just didn't do it.

He just said "I'm the best. Vote for me"


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Russell again was denied his just reward by a bunch of whining sour grapes who are mad that he bested all of them. That being said, the jury vote is part of the game and people aren't going to give money to someone just because they deserve it. Obvioulsy Sandra didn't deserve a damn thing.

But at least Russell won the fan vote. 

And on a side note, Rupert is a whiny douch-bag who plays a creepy tie died Grizzly Adams character.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I wouldn't call it 'whining sour grapes' at all. He was hoisted on his own petard. He *made* those 'whiners'. It's like peeing in your own Cheerios and then complaining that you have to eat it when you knew, going in, that you had to. If he *really* studied "Survivor", he would KNOW that it's the person who ticks off the least number of people who wins.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

pfp said:


> [...] *To be fair... he did not know the outcome from the first go round when he did the same thing again. He only knew it got him to the final 3*.


Ok. I'm totally perplexed ... how is it that we saw the Samoa Finale way back then and Russell was there and cried foul, if he didn't know the outcome? What did I miss?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Henry said:


> Ok. I'm totally perplexed ... how is it that we saw the Samoa Finale way back then and Russell was there and cried foul, if he didn't know the outcome? What did I miss?


Samoa and HvV were filmed back to back. The results aren't (supposed to be) revealed till the live finale shows. Samoa & HvV were both done before Samoa's live finale. Then, HvV season aired.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Samoa and HvV were filmed back to back. The results aren't (supposed to be) revealed till the live finale shows. Samoa & HvV were both done before Samoa's live finale. Then, HvV season aired.


Still . Both Finales were billed as Live. That means that the HvV players had to wait longer to find out who won, but the Samoa Finale aired back then - also Live. Very confusing.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Definitely agree with you djlong that flying under the radar wins a lot and I believe it also points to a huge problem with how they cast the show. To many times there are people on the show that should not be there. They fit a what the casting wants, they desire their 15 minutes of fame, but they are not there to play it. I personally hate these do overs, but one thing it does show even for people you play the game multiple times they still can't put aside their hurt feelings and evaluate the game play of each contestant and throw their vote to who they feel Outwitted, Outplayed, Outlasted. 

Time and Time again we see people at the end say they played with integrity and honor and not cast their vote for someone that just did it better while we look at the TV and say to ourselves "Huh? you stabbed so and so in the back 3 weeks into the season?". 
When it comes down to it, some play the game fully straight and even fewer with the strategy end up at the end while most play with some level of lying and manipulation.

It happens, people have to make moves to get to the end and time and time again the aggressive person that makes those moves and plays a very strong game is left out in the cold while the person that does minimal and avoids pissing someone off wins the gold. It is one thing if they are actively working under the radar it is another if they are just kinda going along for the ride playing the pawn. 

It is part of the game and the people sitting in the jury who did not get the person out that was doing such horrible things have only themselves in most cases to blame for not making a move and getting that person out. This does not mean I think Russell should have one hands down.  I think he did overplay the game a bit, but for the jury to act like he is some troll like human being while they are all honorable players makes me want to vomit. Candice is a good example. She was the main reason the Heroes could not turn the game. She stabbed them all in the back so early and then plays high and mighty at Tribel. Danielle was fine when she was controlling the game and manipulating people but when the tables turn, how quickly the tone changes. 

As for Survivor producers, Instead of casting people that are in it to win it they cast it to fit a certain formula. I mean, did anyone really think Cortney would actually put some thought into her vote instead of voting for her girl ("Fist Pump"). Same goes with Danielle, Candice, and Jeri. As for Rubert, the guy appears to love the game and competition, but puts zero value on strategic play. He has shown that all three of his seasons. 

I know a lot of rambling. Bottom line as I see it after watching all seasons is that if you want to win, your best chance is to play under the radar, use your social skills to the fullest, latch on to an aggressive player that will do the necessary dirty work or find a way to play "Anyone but me" strategy and then at the end count your money. This was not the case early in Survivor, but has definitely become the best strategy over the last 10 seasons and that is a bummer. 

I know it won't change. Love the show but each season I appear to get more annoyed as there is a likely 95% chance the person I feel played the game the best based on the criteria goes home with the goose egg.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Henry said:


> Still . Both Finales were billed as Live. That means that the HvV players had to wait longer to find out who won, but the Samoa Finale aired back then - also Live. Very confusing.


Never mind. It makes perfect sense once you give it a little thought.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> I know a lot of rambling. Bottom line as I see it after watching all seasons is that if you want to win, your best chance is to play under the radar, use your social skills to the fullest, latch on to an aggressive player that will do the necessary dirty work or find a way to play "Anyone but me" strategy and then at the end count your money. This was not the case early in Survivor, but has definitely become the best strategy over the last 10 seasons and that is a bummer.
> 
> I know it won't change. Love the show but each season I appear to get more annoyed as there is a likely 95% chance the person I feel played the game the best based on the criteria goes home with the goose egg.


Ron, in all seriousness, why not apply and see if you can accepted for an upcoming season?


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

And even if the actual votes were not revealed, I am sure based on what we saw at final TC, he got a pretty good vibe form the Heros v Villians jury that he was not going to win that one for sure.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Lee L said:


> And even if the actual votes were not revealed, I am sure based on what we saw at final TC, he got a pretty good vibe form the Heros v Villians jury that he was not going to win that one for sure.


For sure. I keep reminding myself that the basis for him playing was not the money, but self importance or ego. It's pretty obvious that he came on the game to prove a point: You can make it to the end if you're in-your-face ruthless and devious.

The game - for its part - deals with this type of person by introducing the social aspect. Where feelings and loyalties play a part, ruthlessnses and deviousness will hardly ever carry the day. He must have known that. No one can play as good a game as he did and be a moron too.

IMHO, he never knowingly intended to win. He won the Favorite Player in each season he was on --- that $200k should sooth his ego somewhat. And if it doesn't, too bad ... moron.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Sandra really didn't fly under the radar, IMHO. She did try to get Russell off but was unsuccessful. She only really joined Russell in the very end when it was clear (having seen the reunion show) that she WANTED Russell there to lessen the competition. I'm not entirely sure she thought she could be parvarti.

She was on the strong alliance (Rob, Tyson, etc.) but she was the low man on the totem pole there, too. I think she made the right choices to get her to where she needed to be and I don't think she was always silent about what she was doing.

I'd probably play a game much like Sandra .. stir things up in a subtle way, not the in your face way that Russell did.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yeah.. she didn't fly under the radar, but than again she was never really ever in a position of power or control. She was like a bug flying around trying to stir things up and really never at a point of risk and from what I can see her only strategy during the game ("not Monday morning Quarterbacking") was vote Russel off which obviously did not pan out. 

The telling part of actually her influence in the game was she could not successful get the troll voted out and even when she indicated she was going after Russel ("Which always resulted in your butt leaving the next week") she did not get the boot. 

As for me trying out, no one wants to see my big gut on walking around a beach.  

Another thing I have found slowly decaying is the challanges. Did anyone else find the final challanges and the ones leading up to be a bit weak. The season started out with some good physical challanges though also very puzzle heavy and ended with skills of balance. Even the hook up with your family one to be pretty weak, they were like 20 feet from the water. 

I will say, seeing the clips of Australia and the early days of Survivor definitely stirred some memories of how at the end of the season people looked like skeletons. Today games are just not the same. They have gotten much softer and so have the contestents.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Actually, for the most part, I thought the challenges have been a little better the past couple of seasons compared to say seasons 12-18, but they do seem less taxing than some early stuff. It is interesting that they used to almost ban any fighting and rough physical contact and now they have challenges that pretty much require it.


----------

