Quote:
Originally Posted by
Paul D G 
I don;t recall Danni, but Vecepia (sp?) is the one who stands out to me as a completely undeserving winner.
Aw, Vecepia gets a bad rap. I'm not a fan at all and I don't like UTR-style play since it's boring to watch...but you have to hand it to her, that was one of the most topsy-turvy seasons ever; she was incredibly masterful at instigating drama but staying out of it herself. As Jeff Probst put it, in casting a player, they made an excellent choice with Vecepia. In casting a character, she was a dud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stephen_L 
Another flaw in Russell's game is his ability to win challenges. (He is okay in challenges, but I'm not sure he can beat Brett, Jaison, or Mick) Once you get to the final five or four, generally you need to win immunity to survive to the finals. By that point the strongest player is identified and will be voted off if they don't have immunity. One thing that always impressed me about Amanda (Survivor China and Fans vs. Favs) is she could close the deal by winning late challenges to make the finals (she then always screwed up her presentation to the jury and jury questions)
Challenge ability is overrated--not that anyone who wins lots of challenges is inherently a worse strategic/social player than someone who doesn't (you got the best of both worlds with Tom Westman and the exact opposite with the goat of all goats Katie Gallagher in Palau). But the best players are the ones that don't need to rely on challenge wins to get to the end. The challenges are irrelevant--like you said, Amanda won several (although all her late-game wins were against other women and a gay man who weighed 90 pounds soaking wet) but came up short where it really mattered...twice. (Of course, she's so hot we can forgive her

). Terry relied solely on winning challenges (and his hidden idol) to survive--a terrible and dangerous strategy that cost him the first time he didn't have immunity to protect him. I think Russell's in the finals no matter what at this point, so this isn't a knock at him or saying that he needs to win challenges in order to get to the end. But if a player has to win a challenge in order to face the jury, whether they do or not, they obviously did
something wrong to put themselves in that position--and yes, a lot of times that something is being
too likable or smart.
I've always wondered why people are so concerned about getting rid of strong challenge competitors at the merge--keep the idiot jocks like Ozzy and James around and get rid of the Ciries and Tina Wessons. Sure, they'll destroy me in any physical competition but they don't have a strategic bone in their entire bodies. I can mentally outplay them at every step of the game. A rock could mentally outplay them at every step of the game. [Of course, as I said before, sometimes you get a strong challenge player who actually does have a semblance of strategic sense, like Tom or Colby. And then you have the ones who have neither skill, but they rarely make it to the merge.]
And for the record, I saw this argument come up earlier about the worry that Russell will make it to the end and lose because of a bitter jury. There is no such thing as a bitter jury! At the end of the day Survivor is a social game. If you send someone to the jury with the most brilliant strategic maneuver of all time and they're pissed off about how it went down, then you screwed up. They're not obligated to vote for you; if you managed to turn off the majority of the jurors, then you don't deserve to win. Period.