Yuku free message boards

Quiddity wrote:

---

OrsNaz wrote:

---

JackSparrowBauer wrote:

---

EOrlins wrote:

---

ShanesThinkingSeat wrote:

---

XtremeInnovator420 wrote:

---

Uh....to be quite honest, Chris WAS the best player in Vanuatu, so you can't use Eliza voting for him as an example, really.

X

Chris was down 6-1. Chris was a huge underdog who fought back to make it to the Final 2. Chris deserved to win, as the best player.

X. I don't know if I've ever said this, Eliza, but thanks for voting for Chris! Still my favorite winner ever =]

Russell's loss was completely his fault. When you pointlessly make alliances with everyone and tell them you're going to take them to the Final 2, and you treat everyone like crap and not respect them at all, then you honestly can't expect them to vote for you to win a million dollars. He made almost no effort to win jury votes from those people, and it cost him. Great strategic game (other than having to rely on a HII, which that alone would've made me vote for someone else), but horrendous social game. Ultimately, Survivor is about winning jury votes, and Russell failed at that.

The thing that is most frustrating with jurors is that, yes Russell played pretty sad social game, he was arrogant, obnoxious and even treated human beings like game pieces, however, that is what the game is about. (1) You are supposed to lie, cheat and steal to win. Yes, he could have been humble and far nicer to the people he was voting out but (2) as fans of the game, we would have voted differently. I mean the guy went 8 against 4, found 3 idols without a clue and eliminated every single threat in the game. He had his entire alliance feeding out of his hand. However, best player ever? Hardly. He should have known the jury would have been bitter and thus taken Jaison and Shambo to the final 3. That was his biggest flaw in the game, he became too cocky and it clouded his judgement. I love Natalie, I am happy she won because of her as a person but (3) Russell played the better game by far.

In the end, people who understand the game and care about the game would have voted a winner based on strategy and respect for that strategy. Natalie's strategy of riding Russell to the end and letting the jury vote against him simply does not match the absolute domination of a game that result played.

Russell losing would be like Richard Hatch losing the first season. It just doesn't sit right and I know you all agree that Rich deserved it.

1) Says who? There is no one set way to win this game. There are many different ways you can win, and I'd say after 19 seasons we've seen many different ways someone can win, and many don't involve playing like Russell did.

2) Its very easy for us people outside the game who weren't personally effected to say that. You weren't there, you weren't personally effected by Russell's gameplay (you didn't lose your chance to win a million because of him), and you didn't have Russell treating you like garbage. You can say one thing here on a messageboard having no personal connection to the game whatsoever, but when you're out there, things are completely different and you haven't been paying attention for 19 seasons if you don't think that way.

3) I don't even have to say much, you articulated pretty well why Russell lost. Yet you still call him the better player? The social game is part of the game. Russell failed miserably at that. He needed multiple immunity idols to get as far as he did. Natalie didn't need any. He made poor strategic moves towards the end and brought the wrong people to the finals with him. So he lost. And hence is not the best player this season.