Yuku free message boards

Natalie being an undeserving winner and Russell deserving to lose are not mutually exclusive ideas. I think Natalie, truthfully, really only did one thing really well: which was that she had the ability to read the jury a heck of a lot better than Russell. Russell assumed that a Survivor jury would vote completely objectively based on who genuinely played the best as opposed to voting on bizarre, irrational, emotional reasons. Think about Jenna and Matt.... although Matt worked very hard around camp and Jenna.... did not, she trounced him simply because she was better able to read what the jury was actually going to base their votes on and was better connected to them. Even Christy, who despised her, still saw it as an obvious vote for Jenna. Which is great, but the thing is... that jury members come up with some completely bizarre, irrational criteria for deciding who wins the million, and Russell bet the house on a jury consisting of 8/9 jurors coming from a tribe that ran themselves into the ground through a spectacular lack of strategy to vote solely on strategic reasons. Do you, seriously, think someone like Erik or Laura or Monica is going to vote on strategy? Although I can't say that I think Natalie ranks among the best winners of the show (I'd rank her roughly around Ethan and Amber in dead last, personally) I completely have no sympathy for Russell because not only do you have to get yourself to the final, but you have to get people to vote for you, and Russell was woefully naive about the fact that jurors could potentially vote in a completely irrational fashion based on the evidence of the eighteen past seasons. I never have had sympathy for decent strategists who just plain don't get that they need to get jurors to want to vote for them, which is why I have always found Brian Heidik colossally overrated as a player.