Another Survivor Thread... with Poll!!

[Jazzman]

Well, there you go folks. After last night's shocker of a result and the backlash saying that Natalie didn't deserve to win at all, it's time to look at all the past winners. So the question is, which of these players was least worthy of winning Survivor?

All 19 winners of Survivor are lined up in order of the season they won. Now I know that some of these people will recieve no votes, but in the interest of fairness I included everyone. Also, for those of you who wish to vote, but have only seen a few seasons, here the main survivor wiki where it can link you to all the seasons so you can make a truly informed decision.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_(U.S._TV_series)

[fw91]

Tie between Tina and Amber. Natalie wasn;t very deserving either, but at least she did something.
He is who I think deserved to win for each season.
Borneo(did not watch)
Amazon: Colby
Africa: Lex, Ethan
Marquesas: Kathy
Thailand: Brian
Amazon: Rob C, Jenna
Pearl Islands: Rupert
All Stars: Boston Rob
Vanuatu: Chris(Beat odds)
Palau: Tom (made winning look easy, next best player ever, after Russell)
Guatemala: Rafe
Panama: Terri
Cook Islands: Yul or Ozzy
Fiji(Did not watch)
China: Todd
Micronesia: Amanda
Gabon: Bob
Tocantins: JT
Samoa: Russell(Duh)

[MGH]

Oh the fact that Amber won that All Stars season sticks in my craw to this day, and I didn't even like Boston Rob THAT much. Natalie is not far behind, but it's amplified by who you beat. The only argument people seem to have that Russell shouldn't have won is the old moral high ground argument, which I call a load of bull on. Tina beating Colby was another "REALLY? REALLY?!" result, and I think JT rolling over Stephen last year was bogus. Stephen's all time horrible final tribal council performance sealed his fate, despite the fact that over the course of the entire season he was the one running the show in Jalapao and after they merged.

Natalie basically let Russell lead her by the hand and stole this from him this year. But you know what, at least she in some small part helped get Erik voted out for Foa Foa to begin their come back. Amber did NOTHING. She won because just like Russell, when you take the bullets it doesn't matter how solid your game was. If they're bitter (and that A.S. jury is easily the most bitter of all time) and they make up their minds, you could lay out the best argument in the world as Russell did last night in his opening statement, but it won't matter. Buncha babies.

[Stephanie McMahon Fan]

Tina definitely.

Is she invisble or what?

She got no votes at all throuhout the whole show except of course the end where they announced the winner.

[Drillbit Taylor]

With Natalie this season I came up with a great idea for a season:

Survivor: Piggyback.

Kelly
Tina
Natalie


Can all be there.

[BxB]

Tina had no place being the Survivor winner, Colby cleaned the competition that season and all Tina did was be nice and sweet to people. At least Natalie made a big game move by getting Eric out, which planted seeds of doubt in the Galu tribe. I don't remember Tina making any game changing moves.

[Allison Reynolds]

Now I may like other contestants in their years better than their winners, but IMHO... the correct person won survivor each season.

I know the Russell thing was a disappointment for some, because he played the best strategically, getting people to trust his lies, and such, same can be said for Boston "I give ya my word" Rob. However, Russell, and Rob, didn't put too much weight on the social aspect, of making good relationships with these people, and not "burning" them, so to speak. It's important, because these people would become jurors later.

I liked Russell alot, I think he played better than Boston Rob. Towards the end, he did attempt to befriend people and be nice, as he was to his other Foa Foas + Shambo and even Brett. However it was too late, Natalie did pull many smart moves in the game, and also did so without the arrogance, and without "burning" others.

Basically it's a good balance of strategy and social game, as well as the survival/physical aspects that are important for this game. Cause there were people who played BRILLIANT Games just like Russell, and still WON, when being careful not to "burn" people like Boston Rob did:

Brian Heidik - Thailand (Best example, he was the villain of his season, and played just like Russell, but was smarter in trying to seem not too cocky and aggressive, and strategically playing nice when he needed to.)
Tom Westman - Palau
Yul Kwon - Cook Islands
Todd Herzog - China
Parvati Shallow - Micronesia, Fans vs Favorites.
and thee Original, Richard Hatch - Borneo.

Just to name those off the top of my head.

(Though to be honest, the ASS jurors were actually quite bitter towards Boston Rob. Like Lex, and Big Tom, my gawd. Russell's jury weren't anywhere near bitter as that, in fact, they were amazingly quite alot calmer then I would have thought. So I don't buy the "bitter jury" excuse this time.)

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

I'd really love to know how anyone thinks Natalie didn't deserve to win. She had a legitimate strategy.

a) Recognized that all the aggressive women got voted out and adjusted her strategy accordingly.
b) Hooked up with the guy behind all those eliminations.
c) Let him take every single bullet, allowing him to sink his own ship while she sat back and played the swing vote. She was the one who got the ball rolling on the Erik elimination, and that set off the domino effect of Galu getting pagonged.

Meanwhile, Russell found an immunity idol and told everybody about it, was forced to use it because he overplayed his hand, found another idol and actually used it correctly, and found a third and got too boisterous about it. Then he didn't even use it the last night he could, a move that very well could have backfired. A good player prepares for every contingency. It doesn't matter if you think you're safe or not, you play it anyway just in case. There's no harm in it, I mean sheesh.

I absolutely cannot believe how overrated his gameplay is. Hell, Brett deserved to win long before Russell should have, as he flew under the radar, picked his spots, and came through at moments where he absolutely needed to. All while not overplaying his hand, alienating people, or doing anything even half as absurd as Russell. Russell torpedoed his game by dumping Shambo (who, along with Jaison, would have been a flawless combination of win for Russ) - a good strategist gets to the end, yes, but they also get there in a way that insures their win. Think Ethan Zohn, Tina Weston, Richard Hatch, etc. Even guys like Rob Cesternino (from Amazon, who Probst declared the best player never to win the game, which I agree with) played better and he didn't even get in front of the jury.

Out of all the people who made the final 10, Natalie was playing the best game to that point. The rest of the game subsequent to the finale bore that out, in my opinion. Erik's assessment of Natalie at the end was absolutely dead on. Her strategy was equally as valid as Russell's, so why does he get a free pass?

Congratulations, Natalie. You were the most deserving there.

[RI Richmark]

I voted for Sandra who survived for so long because people forgot she was there and won because Lillian was to stupid to go against Johnny Fairplay in the finals.