Kos, blanket calling it a terrible approach doesn't make it one. I think we're all agreed that if Sandra were to try to dominate, it wouldn't work, so how can this be a terrible approach for someone with her skill set? You have to understand that, as with problems in life, there are multiple ways to approach finding a solution and different ways will work better for different people.

Anyone but me has a lot of variations. Amanda's leaves people feeling empty about her, Eric's is prone to fancy play syndrome (no way Sandra ever gives up that idol)...she's found a comfort zone that's obviously functional.

I have thought for a long time, Courtney and Sandra play the exact same way. (except Courtney has won individual immunity). They both are vocal, passive players who have little likelihood of winning challenges, and if they make the merge have great likelihood of being taken to final tribal. It just so happens that Courtney didn't get to go up against a complete goat in her final tribal like Sandra did. (which wasn't to her own doing, given her confessionals of wanting to go to the end with Rupert/Krista) It's conceivable, since she did receive votes with Todd being there. that she would receive more votes if say Amanda won a final 3 immunity challenge and took Courtney.

Off air. But he debates their ability every week. He just tries to keep it light hearted.

I think playing the game hard is usually a liability and all you should do is try to make good relationships and be aware of what everyone is thinking at all times. Making big moves which require lies is usually bad imo because it decreases your trustworthiness in other's eyes.

I accidentally double posted from my iPad and don't know how to delete. I wish I could think of something else to say as cover.

Sandra could play exactly like Cirie, no? And I think we both agree that Cirie is awesome.

The only "comfort zone" Sandra has ever found was on day 39. Most of what she tried to do in both of her seasons didn't work. If I told you both times that Sandra got zero votes at FTC, you wouldn't be praising her game, right? Are you a big Natalie White/Vecepia/Bob Crowley fan as well? What if Natalie Tenerelli got to the end and won after the jury spite-voted against Boston Rob? You could replace each of them with a teddy bear for 38 days, and their games (along with everyone else's that they played with) would be no different. Actually, that's not even fair to Natalie White, who seemed genuinely conscious the whole time that she would get to the end with Russell and out-argue him. Sandra had no plan whatsoever.

Not everyone can play like Cirie. It takes a certain history combining experience, honed skill and talent along with a certain outside perception of the person. Sandra doesn't have those things in the same way Cirie does, and therefore she has to employ a different strategy. You're being too archetypical in your analysis if you really believe they can play the same game because they're both non-athletic women.

Regarding Natalie/Bob etc, they are only variations on a theme, they didn't play the same game. If Survivor was so simple that everyone fit into one or two strictly defined games, I doubt you'd be as interested in watching it.

edit to add: fwiw, I think Sandra differentiates herself from those examples in that she's really good at final tribal imo, and based on that belief, I'd guess as a result she can beat a broader range of people.

I think poker tournaments teach us to make snap judgements on people based on basic characteristics. The difference is that we've had years to appraise, which means we shouldn't be looking at "minority woman, unathletic", but the particular skills each person brings to the game.

Do people really think that if Boston Rob went on RHAP we'd be impressed with his answers regarding strategy and his own gameplay?

Comparing Sandra to Cirie has nothing to do with them being minorities and everything to do with them being women in the same age range who aren't challenge threats. If Sandra and Cirie aren't comparable personality-wise, and Cirie is an amazing social player, aren't you sort of admitting that Sandra is not good socially? Are we really going with the belief that she's an awesome FTC speaker vs. her just sitting next to two of the most beatable finalists ever plus a super savvy GOAT-level chick people didn't want to admit they'd been bested by (again)?

Is this a serious question?

I expect I'd be underwhelmed by his answers. I haven't heard Sandra's latest interview, but I've heard her on RHAP before. Some people are better at playing the game, others are better at talking about it.

Is bolded a serious question? Is there one kind of funny? One kind of likable? Seriously?
You have to know that "thirties", "visible minority", "woman" and "bad in challenges" gives them about a 2% similarity score as functioning within the confines of Survivor goes, right? There's so much more to a person, and therefore a player.

I think Sandra is both a phenomenal final tribalist and lucky to have sat with who she did. There's a sliver of possibility she knew the Heroes wouldn't vote Parv, but I won't give her the benefit of the doubt given the lack of self-awareness it sounds like she exhibited on RHAP.

Why is this relevant? It's not as if Sandra chose to sit next to Parv. In an alternate universe where Pearl Islands is a F3 and Russell boots Parv at F4, Sandra is a two-time loser. In my opinion, Sandra only appears to be a good FTC speaker BECAUSE you know she won. And let's be honest: she had both of those seasons won before FTC ever started since people were spite-voting against her competitors.

It's not important...was just commenting on your statement... freeflow typing, baby. I think she's a good speaker because I watched her and was impressed by what she said, not because she ultimately won.

While it does always look like Sandra is 'in on the joke' at FTC, the jury + F2/F3 configurations she's had each time meant that was the case going in, and all she had to do was not punt it away. Since Sandra, intentionally or otherwise, is never making plays that would get blood on her hands she doesn't have to deal with jurors thinking she betrayed them; however, if confronted with someone asking what she did to earn their vote or similar, I'm not sure she could make a convincing case for herself (assuming she answered the question rather than going off on them). Maybe she did in PI; I haven't watched it recently enough to remember.

Having not seen Pearl Islands, I think many people just can't get over one specific argument she used in the HvV final council:

Now I'm not saying that illustrating her failures and appealing to emotion was poor Survivor gameplay, but it sticks in certain viewer's minds. Her argument was a slap in the face to any viewer with a strategic inclination. Can you imagine Stephen Harper trying to get re-elected as prime minister while saying he repeatedly failed at his number one goal, and he blames the citizens of Canada for its failure? He would be forced to resign the next day.

Sorry Duke, not buying the argument or the comp. She clearly didn't offend anyone with her argument, and given the kind of people those heroes were, it wasn't bad imo.

Do you really think she didn't have both wins locked up before each FTC started?

+1

I think she did. Doesn't change that she spoke/answered really well imo.

I think its a pretty good argument to say, 'I tried to play with you, but you insisted on being voted out instead.' One of the number one things that people are upset about when they get voted out is that 'people aren't playing the game' which translates 'people aren't playing the game WITH ME.' If you could ever credibly say that you tried to play with someone and they refused, it's not a slap in the face to that person who is trying to decide who to give his/her vote to. It might not win you votes towards the 100K, but it very well might win you a vote towards the milly. Right or wrong, respectable or not (to you), it's how a lot of people work.

edited to add: But obviously Parv should have won.

I was not impressed with Bob's game, but I was somewhat impressed with Bob.

My mother in law was happy with all of these winners and there is often someone like my mother in law on the jury and someone like...say Marty and the rest are somewhere in between. (Oh wait, Marty voted for Fabio too.)

Sandra keeping the game "human" is a difficult claim to reconcile with the fact that she detested Russel from the very beginning, actively conspired against him, insulted him, destroyed his personal belongings, all the meanwhile relying on him to bring her to the end. Most humans would have been thrilled to knock out Sandra and certainly wouldn't have tried to get out Danielle first. Russel's behavior is abnormally non-human, it took an almost perfect storm of venomous and strategic behavior for Russel to play the way he did and still get zero votes to win against two previous winners.

Ill have more to say about this after I listen to the sandracast, but do people actually believe vee wasnt a deserving winner? If you're serious about that, go back and watch Marquessas again closely

^^^^This Vecepia played a very strong game, and should be considered much higher in the list of winners as a result even though she wasn't an entertaining entity.