And Ciries has won the game just as many times as Brad

Agree with all of this. The first bolded really sums it up well. To add to the second bolded, person #2 is also going to win the game much much more often than person #1.

Normally someone whos a big challenge threat just naturally becomes public enemy one just for that reason. Everybody is waiting for a chance to eliminate the guy just because they know they cant take them out in comps. I find it entertaining to watch a guy whos on everybodys radar from day one survive with their back against the wall for multiple weeks in a row.

I still would rather watch a guy like Tony over them. He to me is the ultimate in entertaining survivor players. Backstabbing and ready to screw over anyone. Sarahs game didnt entertain me like that so i was rooting for Brad.

I'm always rooting for the comp beast though because it seems like every season everybody is ganged up on them for being so good at comps.

Terrible analysis.

Number of winners who were only good at challenges= zero.

Number of winners who were terrible at challenges= many.

This also holds true for late game survivors. I'd snap bet if someone took the time to analyize finish position against a metric of social skill and challenge skill it would not be close.

Mike was only good at challenges and won the game.

The reason why challenge beasts have such trouble winning the game is everybody goes for them early in the game because if they get far into the game they know they wont be able to get them out. Thats whys guys like Joe or Ozzie always are going to be targeted early. Its like that in every reality show with comps. Its just easy to use the "he so good at challenges if we dont get him now we never will line" which everyone agrees on.

you people need more mana

If a challenge beast was good at Survivor, they'd know to not be so good they get a target on their back.

I don't recall Tom being great at strategy...he mostly just beast moded challenges to win Season 10. Colby was only good at winning challenges and...well...he lost of course but what a joke that vote was

If one was assign 10 point to social, strategy and challenges I would assign them

Social 5
Strategy 3
Challenges 2

There's a flaw to Cirie's social game which is that she'll always be a massive FTC threat. I think she's actually better at strategy than being given credit for.

Tom

a giant LOL to all the people who thought Tom Westman was only good at comps

Celibate Mike was only good at challenges and won easily iirc

So this.

Brad played a pretty good game overall, except for the couple late game blunders. And even with the game he had played up until the FTC, if he had just argued his case a little better, it could've swayed two more people to vote for him. I think Haley at least was open to voting Brad, until the Tai thing came up.

To be fair, in All Stars Tom wasn't even good at comps.

Yeah Tom westman was so invisible in All stars, it was almost like he wasn't even there.

Good post

brad was a complete ahole to tai at the end, and an idiot to keep sarah. i'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he would not have done either of those things if he had his day 1 brain instead of his day 38 brain or whatever it was.

being in that situation for so long can mess you up. hopefully brad is a better person than that.

He has been on two seasons and in two seasons he was a huge ahole. I think we can just conclude he is an ahole and it's not some editing wizardry.

you might be right clovis, but he was pretty cool with debbie when she exploded on him.

and monica seems compassionate. she probably sees some good in him. idk

That's the exact moment I, and I'm sure many others with me, completely changed my opinion of Brad.

The problem is that we didn't see anything after that. I was getting tunnel vision on Brad being nice because this Debbie moment had such a high WTF-factor and it would have been justified for even the nicest guy to be pissed at her, yet he wasn't.

But honestly, if you take everything we've seen from him into consideration, it really seems like he's quite the a-hole.

Lol Ozzy

Cirie has never won either, although she's supposedly a "genius" at the social game.

Ozzy is an awful social player and yet has come closer to winning then Cirie. That argues that there is more to the game than social skill.

BTW I've never said social game isn't important, in fact I agree it's more important than physical challenges. But simply being a relatively likeable person like Cirie is not evidence of some amazing skill at Survivor. She's played 4 times and never won. Maybe if she had even a prayer of winning an IC now and then, she could have controlled her own destiny more.

The producers practically stole a win from her in FvF. Parvati, Amanda and Cirie all played under the assumption that it was a three person FTC. I don't disagree that being able to win clutch immunity challenges is a factor but being able to manipulate the game so that it becomes favourable is a more important skill imo.

Fun fact: There have been nine seasons where the winner hasn't won a single individual immunity challenge.

Imo the point of discussion is not whether winning immunity challenges will get you further in the game (they will, for obvious reasons) but whether you should be rewarded in the end for winning them.

I'm sorry Brad, but I don't really care if you won 1, 5 or 100 immunity challenges, that doesn't make you good at the game of Survivor, which in my opinion, is a social game. I mean, if it wasn't intended as a social game, wouldn't they just replace tribal council with a challenge and whoever finished last had to leave the game?

Now if Brad had a great social game and then mentioned that he won a couple immunities when it mattered, that would be a different story. Instead, he alienated everyone on the jury by acting like a total douchebag instead of working on his relationships to get some jury votes and just expected people to vote for him because he's good at challenges.