they showed the other reasons why they wanted to get coach out anyway, you probably missed them amirite

like it mattered = lol. It meant her survival. Keep wearing those lenses, Kos.

Russell got the others to do it for her, because she knew he was the head of the dragon and that convincing him meant convincing the block. If you really want to believe that Russell decided to vote out a guy who'd just turned in his favor, which coincidentally happened to be the best thing for this former winner who hates him with a passion --all on his own, mind you--you keep right on doing that.

I'm not even a Sandra fan, per se. I just think it's ******ed to discredit her because she's not an alpha.

She wasn't going if Russell didn't mandate it and he'd just made his big move to ensure Coach's loyalty, which at that moment had Coach far more firmly in Russell's pocket than Parvati's (Coach feared Parv from day 1). if you think he was right to vote out coach, then you have to acknowledge that he loses +EV on the Tyson vote, making it a questionable play.

I know, this gets old. The "social game" is the point. You have to vote others out and then get them to vote to give you a million dollars. Otherwise you would just give the money to the winner of the final challenge. That would be a totally different game.

I like Russell, and thought he the last jury was just bitter. Now it doesn't look that way.

The social game, is the game.

Said it better than I have. NO ONE hates Sandra. That in itself is a skill in this game. It's just one skill in her set. Staying safe and well-liked wins far more often than flexing tactical muscle in overbearing ways and living an offensive existence. Ask Natalie.

btw, I love Russell for what he does for the show. He'll rightly be invited back over and again for all-star-type seasons. He'll just never win the game, while Sandra's chances of doing so are reasonable.

I'm anti-alpha; I actually think most of the best players aren't alphas. I love Cirie. The difference is that Cirie actually makes moves and positions herself as a swing vote; Sandra has done nothing so far in two seasons. I mean, the best move any of you can point to was one that saved herself. She never initiates any moves that don't involve her, so she has no control in the game. She just floats.

If you can explain to me why you need to control the game, you'll have me convinced she's not much of a player. I doubt anyone can, though.

To me, the player who deserves to win is the one who controls the game, makes the best strategic decisions, boots the right players, etc. Basically, it's the player who "plays the game" the best. If that's not your voting criteria, what is? Being nice to people?

But, this isn't about what you'd vote for. This is about being an effective player in the game as it is, where the majority of competitors obviously vote with personal interaction as a major criteria if not THE major criteria. Sandra's strategy obviously accounts for that, whether it's conscious or not. I don't think Sandra is the best ever at anything, really, but in a game where it seems players are only as good as their weakest skill, Russell's stands out like a sore thumb while Sandra's doesn't seem to exist.

My interpretation is that most votes seem to come down to;

a) likability/personal interaction
b) respect
c) tactics
d) work ethic/camp contribution (subsection of a?)

...in that order. If that's the case and those are the criteria people are voting on, how is Sandra--a woman who is broadly liked, who stands up for her ideals against the Johnny Fairplays of the world instead of totally wallflowering and who does more than just going along for the ride--playing badly?

Big misunderstanding in this thread as to what strategy is and what tactics are.

A strategy is a plan, an organized method to accomplish a goal. In the game of Survivor that strategy may change throughout the game, but the goal is usually to win the game, which is the jury vote at the end. Some players aren't there for that goal, they want some reality show fame, others may have entered for the money. To each his own, the end game is where it's at. Any action a player takes to undermine his own plan pushes that player into a negative situation.

Tactics on the other hand are the daily moves required to follow the plan made(the strategy). Sometimes a good tactical decision is to do nothing, if that will further your plan(there's that pesky term strategy again) The 2 inter relate, but they are not the same.

I, and many others, see Russel as a tactician who LOVES the term VILLAIN. As if that were a badge of honour. If his strategy was to become the SUPER VILLAIN, then all his tactics are focused towards that goal, he has achieved that plan. The producers used the terms for the teams, and he's performed to ensure he gets the moniker.

Yet those tactics are counter productive to a strategy of winning the game.

Kos, you say you don't really like the alphas, instead you really like the strategic process of this and other games. Based on the terms strategy and tactics in their proper form, can you still claim his strategy is deserving of winning the game? Or is it more suited for his winning the SUPER VILLAIN tag? All personal emotions about the player aside.

If his tactics deviate from the path of achieving the objective, to win the game, is his strategy flawed and poorly planned?

I think I agree, but I also think he bonded or faked bonded with Shambo a little. I think he had Natalie and Mick fooled for a while. I think he psuedo bonded with Parv and Danielle until he ruined it this week. Jerri is gleefully doing his bidding. He seems semi-capable. And I keep thinking he is so good at people manipulation at times, how can he not figure out how to do this? I think one problem right now is that he doesn't realize he needs to...although how that can be leaves me mystified as well.

I can't imagine a rational argument for a, b, or d mattering at all when deciding who played Survivor the best and who should win the game.

Your argument should be that the jury is composed of ******s who vote irrationally.

My interpretation is that you are arguing that Russell should recognize and play to people's stupidity while Kos is arguing that people are stupid and fail to pick who is most deserving of the win.

I personally don't think Russell should have to worry about these things. But the reality of the game (and the world) is that people are childish, irrational, vindictive, and incapable of reasonable thought.

The fact that Sandra has made the merge twice should be a testament to her social skills. The girl is straight up awful at challenges.

I love how you guys are saying how Russell owned her when she tried to flip. Maybe but she's still here and she definitely made the right "move". She was 5th in her alliance and 9 was the perfect time to flip. Faulting her for not knowing Candace was going to reflip is the definition of results oriented.

My argument is that people who see Russell as GOAT and Sandra as **** are judging the game as they'd like it to be and not as it is. What they want it to be is a game based on voting tactics where the ultimate chess player is rewarded with victory. What it actually is a much broader spectrum that punishes players for ignoring the importance of any number of factors. Sandra doesn't ignore those factors or even lack in just about any department. Therefore statements that she's a bad player (Or even anything short of a good player) are ignorant. Russell is just a convenient comparable because he's a study in extremes.

Shutting down for Machida vs Rua and then sleep. To be continued?

quick fight!

This reminds me of something else I wanted to mention about winning jury votes. I rememeber listening to a guy do an Amway pitch when I was a teenager and one of the things that stuck out to me was that a person might not even have to personally be so great at selling crap to people and drawing people into the fold. They could see a good return if they just found that one person that was the superstar because they get partial credit for that guy's sales. I bring this up because I think it is another aspect of jury wooing that is worth giving some thought. Having a respected advocate on the jury could really pay off for a player. The game of Survivor is really cool with all it's complexity and areas where a person can gain edge. The things you do in the game, what you say at TCs, the respect or lack thereof you've earned from your interaction with other players, and some edge can surely be gained in having a promoter in the jury house...especially if he/she is compelling. Some have talked about not liking this aspect of the game--that the jury will interact and discuss things. Again, I think it's another complex element to consider and see if there is a way to gain edge for yourself. Or possibly to minimize edge for your opponents. Difficult, sure, but isn't that what makes games interesting?

It's amazing how unbelievably results oriented people in a forum dedicated to poker can be!

Let me state this in the simplest terms possible; winning the game or making it far mean NOTHING in terms of judging a players skill when you are talking about one event. A game with as much variance as Survivor cannot be viewed in a results-oriented manner.

You judge a person based on what they did in the course of the game. Sandra has done nothing. Not one thing. Ever. At any point.

Sandra is basically player X. At the start of every season there are a bunch of horrific players who's only hope it to attach to real player, follow their orders, and never think. By definition, some of these people HAVE to make it far. Therefore, once in a while one will win.

That does not make them good players. If not Sandra, then Natalie, or some other totally mindless and skill-free player.

As I see it here is the argument some of you are making that she is a great player:

a) she is nice-ish
b) she never does anything so is not noticed
c) she won once

together these things make a great player?

This season Sandra is just playing the hand she's dealt. Early on, 2 of the most aggressive players in the game form a tight alliance and uproot her strong alliance that she had. She survived 2 straight weeks in her original tribe when going in, she was the name on everybody's mind to go home. Then, she gets into the merge, stays with her tribe because she gains nothing by flipping and being #6 on the Heroes. The next week, she tries to flip to the Heroes side, but is prevented because Candice also flips, and I'm pretty sure Candice was too afraid of Russell's Idol to go against him, so Sandra flipping would be moot. Then she finds the hidden immunity idol, sees 2 votes go by where she realizes she will not be targeted, and saves it for herself.

Just talking about this season, I don't know what more you want Sandra to do in this season. For her to flip at any other point would be suicide essentially. If she flips at 9, then Candice flips against her, Villains still have numbers, and Sandra is stuck with Colby and Rupert, with a very tight alliance of 3 on the other side, plus Jerri and Candice who won't work with Rupert and Colby.

At 8, she has no better option than sticking with her alliance. Candice made her bed with the Villains, Colby and Rupert are on an island, Jerri is just leeching off Parv/Danielle/Russell, and Sandra is off the radar. She has nothing to gain by making a big move, so why do it?

At 7, she could have maybe convinced Jerri to flip. Get her, Colby, and Rupert together, and go after the big 3. However, the big 3 is imploding on themselves. So why does she have any reason to flip? Her name is off the radar screen, she has a hidden immunity idol that nobody knows about, and she can go into the F6 with the power alliance blowing up, 3 very weak strategic players, and the 2 strongest players going at each other.

Point is, I just don't see a spot where it was to her benefit to make a big move. If her name was brought up at F8 instead of Candice, maybe she makes a move, maybe she doesn't, we can't tell. But to criticize her for not making a big move when it has never been to her advantage to do so is kind of ridiculous imo. She has seen on her own tribe that when you try to get a movement against Russell when he has close allies, you go home. So as long as he isn't voting you out, you just let him cause chaos and evaluate your position.

I don't remember who made this point, but someone ITT said that it's a lot easier to point to Russell doing x, y, and z and showing that he's a great player, but since Sandra's game is kind of just staying out of the way and only making moves when she has to there just isn't much proof for why she's so good.

Sticking with the poker analogies, you could almost say that Russell is like a poker player you've never played with, but you have a database on them with 1 million hand histories, and you've read 20,000 of their posts. So you have a pretty good idea if they're good or not.

With Sandra, maybe she would be like an MTT player that you only have a history of the results for 200 of her tournaments, so you can't really tell if she's gotten very lucky to have had so much success or played very well.

I do think that she sucks at challenges hard enough that the greatest strategy in the world wouldn't make her top 5 GOAT imo.

+1 to everything clovis said...

Please for the love of god someone name these moves, big, small or anything she has EVER made. Dont talk in generalities, name one specific thing she has ever done in two seasons!

So far she can claim to two things EVER;

1) she owned the worst player in history at her first FTC
2) she may or may not have had a roll in getting coach voted out

Those are the sum total of everything she has ever done in more than 60 days on the damn show!

This is all fine. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's fine. Okay? Now...

Do YOU think she deserves to win? Or, to ask it better, if you were on the jury, would you consider Sandra a reasonable winner, and would you pick her over Russell? Parvati? Jerri? Rupert? Colby?

The outpouring of praise all leads back to "Sandra did the best she could with the cards she's been dealt: being a weak physical player and getting screwed over by Tyson." Problem is, this is all irrelevant. It's the same awful argument bad, weak players use when they get to the finals: "I overcame the biggest odds!" And that matters...why? Players should be judged on an equal scale, not a performance-minus-expectation scale.

I'm not willing to give her full credit for the Coach play.

You could almost see the light-bulb go off over Russell's head when Rupert started talking about an all female alliance after Boston Rob was ousted.

I'll give Sandra credit for recognizing that situation and using it to her benefit, but I don't think she orchestrated it.

She flipped on Candice at a pretty opportunistic time this last episode imo, and she's been able to use common sense in chosing alliances ( first Boston Rob and the stronger Villain alliance, then the rest of the Villains after a failed mutiny attempt with the heros).

I don't think she's great or even particulary good, just not awfull. It's kind of sad that I have to give her credit for having an ounce of common sense when chosing who to allign with, but so many survivors are terrible at that aspect of the game.

Would I vote for her over Russell? No. Would I vote for her over Parvati? No. Would I vote for her over everybody else left? Yes. If I were on the jury, I would ask everybody to explain their exact strategy at each point of the game, to see what their thought process throughout the game was, then base my vote off of who used the best tactics that they had available to them.

From a general perspective, I think that the best game plan might be to not be in control of the power alliance at the merge, then flip on the power alliance when you get to 7 or 6 left. The problem is that there are often so few players who are able to pull out big strategy moves, and the ones who are often butt heads early, leading to one being eliminated. It's pretty rare for somebody to be #4 or #5 in an alliance who is a powerful strategic player.