I think it was just a poor choice of words when Gary said "skill."

Defending Sandra's game play is similar to defending Ozzy's choice to send himself to RI pre-merge this season. While there are certainly arguments that can be made on behalf of both cases, none of those arguments are the arguments Sandra/Ozzy would make themselves.

Sandra is very open about not thinking about the game beyond surviving the next three days, and her missed opportunities (which, yes, ultimately happened to work out for her) would indicate to me that she doesn't think about the game on a level anywhere near what her results would indicate. She's easy to drag along and she's good in front of a jury, but she will almost never have any control over her own fate in the game. When she finds herself in situations to improve her own standing, she has repeatedly acknowledged the better line and chosen to take the worse line anyway.

She's a slightly above-average player who happens to have picked up two wins. Her results merit a place in the Survivor Hall of Fame, but her game play doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in a GOAT debate.

Agree. I'm pretty sure her strategy is well-documented. It's "anyone but me". Period. The end. She is not a strategist, she isn't planning ahead. She isn't in control of who goes home ever. She just tries to get anyone voted out instead of herself, then hope that whoever is left will take her to the end and be more hated by the jury. That doesn't sound like one of the GOAT to me.

The whole "Sandra playing the game anonymously wins 50% of the time" thing is obv over the top but it brings up an interesting question.

You get to pick any former Survivor to face 17 newbs and they have their memories cleared so they have no idea who this person is but cast member retains all their knowledge/experience/etc. If they win you get a million dollars. Who are you picking to win you your monies?

Props to Sandra for winning twice but I'm picking Rob over her all day every day.

If you're talking about Rob C, then I agree.

She doesn't really need to plan ahead or control the game. She'd surely crash and burn if she got any more frisky than she already does. I can understand people not respecting the way she plays, I think people are out of line when they say she plays badlly. She plays the best game for HER, and that's what they all should be trying to do. She can't play the same game as Boston Rob, nor could he get away with playing the game that Sandra plays.

funny with your avatar.

I'd have to give the nod to Parvati, B Rob, Richard Hatch, Yul or Todd. All of them are master manipulators and if they knew what everyone else didn't likely they would be a lock. B Rob already proved he could win even against people who already knew he was a killer at the game.

The only reason I don't say Russell is because he would need to play his first game strategy perfectly again and after seeing what he did last season, he wouldn't do that.

My entire post is about why her style (even if it is optimal for her) is why I don't consider her one of the GOAT. What you said is true, but it's not really relevant to my point. Or maybe it's relevant, but it certainly doesn't change my mind. Saying "Sandra sucks and this is the only way she can win" doesn't make her one of the GOAT

From the seasons I've seen its Boston Rob ainec. He's basically the strategic mastermind that Russell is (or close anyway) but he's actually aware that he needs these people to give him votes in the end, so he treats them better and cuts their throats in a more gentle way.

The argument isn't that she should be alpha-ing and or making big moves or even changing her style at all. It's that she plays HER OWN STYLE sub-optimally (at best) and happens to have luckboxed two wins, neither of which she had much of a hand in orchestrating before FTC, at which point she'd already won by default.

How does me saying I don't think she plays badly equate to me refuting you saying she isn't one of the GOAT? I think we are agreeing here. There's a pretty big gap between not playing badly and playing great. I think replying to your post to spout my thoughts may have led to some confusion. Should have just posted an original.

edit: For the record I also think that the post-merge game is stacked in her favor through no fault (or at least very little fault) of her own. Which I think is obvious from some of my comments, but you never know*. There are significant benefits to not being Tyson in a post merge game.

*maybe saying she's built for the game sounds like GOAT??? Not my intention.

No it's not a problem, my post sounded harsher than I intended. I thought you were calling my assessment of her not being a GOAT silly, because the qualities most GOAT candidates possess are things that don't fit her game. I think we both agree that she obviously can't play the way BR plays; I just can't see how someone who seems to have no plan besides "anyone but me" can be a GOAT. She has been very fortunate to sit next to some pretty hated people at the FTC.

Edit: I think Sandra post-merge makes FTC a HUGE % of the time, I'm just not sure how often she wins. If she ever sits against anyone else that isn't absolutely detested by the jury, what claim does she have to deserve the win?

Unlike some floaters, I think she'll always have a decent shot. Person running the show might be building up jury spite WHILE dragging people he/she supposes are worthless can't possibly make a case for themselves types. And she can be counted on to make something up. Sometimes all a bitter jury wants is for someone to give them an excuse to vote for them (even if it's lame).

Keep in mind that the odds of sitting next to someone who is not well liked, not respected, or who generated a lot of bitterness is fairly high. There aren't too many Coaches and Colbys out there looking to make warrior alliances and go to the end against the strong/well-respected players.

My opinion on her is that she's not great, but she's also not awful. And the game is tailored such that (post merge) her weaknesses are strengths (again, through little fault of her own).

i'd have to pick b. rob. in an unknown season there's no reason he'd ever be voted off pre-merge and he has the personality and strategy to be effective post-merge.

i think yul gets too much credit. i'd like to say he's probably quite good, but given that he's only played once and the game was so tilted in his favour its hard to give him a fair assessment.

parvati may get the nod for females. cirie pretty good, but she is too much a risk of a pre-merge boot.

Sorry, but how is it NOT Cesty? He'll rarely get booted pre-merge, he's never a target post-merge, everyone likes him, and he's great at both flipping and convincing people to flip. I still see zero flaws in his game.

he's finished 3rd and 3rd voted out. seems flawed.

I like Rob C, Todd, and Stephen. These guys are probably my favorite type of player. Haven't watched Amazon since it aired, but I believe Rob C was a bit of a lone wolf. I prefer the have a close alliance with another player(s) method. Obv, Stephen was a bad picker though.

Amanda could be good if she wasn't so awful. If that makes any sense.

edit: Also have a healthy appreciation for Tom Westman and JT. But that road seems really hard.

And there's the problem. If he loses final immunity challenge he is almost guaranteed to be out. Nobody wants to go to FTC with someone that everyone likes.


I also tend to think that Sandra is definitely in the GOAT discussion. Her strategy of "anyone but me" was crucial to her success. She saved herself premerge in HvV by subtly manipulating Russell into targeting Coach. Few players have demonstrated that sort of inception ability. She has no problems with telling lies (swearing to Fairplay on her kids, throwing out the fish and not admitting it) but she is abrasive enough to make people think she is honest.

Her plans didn't really come through in HvV but she has enough sense to abort a plan and not out herself. If Candice isn't one of the WOAT HvV becomes a different game with Parvati and Russell likely going instead of Amanda and Candice. But after that all she had to do was wait for Russell to lose it and actively convince him that the jury wasn't going to vote for a previous winner.

That said she probably makes the merge 50% of the time. And to be the player with the most 1st place equity you need to be strong enough to make the merge the majority of the time.

Survivor is so good because there really is no optimal strategy. The correct strategy depends on the type of players in the game. Also shouldn't GOAT be based on results and not speculation. Otherwise we shouldn't even try to discuss the GOAT because sample size is way too small.

this is why the goats are the people that can read the players in the game and adapt their strategy accordingly.

Regarding Kos' post-- The answer could plausibly be Rob C, but it's by no means a runaway decision. I probably put my money on JT or Heidik.

Given that this person comes in as an unknown to the rest of the cast, there is no possible way it's Boston Rob, even if he comes in with the Survivor knowledge and experience he had entering his fourth time playing.

edit: #shotsfired

Outnit.

Why is there no possible way it's Boston Rob? People are drawn to his charm and charisma. He'll try to win the same way he won in RI. The fact nobody knows he has played before will only help him.

And whatever your response is, how can you say there's no way it's BR, but that you would probably put your money on Heidik? They are a similar style of player imo

Even if he can execute his cult plan perfectly when he gets to the merge with numbers, I think he'll more often than not be facing juries that aren't eager to reward him. I also think any kind of tribe swap pre-merge destroys his game. Basically, I don't think he's as versatile as someone like JT.

JT wins nearly every time he makes the finals.

Heidik faced a jury that had every right to hate him, Helen had a fit at FTC, and he still won. Rob won when he had a jury that idolized him and a lawyer speaking on his behalf (not that he wouldn't have won without David Murphy, LDO).

I think winning is next to impossible for Boston Rob if he can't set up his cult and maneuver his way to the finals with absolute goats. I don't think that's the case for lots of other people.

I really disagree, but I respect your opinion. I think the JT argument makes a lot more sense than your Heidik argument, although I think it's pretty hard to know for sure how JT would normally do. I think he would do pretty well on average, but it's worth noting that his win in Tocantins was about as easy as it gets. The season was filled with wealthy people who were falling all over themselves to get him to the end and give him the money. I'm not saying he couldn't have gotten there on his own, but it was a pretty sweet situation he fell into.

As far as Heidik goes, I still think he and Rob would perform very similarly versus the same group of people. They would have a hard time winning versus bitter juries, and would win when the jury chooses to reward good gameplay. Heidik won 4-3 his season, and against a goat no less. You can't really compare it to BR not winning in S8, becuase it was an AS season and a much more bitter jury. Also, I think BR has really improved that part of his game enough to the point where the people he will have to eventually betray won't be as butt-hurt as in seasons past.

The Heidik argument may have been a bit forced, but he's someone I have higher on my list than Boston Rob. The similarities are certainly there, though, and you may be right about Rob now being more tactful with his future jurors. They're both obviously absolute beasts at Survivor.

I still think JT is more of a favorite than Rob by a non-negligible margin, though.