MrYunis

I did read that article a couple days back. Sounds like a very bad idea. 30 contestants is way too much. If you have that many players, I feel like you have to make the season longer as well (at least 50 days). It could work, but not if a whole tribe is voted out in the first episode. All 30 contestants should be playing on equal terms and then play it out in a normal Survivor season. Then it might succeed I think.

That's pretty much speculation isn't it? That Natalie must have done something else in order to win that season? I believe her strategy was to hide behind Russell, let him take the bullets and then showcase what an angel she is compared to Russell at the FTC. It worked, and to her credit, she did not doubt that she could beat him. I just don't find that kind of strategy deserving. I don't like Parvati, but at least you could argue that she dominated the season she won or most of it strategy wise. That I can respect.

I get both your points. I think he played better his 1st time around. If I remember correctly, he didn't flat out insult people in front of them like he did in Heroes Vs. Villains (e.g Rupert/Russell confrontation) where Russell called Rupert a dumbass). I think he was robbed the first time, the second time could be argued both ways. I honestly just think that since he took the game so serious, the people around him would do the same. But I can agree however that Russell's social game is non-existent and that pretty much cost him the chance to ever be called the sole Survivor, let alone a 2-time winner.

Or maybe because the jury is bitter that you out-played them and refuse to give you the million.

That's not necessarily the truth. But I think if the person that wins his or her respectable season sits next to one who clearly played the better game (Samoa f.x), then the winner looks like the undeserving one. Granted, you could argue that every single winner deserves the title to some degree. I'll even give Natalie from Samoa credit that she was the mastermind behind the Eric vote-out. However, if your strategy the entire game is to hide behind someone who makes 90% of the moves and gets blood on his hands, while you just nod and go along with it. For me, that's not a deserving winner. Natalie won because of a bitter jury, simple as that.

So you would say it's pretty much "How Coach lost"? I might have to re-watch this season (don't know if it's worth it though). Seems like we agree on Tyson. Ciera wasn't changing her mind that Tribal Council and Tyson wasn't going to lose a member of his alliance, so he took a chance and it paid off. However had he drawn the white rock (I think it was white that sends you home that season), he had a safety net in that he could easily win his way back in the game via Redemption Island. Other than that, he played almost flawlessly the entire season. Also with going to rocks, he could then argue that he was willing to sacrifice himself for his alliance, which I think he argued at the final.

True, luck was with him that night. I don't remember how Sophie played, so I cant compare the two.

I absolutely loved Samoa and was rooting for Russell all the way. Biggest travesty in Survivor to this day that he never won that one (or Heroes Vs. Villains). If I were to do a Mount Rushmore of Survivor, both Russell and Boston Rob would definitely be on it. I wouldn't have minded if Woo won his season. And I was rooting for Ken to win his season.

The only season I haven't watched is One World and I will probably never watch that due to Colton alone. I watched Micronesia with high expectations, didn't finish the season. I'll probably never re-watch that season either. I disagree. I think Tyson played a great game in his 3rd try. I was rooting for Gervase but Tyson played way better. Definitely on my top 5 winners list.

He still had to get the votes in the end. I think we can agree that every winner has had some portion of luck in getting the title of sole Survivor. Some more than others, but still, luck is needed in order to get to the end. Most will probably hang me for saying this, but what did Sandra ever really do in getting her 2nd win? I wont comment on her 1st since I don't really remember what she did to win that one. But if I remember her 2nd season correctly, she got in an alliance whom Russell and his alliance took out one by one. Her strategy was then to 'get rid of Russell', which she never could accomplish. She even admitted to that as well. The only reason she was in the final was because Russell underestimated her big time. I know many of you guys hate Russell, so you naturally root for Sandra when she says 'I'm against you Russell'. I'm not hating on Sandra but her 'Anyone but me' strategy is severely overrated and she is probably the luckiest Survivor to ever win (at least in her 2nd season).

Oh ya, Chris! I disagree with you here, Chris did deserve that win. He recovered tremendously after almost being the first boot. Lucky? No doubt. However he's one of the most satisfying winners for me. I would re-visit his season but the rest of the castaways are pretty dull in my opinion, so I'm probably not going to do that.

I don't remember anything from Gabon. I totally forgot a guy named Bob won. Same goes for Todd, I don't remember his season at all. I do agree with your assumption that people most of the time vote for people they least mind losing to @simplyme. I guess that helped Michelle win the million.

Hello guys Who in your opinion is the most undeserving winner ever? Or who did you like the least? I decided not to make a poll on this one since it would be stupid to name someone like Rich, Tyson, JT, Kim, Tony, Boston Rob etc. But then again, what I find deserving you might find undeserving, so I'm curious to know your opinions. For me I would have to say Amber. Boston Rob pretty much carried her to the final and in my opinion, the only thing he didn't win that season was the title of sole Survivor. Honorable mentions could go to Fabio and Michelle (from Koah Rong). I was gonna go with Michelle but Amber wins by a small mile. Only reason I remember both is because when you think about Boston Rob, you remember Amber, and I just re-watched Michelle's season to see how she actually won. I failed to find anything that would justify her win. I was rooting for Tai that season but of the final 3 that season, Aubry deserved to win the most in my opinion. Feel free to prove me wrong and I look forward to hearing your own reason for least deserving winner of all time.

Oh I forgot the idol debuted in Cao Boi's season, my bad on that one. However I must admit, if there's someone I think is way over due for a 2nd chance, it's Cao Boi. I'll give you props for remembering so much from a season that you have only watched once. That there's a dude on there that calls himself Tarzan on there is pretty funny. I googled him. I can at least understand why Troy nicknamed himself 'Troyzan' since he resembles the original Tarzan somewhat. I don't like to judge people in general, let alone people I've never met. So watching Colton play, I would try to find an excuse for him as to why he's behaving the way he is. But then again, hearing the horror stories about him and the small clips I've watched from him in One World, that's enough for me to never visit that season.

Oh ya, I remember that Cirie did that. However, Cao Boi had a dream about splitting the votes, so since Cirie is pretty much a legend of Survivor, can we please give Cao Boi this honor of creating 'plan voodoo'? Plus he did it to flush out the idol, Cirie did not. :) I might one day. Is the season as bad as advertised though? I don't want to start a season mid-way, if I have to watch a season and watch a persons game play, I want to watch it from episode 1.