|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 12, 2020 12:46:52 GMT -5
Immunity challenges are definitely a part of the game, but Sandra has shown that it's not absolutely essential to get on Mount Rushmore. Other dominant winners like Earl in Fiji, Tony in Cagayan, and Todd in China also never won an individual immunity (though Tony won four in Winners at War). The main thing with being a decent challenge threat is that it gives some margin for error that a player like Sandra or Cirie won't have. I completely agree. But the difference between Cirie and Earl, Tony, Todd, and Sandra? Cirie hasn't won. The Mount Rushmore thing was a bit of a digression (although I would love to hear everyone's Mount Rushmore). In my head, winning objectively makes you a good player. After that, when we're looking at players who haven't won, I think you have to look at their game holistically (because they don't get the automatic checkbox of winning). Cirie is a top notch social player and strategist. However, I just think it often gets overlooked that her physical game, whereas it arguably takes a target off of her back, is a glaring weakness. If she wins one immunity challenge at the end of Panama, FvF or Game Changers (maybe less so), she might have won the $1 million. Instead, she always leaves her fate up to the other players (fire-making, voted out) or the stupid twists (Game Changers). I love and totally understand her game. If Cirie won Panama or FvF, she would easily be on my Mount Rushmore. We're also getting into the weeds here because I do consider her one of the best (if not the best) to never have won, but I do think her game has a clear weakness which sometimes I feel gets overlooked because of the FvF and Game Changers twists. Sure, absolutely. I agree that winning is necessary to get on Mount Rushmore (I'm only 100% certain on Tony and Sandra). And this is a very well-thought-out view on Cirie. Sandra is just as bad at challenges as Cirie is, but she was still able to convince other people to take her to the end twice. And she was well on her way to making the merge again in Game Changers before being victim of one of the unluckiest tribe swaps in Survivor history. Her only real major mistake was her exit in Winners at War, though even there, I think Denise made a dumb strategic move, but Sandra still shouldn't have taken any chances.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 12, 2020 13:06:24 GMT -5
I completely agree. But the difference between Cirie and Earl, Tony, Todd, and Sandra? Cirie hasn't won. The Mount Rushmore thing was a bit of a digression (although I would love to hear everyone's Mount Rushmore). In my head, winning objectively makes you a good player. After that, when we're looking at players who haven't won, I think you have to look at their game holistically (because they don't get the automatic checkbox of winning). Cirie is a top notch social player and strategist. However, I just think it often gets overlooked that her physical game, whereas it arguably takes a target off of her back, is a glaring weakness. If she wins one immunity challenge at the end of Panama, FvF or Game Changers (maybe less so), she might have won the $1 million. Instead, she always leaves her fate up to the other players (fire-making, voted out) or the stupid twists (Game Changers). I love and totally understand her game. If Cirie won Panama or FvF, she would easily be on my Mount Rushmore. We're also getting into the weeds here because I do consider her one of the best (if not the best) to never have won, but I do think her game has a clear weakness which sometimes I feel gets overlooked because of the FvF and Game Changers twists. Sure, absolutely. I agree that winning is necessary to get on Mount Rushmore (I'm only 100% certain on Tony and Sandra). And this is a very well-thought-out view on Cirie. Sandra is just as bad at challenges as Cirie is, but she was still able to convince other people to take her to the end twice. And she was well on her way to making the merge again in Game Changers before being victim of one of the unluckiest tribe swaps in Survivor history. Her only real major mistake was her exit in Winners at War, though even there, I think Denise made a dumb strategic move, but Sandra still shouldn't have taken any chances. Yeah Tony and Sandra are on it. They aren't my favorite winners but it's hard to argue with 2 wins. My number 3 is Kim. I would have to think on number 4 for a bit. Denise is so puzzling to me in WaW. She made such a huge move and then coasted for the rest of the game. I understand laying low at the merge because of being the "queen slayer" but later in the game, when she had some agency and could have shaken things up, she went MIA. I mentioned this earlier, but that scratches the surface of why WaW isn't one of my favorite Survivor seasons. It felt like many of the castaways stopped playing to win at certain points in the season -- or at least it wasn't their main priority.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 12, 2020 13:16:12 GMT -5
Sure, absolutely. I agree that winning is necessary to get on Mount Rushmore (I'm only 100% certain on Tony and Sandra). And this is a very well-thought-out view on Cirie. Sandra is just as bad at challenges as Cirie is, but she was still able to convince other people to take her to the end twice. And she was well on her way to making the merge again in Game Changers before being victim of one of the unluckiest tribe swaps in Survivor history. Her only real major mistake was her exit in Winners at War, though even there, I think Denise made a dumb strategic move, but Sandra still shouldn't have taken any chances. Yeah Tony and Sandra are on it. They aren't my favorite winners but it's hard to argue with 2 wins. My number 3 is Kim. I would have to think on number 4 for a bit. Denise is so puzzling to me in WaW. She made such a huge move and then coasted for the rest of the game. I understand laying low at the merge because of being the "queen slayer" but later in the game, when she had some agency and could have shaken things up, she went MIA. I mentioned this earlier, but that scratches the surface of why WaW isn't one of my favorite Survivor seasons. It felt like many of the castaways stopped playing to win at certain points in the season -- or at least it wasn't their main priority. Yeah, my issue with Denise is that I just don't think that voting off the one person who actually wanted to work with her was very wise when she could have gotten rid of Jeremy, Tony or Kim instead (that tribe was absolutely stacked with major threats). Sandra wanted Jeremy out, and he was someone that had to go at some point anyway, and he's much more of a challenge threat than Sandra is. This felt like the epitome of making a "big move" just for the sake of having something on her resume, rather than making a good strategic move. At the very least, I don't think Denise should have burned her own idol to protect Jeremy. Denise then didn't do much the rest of the game, mostly playing not to get voted out instead of playing to win.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 12, 2020 13:41:35 GMT -5
Yeah Tony and Sandra are on it. They aren't my favorite winners but it's hard to argue with 2 wins. My number 3 is Kim. I would have to think on number 4 for a bit. Denise is so puzzling to me in WaW. She made such a huge move and then coasted for the rest of the game. I understand laying low at the merge because of being the "queen slayer" but later in the game, when she had some agency and could have shaken things up, she went MIA. I mentioned this earlier, but that scratches the surface of why WaW isn't one of my favorite Survivor seasons. It felt like many of the castaways stopped playing to win at certain points in the season -- or at least it wasn't their main priority. Yeah, my issue with Denise is that I just don't think that voting off the one person who actually wanted to work with her was very wise when she could have gotten rid of Jeremy, Tony or Kim instead (that tribe was absolutely stacked with major threats). Sandra wanted Jeremy out, and he was someone that had to go at some point anyway, and he's much more of a challenge threat than Sandra is. This felt like the epitome of making a "big move" just for the sake of having something on her resume, rather than making a good strategic move. At the very least, I don't think Denise should have burned her own idol to protect Jeremy. Denise then didn't do much the rest of the game, mostly playing not to get voted out instead of playing to win. I don't think voting out Sandra was a bad move necessarily (she had started to lie and manipulate a bit at that point), but I see your point. I think Sandra probably seemed like she had a more solid footing in the game at that point (versus Tony or Kim). But I agree - Sandra is ALWAYS going to have a huge target on her, and she's easier to get out at later points in the game. I definitely agree that wasting an idol was bad (and the flashiness of using two idols and/or setting up an alliance with Jeremy obviously didn't last). Kim, whereas she was a big target, was obviously a bit on the outs. I personally would have liked to see Tony go, but I think Tony benefits from being so chaotic and such a goofball, that players have a hard time taking him seriously. Obviously, a lot of players also underestimated his bonds with other castaways. I don't even know if Denise was playing not to get voted out. She seemed fine coasting. If this had been a different season (not all winners) I think we would have seen very different gameplay from Sarah, Denise and Ben (among others likely). I also understand that the hypotheticals/what-ifs can get a bit out of control lol, but I can't help but feel that way about WaW.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,370
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 12, 2020 14:14:43 GMT -5
Here is my list of best players - I only considered players that played more than once.
Tier 1: 1. Boston Rob. There are 4 in my top tier and he is the only one that I really liked or rooted to win. But what really sets him apart from the other 3 - he was a challenge beast while none of the other 3 were great at challenges. Not that 'survival' skills is very high on my list - but even there he shines well ahead of the other 3. His arrogance was his downfall - but he was also very entertaining at times on his confessionals.
2. Tony Vlachos. No getting around the 2 wins against top competition. Not a single vote against him (that counted) in Season 40. His 'strategy' play exceeds everyone else. I guess I grew to liking him - he was/is darn funny.
3. Parvati Shallow. I still consider her S20 one of the best seasons every played. Her biggest strike - she just wasn't any good in S13 - but at least she made the merge.
4. Sarah Lacina. Her play in S34 and S40 was steller - and against all-star casts. I never rooted for her - I didn't find her confessionals to be interesting, but her play stands out.
Other players worth considering for me:
Amanda Kimmel - I think here strategy play wasn't all that good, but she did make 2 consecutive FTC with a legit chance to win each time. Too much of an old school player for my current tastes.
Cirie Fields - Her 4th place finish in S12 sometimes gets lost in her resume. She was likeable and her strategy advanced the game. She was a legit contender to win in 3 of her 4 seasons.
Kim Spradlin - Possibly my all-time favorite player - her S24 win advanced the game and was a dominate win. Only played twice - and really S40 was a bit of a disappointment.
Michelle Fizgerald - She did make the finals twice and won once which is deserving of something.
Ozzy Lusth - okay, his old-school strategy play wasn't good. His 'crush' with Amanda in S16 was hard to watch. He still took 2nd in S13 (and could have won) and finished 4th in S23 - based on being the all-time greatest challenge player.
Rupert Boneham - I consider him and Cirie as the two best player to never win. Rupert was consequential in his first 3 seasons - and most likely would have been consequential in S27 if not for being with is wife. He morphed into a cartoon character that ended up being hard to take. But he was also a team challenge beast.
Russell Hantz - I think there are social lines that can be crossed that offsets 'strategy' - and Russell did this. He was arrogant and sometimes mean in talking about other players w/o necessarily being funny (like a Tyson). However, he advanced the game significantly and like Amanda made consecutive FTC.
Sandra Diaz-Twine - kind of Michelle with two wins. I actually have some respect for her game strategy.
Tina Wesson - Another winner that was relevant in another season.
Yul Kown - only played twice and also a bit of a disappointment in S40. Still one of my favorite players and I liked his 'logical' approach to the game.
Players that I liked:
John Cochrane - I think overrated as a strategy player, but as a writer, he could talk and he was extremely funny and entertaining. His play in his 1st season wasn't great. David Wright - a Cochrane clone who didn't win - but was probably more Cochrane than Cochrane. Also a writer that was very funny and entertaining. Andrea Boehlke - underrated player who was very good in challenges, strong in strategy, and played the game as a game instead of some social experiment. Michaela Bradshaw - only played twice and didn't advance like Andrea her 1st time - but had the exact same attributes as Andrea
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 14:17:45 GMT -5
Denise should've voted out Tony. Voting out Sandra was to get the "queenslayer" storyline if needed for FTC but it was not a good strategic move for Denise. By voting out Tony, you eliminate Sandra's ally on the tribe. Kim was already on the outs. Denise/Jeremy can bring either player into their group as a shield. Denise could've used an ally like Sandra. Sandra is a very powerful player to have on your side in the merge and I think too many players are scared of having Sandra in the merge when they don't recognize the benefits she could bring.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 12, 2020 14:21:20 GMT -5
Here is my list of best players - I only considered players that played more than once. Tier 1: 1. Boston Rob. There are 4 in my top tier and he is the only one that I really liked or rooted to win. But what really sets him apart from the other 3 - he was a challenge beast while none of the other 3 were great at challenges. Not that 'survival' skills is very high on my list - but even there he shines well ahead of the other 3. His arrogance was his downfall - but he was also very entertaining at times on his confessionals. 2. Tony Vlachos. No getting around the 2 wins against top competition. Not a single vote against him (that counted) in Season 40. His 'strategy' play exceeds everyone else. I guess I grew to liking him - he was/is darn funny. 3. Parvati Shallow. I still consider her S20 one of the best seasons every played. Her biggest strike - she just wasn't any good in S13 - but at least she made the merge. 4. Sarah Lacina. Her play in S34 and S40 was steller - and against all-star casts. I never rooted for her - I didn't find her confessionals to be interesting, but her play stands out. Does your Tier 1 change if you include players who only played once?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 12, 2020 14:23:58 GMT -5
Denise should've voted out Tony. Voting out Sandra was to get the "queenslayer" storyline if needed for FTC but it was not a good strategic move for Denise. By voting out Tony, you eliminate Sandra's ally on the tribe. Kim was already on the outs. Denise/Jeremy can bring either player into their group as a shield. Denise could've used an ally like Sandra. Sandra is a very powerful player to have on your side in the merge and I think too many players are scared of having Sandra in the merge when they don't recognize the benefits she could bring. In retrospect, Denise should have voted out Tony of course because of how he went on to dominate the game. But at that point of the game, Tony had expertly lowered his threat level by just hanging out at camp, being wacky, and making friends with everyone. I think Jeremy was the right vote at that point for Denise because he's a major threat that has to go at some point, she proves her loyalty to Sandra, and she signals her willingness to work with the original Dakal players. I think the hierarchy of the best vote for Denise in that situation was: Jeremy > Tony > Kim > Sandra. I do agree with you that keeping Sandra around would have been better for Denise than voting her out, and much better than voting her out and burning her idol on Jeremy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 14:31:27 GMT -5
Tony, Kim, Sandra, Parvati, and Sarah make up my top tier.
There are so many good players to make up the rest of the list... Sophie, Russell, Rob, Cirie, Amanda, Michelle, Earl, Tom... too many
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 12, 2020 14:32:37 GMT -5
Tony, Kim, Sandra, Parvati, and Sarah make up my top tier. Mount Rushmore only has 4 faces on it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 14:33:38 GMT -5
Denise should've voted out Tony. Voting out Sandra was to get the "queenslayer" storyline if needed for FTC but it was not a good strategic move for Denise. By voting out Tony, you eliminate Sandra's ally on the tribe. Kim was already on the outs. Denise/Jeremy can bring either player into their group as a shield. Denise could've used an ally like Sandra. Sandra is a very powerful player to have on your side in the merge and I think too many players are scared of having Sandra in the merge when they don't recognize the benefits she could bring. In retrospect, Denise should have voted out Tony of course because of how he went on to dominate the game. But at that point of the game, Tony had expertly lowered his threat level by just hanging out at camp, being wacky, and making friends with everyone. I think Jeremy was the right vote at that point for Denise because he's a major threat that has to go at some point, she proves her loyalty to Sandra, and she signals her willingness to work with the original Dakal players. I think the hierarchy of the best vote for Denise in that situation was: Jeremy > Tony > Kim > Sandra. Jeremy and Denise were allies at that point. It wouldn't make sense for Denise to vote him out. She could've used him like her Malcolm. I think Denise got into her own head too much to try to make a big move when Tony could've been as equally big of move. He went out second in Game changers for a reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 14:36:16 GMT -5
Tony, Kim, Sandra, Parvati, and Sarah make up my top tier. Mount Rushmore only has 4 faces on it Which is why I didnt say that I can't leave Sarah or Kim off. Kim played the best game you will ever see. Sarah changed the game. She played the most cut throat modern survivor game by a female and still managed to win (cries in Chrissy) and made it to the end of an all winners season where she was the first vote choice of the majority of the cast. She's the second best social player in modern survivor after Kim.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jun 12, 2020 14:36:43 GMT -5
In retrospect, Denise should have voted out Tony of course because of how he went on to dominate the game. But at that point of the game, Tony had expertly lowered his threat level by just hanging out at camp, being wacky, and making friends with everyone. I think Jeremy was the right vote at that point for Denise because he's a major threat that has to go at some point, she proves her loyalty to Sandra, and she signals her willingness to work with the original Dakal players. I think the hierarchy of the best vote for Denise in that situation was: Jeremy > Tony > Kim > Sandra. Jeremy and Denise were allies at that point. It wouldn't make sense for Denise to vote him out. She could've used him like her Malcolm. I think Denise got into her own head too much to try to make a big move when Tony could've been as equally big of move. He went out second in Game changers for a reason. I mean, I get your point, but Jeremy voted for Denise that night, so I don't think that alliance was that solid. And I don't remember them every really working together much after that, to the point that Denise literally shushed Jeremy when he tried to talk to her at tribal council. And Sandra (i.e. the person who gave her the idol) told Denise that she wanted Jeremy gone. I think she should have played ball. And given the way Tony had played up to that point (his disastrous outing on Game Changers is another reason his threat level was lower), I don't think she'd get that much credit. Agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 12, 2020 14:39:34 GMT -5
Denise should've voted out Tony. Voting out Sandra was to get the "queenslayer" storyline if needed for FTC but it was not a good strategic move for Denise. By voting out Tony, you eliminate Sandra's ally on the tribe. Kim was already on the outs. Denise/Jeremy can bring either player into their group as a shield. Denise could've used an ally like Sandra. Sandra is a very powerful player to have on your side in the merge and I think too many players are scared of having Sandra in the merge when they don't recognize the benefits she could bring. In retrospect, Denise should have voted out Tony of course because of how he went on to dominate the game. But at that point of the game, Tony had expertly lowered his threat level by just hanging out at camp, being wacky, and making friends with everyone. I think Jeremy was the right vote at that point for Denise because he's a major threat that has to go at some point, she proves her loyalty to Sandra, and she signals her willingness to work with the original Dakal players. I think the hierarchy of the best vote for Denise in that situation was: Jeremy > Tony > Kim > Sandra. I do agree with you that keeping Sandra around would have been better for Denise than voting her out, and much better than voting her out and burning her idol on Jeremy. I think a lot of this is hindsight bias. I think it's pretty clear she didn't feel like she could trust Sandra (rightfully so). Jeremy was probably the player she trusted the most at Dakal 2.0, considering they were the only two Sele. If Jeremy goes, Denise probably feels like she's next if they lose again. Additionally, I understand he was a big threat, but if she wanted to form an ally at that point, Jeremy makes the most sense. Kim was on the outs and the swing vote. I'm not sure why you would target her over Sandra? She obviously had no power in the game. I would also point out that Sandra took a big gamble by giving the idol for stupid Fire Tokens, which literally no one understood. If Fire Tokens had turned out to be more valuable, Sandra's move in hindsight doesn't look as bad. Ugh, Fire Tokens... Edit: Didn't see @avid 's post before posting this. A few of the same points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 14:41:48 GMT -5
I don't think fire tokens were/are a bad idea.... I think the players having this vague idea of them is what ruined them in this season. No one really knew what value they possessed.
Michelle has said on twitch that she liked fire tokens.
|
|