This season demonstrated the power of the social game over strategic game. I'd rather have a social game and no strategic game than the other way around.
Valupatitta Yew Natalie did had a some strategy. She did ID Russell as someone who rubs people the wrong way and more importantly, Natalie told the women of Erik's(Actually John's) Idea of blindsiding Monica. This cause the Galu to turn on Erik and started their implosion.
And if you were castaway on uninhabited island, you would be dead first. A corpse won't be able to talk or revenge back stabbers. At least that would happen in real survival situation. The show rules might be fine but the name should be different - something like "Survive and redeem yourself". Pure survival requires exactly the qualities what Russell demonstrated - leadership, tactics, deceit, master-mindness, ability to read others. Just my 2 cents.
For those who complain about Natalie winning over Russell, keep in mind that Russell could have voted her out during Brett’s Immunity streak. However, Russell voted out Shambo (Who would have functioned a huge goat because she annoying Galu pre merge and flipping to Foa Foa) and on the basis of Shambo being unable to beat Brett in a Immunity challenge. Jaison was also voted out for basically reason as Shambo. Russell is responsible for his loss in Samoa by not considering to vote Natalie out.
But Natalie made sure that Shambo and Jaison were dealt with. She knew Russell could beat either of them. Brett's immunity run was the one thing that legitimately terrified her, and with good reason.
Russell was a good strategic player, I'd give him that. In an alternate universe where jury votes didn't matter, he would have won a season for sure. But that's not the case in Survivor - you need to get to the end and have good jury management skills, and I feel like a lot of people forget about that.
+Tiffany Ngan Jericho Anderson definitely qualifies. He doesn’t get that we’re not interested in argumentation, but in addressing how Survivor actually works and why it plays out as it does.
+Tiffany Ngan "Russell was a good strategic player" No he wasn't. If he was, he would have employed a strategy that could have actually led him to WIN. Russell will NEVER win because he's such a dick to everybody
+Jonathan Lee Russell is better suited for big brother, the jury in survivor rewards people for being nice and they just vote for their friends as opposed to the person who played the best game
Drew Thompson What made Russell's game objectively better than Natalie's? They both managed to avoid being voted off for 38 days, which is goal number one of the game. And then Natalie succeeded in goal number two of the game (get a majority of the jury to vote for you) while Russell failed. There has never been any objective criteria as to how the jury is supposed to vote. There never was in season 1, and there isn't now. The ENTIRE point of the game is that they get to vote based on their own criteria, and you as the Survivor player are supposed to recognize what those criteria are and play to them as best as possible. In the case of Samoa, the jury wanted to reward someone who wasn't an arrogant, antisocial jackass. Russell was an arrogant, antisocial jackass. Therefore he lost, game over, bye Felicia
@Sullivan Reck it doesn't matter if she didn't deserve the money. They hate Russel more. He made too many enemies so no one voted for him regardless of how well he'd played
People always seem to forget she helped orchestrate the Erik blindside, which is perhaps the most important vote in the merge that led to Galu's dismemberment, not to mention Russell wasting an idol.
No one that matters is confused. She won because Galu didn't want to vote for Russell. John has talked at length about this outside of the game. He has also talked about how many of the other jury members feel they made the wrong decision after the season was aired. The only other option for Russell would have been to bring Shambo. But even then they would have likely voted for Mick out of spite. All of this has been well documented outside of the game by the players themselves. Natalie apologists are just embarrassing and are akin in stupidity to holocaust deniers.
She won because she understood exactly what Russell ought to have understood: these are real people, with real emotions, and real feelings, playing for the exact same very real purse for which he would go on to qualify. John's opinion holds no weight anymore, and once the big prize was awarded, the jury would forget the Tribal Council that put it in Natalie's hands.
wait, I just remember, if Survivor Heroes vs Villains was filmed right after Samoa, then Russell was in TWO finales without being told who the winner is?
THANK YOU. I hate people who just don't understand or respect this game and claim that Russell "should have won." His pathetic strategy has never and will never win anyone the million.
To be a good player in Survivor there is only one thing you need to be good at; Getting Jury votes. There are many different ways people have gotten to the end, but no matter how you get there, you have to do it in a way that people want to vote for you. The goal is to not get voted out and then have the Jury vote for you. Natalie did this successfully and she deservedly won. Survivor is all Social Politics, not who can strongarm and betray the most people. If you can't win a Jury vote then nothing else really matters. Controlling the Game: Means nothing, if you can avoid being voted out then it doesn't really matter if you control the game or not. Making Big Moves: Means nothing if you are in a good position to begin with and don't need to. Getting the most air time? Desirable sure. As far as winning goes, who cares?
+Lukas Feuerstein Erik's speach was not the reason Natalie won. Natalie was the reason Natalie won. But to shoot this to Dingle Barry, who responded to your exact same message, is an invitation to trolling arguments.
if you were castaway on uninhabited island and act like natalie, you would be dead first. A corpse won't be able to talk or revenge back stabbers. At least that would happen in real survival situation. The show rules might be fine but the name should be different - something like "Survive and redeem yourself". Pure survival requires exactly the qualities what Russell demonstrated - leadership, tactics, deceit, master-mindness, ability to read others. Just my 2 cents.
Lukas the most deserving player doesn't always win and it was the case in Samoa, being down 8-4 in the merge was a huge comeback. Getting Shambo John was a game changer. Hidden idols blindsiding, fuck even to vote out Brett was Russells doing. The jury was just bitter and it happens sometimes, Natalie did absolutely nothing. If you think you are deserving because you didn't piss anybody off than you need to stop watching the show. Russell needed a Spencer or Jenn on the Jury. Spencer said Tony was the clear cut winner and stop being bitter cause he outplayed and blindsided everyone. Jenn said Mike deserved it because he didn't stop winning immunities...
Matthew what makes you think you, who watched 45 minutes of edited footage a week gets to decide all by yourself who 'deserves' to win? Over the jury? Your self importance is staggering.
One of my fave winners, she may not have been the most prominent player, but she was a good social player, and slayed russell with so much righteousness!
As a viewer, I could see the pain in Micks eyes. No one from what we saw voted for him. Kick was a great player, and managed to get into the last round. He was a team play, and I would’ve either voted for him or Natalie. Natalie was an amazing team player, and a positivity spreader. I believe she does deserve to be the winner of Surviver: Samoa
+Chris Cleary Nah, it was well worth seeing the Russtards bust their nuts and blood vessels. Besides, only those closest to Natalie know exactly what she's been up to since the junket.
AllRequired That's what it all comes down to in the end. I'm not saying Natalie didn't deserve to win, just that Russel was more entertaining. They both took vastly different paths to the finals, and while Russel's was more fun to watch, Natalie's worked.
No. What makes you not a hardcore fan is your disrespect for the straightforward way Survivor is played. If you don't believe that whoever got the jury votes in the end, deserved to win that season, then you do not respect the game. Survivor has always been this way and will continue to be this way
I love how Probst could tell on like day 2 when he did his "Cast Assessment" for the season that Russell wasn't going to win. In Probst's on words he said: "Russell has either forgotten, or he's not aware that this is a SOCIAL GAME. He may get second, he damn sure ain't gonna win.". And, on the off-chance you don't believe Probst said that, go search "survivor Samoa cast assessment" click the CBS video, and watch 1:33-1:55.
She deserved to win because she was smart enough not to ruin her relationships with every single jury member. NO ONE in their right mind would have ever voted for Russell given the way he treated them. He is possibly the single worst social player ever.
Natalie not the worst winner. She is Amazing. SHe played one of the best social games ever, she made a strategic move, and she was one of the strongest females out there.
There is a reason why Natalie beat BOTH Mick and Russell. She simply has a flawless social game. That was the key to her winning. She made legit connections with the jury and made people love her EVEN if she was the one voting them out one by one. Look at Kim. She was a gamebot and masterminded One World. Yet she was still loved. Russell, on the other hand, is essentially hated by pretty much everyone (minus Shambo). That's how "good" of a player he is lmao
First of all, I cannot hate Russell as a person. I have never met him. The reason I don't support Russell is because he and his legion of fans are deluded. Never, in the history of this game, have people been more disrespectful of the game. To completely disregard the social aspect (which is MOST IMPORTANT) and then claim that he deserved to win and there's something "wrong" with the game is just arrogant, stupid, and wrong. As a hardcore survivor fan, I am disgusted by it.
1:05 - 1:27: It was at that point that I knew Natalie won because Jeff knew the results before hand and emphasizes why Russell would lose and that she would win. Another reason why I love him hosting.
It is not implied. There are no rules and you can vote however you want. That is what makes Survivor challenging. If you can't get the votes, you don't deserve to win.
Ah, I love it when a great player gets to the end with two of the best goats in history. Bless you, Natalie, you deserved every bit of that million dollars.
This was more like a final of 3 goats. The only thing closer to an all goat Final 3 was Redemption Island with Boston Blob, Natalie, and Fill-up. In both cases basically everyone who sat on the jury would have crushed the Final 3, with I guess the exception of Shambo from this season.
if you were castaway on uninhabited island and act like natalie, you would be dead first. A corpse won't be able to talk or revenge back stabbers. At least that would happen in real survival situation. The show rules might be fine but the name should be different - something like "Survive and redeem yourself". Pure survival requires exactly the qualities what Russell demonstrated - leadership, tactics, deceit, master-mindness, ability to read others. Just my 2 cents.
No. Being likable is the single most effective strategy. Have you not watched every single season? The winner is always more liked than the loser. The whole point of this game is to get the jury to like you enough to give you the money, and it frustrates me how people like you cannot understand that.
No, it is wrong from an objective standpoint because of what the game of Survivor is and has always been. It's like saying a track and field contestant deserved to win for running in the opposite direction. Sorry. Russell didn't get the jury votes, and therefore didn't deserve to win. It's really that simple. Survivor is not a complex game to grasp.
I have no qualms about your opinions about Russell. You liking his game is your prerogative, while me thinking his game was absolute shit is mine. What I'm telling you is that who deserved to win this game is NOT subjective. Whoever won it, deserved it. The game is as straightforward as that. So no matter how good you think Russell's game was, if he didn't win, you CANNOT say he deserved it over someone who actually did.
Russell would have won if he went to the final 2 against Jaison and Mick or Jaison and Shambo. It was completely in his power to make either of those happen. He has nobody but himself to blame for his loss.
In addition, I also hate how you are frustratingly misconstruing everything I say, and totally ignoring the most IMPORTANT point: the fact that Russell was an asshole to every single person on the jury, and no normal individual would reward someone who bullied them and made them miserable.
I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE A RUSSELL FAN JESUS CHRIST. I don't care how big his fanbase is or that he's in the hall of fame. The point I'm making is that people can like his game. They can like him. That's their prerogative. But to say he DESERVED to win over Natalie when he couldn't even scrape together nearly enough jury votes is ASININE. Why can you not follow this??
The reality is that the jury will vote how they want to vote and if they don't vote for you, you do not deserve to win. This has been the entire essence of the show since its conception. The single best strategy of this game is to be LIKABLE, or to sit beside someone less likable than you. Russell is probably the only end-gamer to not understand this simple fact, and that is why I have little respect for him as a player, and a great deal of frustration at his noisy fanbase
No. I would vote for the person who played the best game, and that person is the one who actually took the social aspect into account. Natalie's game was superior to Russell's because she got people to like and respect her enough to vote for her. Russell got people to despise and abhor him, and therefore, played an inferior game - especially when the whole point of survivor is making sure people don't hate your guts so they will vote for you in the end.
Probst, is that you? Alienating the majority of the jury is NOT a winning strategy! I fail to see how Ethan and even Cochran played any differently from Natalie, yet they seem to be given a lot more credit than she has. She not only saw Russell for the goat that he truly was, but also played a convincing dumb blonde role AND had a great social game. Without Russell, she still would have had options with Kelly, Laura, Monica, and Brett, whereas without Natalie, Russell had no other options.
Yes, but those players didn't completely disrespect every single jury member. They had some idea that to actually win Survivor, people need to like you. Russell had no awareness of that and therefore, was not playing to win, but to get to the end.
survivor is social as much as it is strategic and physical..... if you screw yourself socially then you are pretty much screwed. it is in the rule book of survivor. it is a given
First of all, I fucking hate how Russell fans insinuate that anyone who doesn't support him is not respecting the game. Russell fans are COMPLETELY disrespecting the game by denying that its primary nature is SOCIAL. Second, I hate how Russell fans are so fucking sanctimonious. I'm sorry but I'm willing to wager that most people are not going to give 1M dollars to someone who was a total asshole to them and made their lives a living hell, no matter what he did.
He got the most airtime because he was loud, obnoxious, and would bring in ratings. It had nothing to do with his "strategic play." If anything, the editing was setting him up for the biggest fall in Survivor history, just because of how poorly his social game was.
The edit basically focused on Russell the whole time and ignored every other person on the show. With one person getting such a disproportionate focus, it's very easy for a casual fan such as yourself to be swayed, when every single person spent as much time out there playing the game, and just weren't given as much TV time because they weren't busy ruining their games and boasting about it like a clueless idiot.
Actually, the reason Natalie won was because Russell was probably the worst social player in the history of the show. Hell, if the jury were deciding between him an a rock, the rock would win. Russell was a pathetic player.
I never made any claims about hating Russell for being mean. I said that because he was mean, he didn't deserve to win because he ruined his social game. And you are not going to find ONE SINGLE person who thinks your opinions are extremely intelligent. XD NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. Take a good look at yourself please because stupidity is one thing, but lacking awareness of it just makes it twice as sad.
I would vote Natalie because she was a smarter player. Rather than piss everyone off and being unnecessarily nasty to everyone in the process, she formed relationships and made sure people would like her enough to vote for her in the end. In the game of Survivor, that's all that matters, and Natalie is a superior player for the sole fact that she acknowledged the social aspect and used it to her advantage while Russell disregarded it completely and rightfully lost because of it
I'd vote for Natalie because she treated me with respect, and the point of the game is to vote people out while still having them respect you in the end. I wouldn't respect Russell's terrible social game and I wouldn't deem him deserving because he did not take into account the most important part of Survivor - the JURY. I don't care what he does. If he didn't manage the single most important part of the game, he deserves to lose.
Russell could not do that. Therefore, he did not deserve to win. Do I think he's an awful player, yes. Does everyone else? Probably not. That part is subjective. But there is NO subjectivity in who deserved to win this season. The one who gets the votes, deserved the win. End of story.
and survivor is NOT about making big moves just for the hell of it or about how many people you can blindside. it is about how you can get to the end the best way you can with your abilities and build a good enough relationship with the jury to win the game. it is about finding the median, not the extreme of "im gonna blindside everyone and bully everyone so i can make it to the end" that goes to show that russell did not understand the repercussion of the jury as they can vote however they want
Nope. They were two "disgusting" players and they chose the lesser of two evil. And this case doesn't even apply to Russ vs. Natalie because people actually LIKED Natalie and HATED Russ. In Thailand, both were generally disliked.
That is neither a reasonable or intelligent assumption. All you have to do is watch the fucking show to realize that that strategy would NEVER EVER work. And even then, he treated people like shit. If he had treated them with an ounce of respect, maybe they would have been able to vote for him, but he didn't, and he rightfully lost because of it.
When did I ever use that logic? If anything, my logic is ANYONE who treats people like shit and thinks he can win in the end over people who have treated other people better is a stupid player. YOU CAN PLAY A GOOD GAME WITHOUT TREATING PEOPLE LIKE SHIT.
To all the people who say Russell was robbed five years after the fact, he was not. Watch the reunion. He would have won if he'd taken jaison and shambo, and his social game sucked. You own your conniving game, not make fun of the jury. That is how Tony won in s28 by playing cutthroat but owning his actions. Natalie played Russell and used his ego against him by playing dumb. How is that "bad"?
+lakehombreguy He might also have had a shot if he'd picked Liz for the merge. You should also see Jericho Anderson's comments on this very page; the very example of someone who thinks they know a hell of a lot more than they actually do.
Victor Wong It's also an extremely risky and extremely difficult strategy to implement, period, let alone seamlessly. It takes a very particular type of player to be able to brilliantly handle an impossible personality. You only need to look at Redemption Island to see just how hard it actually is.
They said that shit MONTHS after the season concluded. If he did bring Shambo, they vote Mick. Like they were always gonna be bitter. Lose-Lose situation for Russell tbh. The only time I believe what the jury says is when they said that if Coach brought Albert and Cowboy (Rick) to the end, he would win. I can see that. Should of booted Sophie around the same time Edna or Brandon left....but then there was Ozzy soooooooo yeah....
Russell would have won for sure against Shambo and Jaison. It is no question. AgainstJaison and Mick it is a toss up, they might vote Russell, they might vote Mick. Either way those are the people he should have been bringing to the end if he was this master strategist he supposably is, not Natalie and even more laughably freaking Brett (who he almost decided to vote to save and push into a fire making challenge to reach the end).
Jeff Probst says in his first Samoa cast assessment that Russell will never win because he doesn't understand the jury aspect of the game. He also drills this into Russell at the HvV finale. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
While flying under the radar and aligning with the public enemy is indeed a strategy, Natalie is hands down the worst winner in Survivor history. She literally did nothing in the game and people didn't even know she existed. She was up against someone that everyone hated, but does that really make her win a deserving one? You can't even say that she played a social game because she made no moves whatsoever and she only won because people voted personally, not by gameplay.
There has never been a Survivor winner, in the history of this entire show, who has played a disgusting, revolting game, and walked away with the million. I'm sorry but for you to claim that the jury should have bowed down to Russell even if he had treated every single one of them like crap is STUPID. If someone bullies you, you do not fucking reward them, and there is no expectation for you to do so at all. In addition, Survivor is a social game, so Russell was an awful player in that respect.
When did I ever say I hated him? I said I hate his and his fans delusions that Russell played a great game and Survivor has a flaw because it is outright stupid and disrespectful. AND IF YOU DON'T CONDEMN HIM FOR HIS BULLYING, DON'T HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CONDEMN ANYONE ELSE. HYPOCRITE.
And LOL too bad he formed meaningless "alliances" with every single person before mercilessly voting them out, pissing them the fuck off. Awful awful awful social game on all counts.
ALSO, for a play by play, in depth analysis of why real Survivor fans think Russel Hantz' game is a laughable joke, google "The Fall of Russell Hantz." I'm giving you ALL the resources you need here to not be the thorn in every Survivor fan's side.
@@AllRequired Lol, justice? It was justice when Laura and Monica returned and got voted out, for stealing Russell's win and giving it to the "even dumber long haired blonde." That's right, she doesn't even deserve her name to be said. She got to the end as Russell's sheep and won because of a bitter jury. Plain and simple.
Natalie saw that Russell was a good candidate to go to the end with. So she decided to get on his good side, not cross him, and vote for her survival along side Russell and the other Foa Foas. Did she play a better strategic game than Russell? Not by a long shot. But she won in the end and that's all that matters. Maybe it was Russell's mistake to take her to the end.
You're overlooking the fact that Natalie had a pretty significant role in booting Eric at the merge. But you can't separate the social aspect of the game from the strategic. They're pretty much the same thing. The only strategy that matters is how well you position yourself to be the person for whom the jury rewards on day 39. How was Russell good strategically if his strategy made it so that he could never win? A better way to phrase what you're saying is that Russell played a better game with John and Shambo, but Natalie played a better game with the other 7 jurors which was why she won 7-2.
Spencer William I see what you're saying. I think the best way I could put it is that Russell had the best short term strategy to keep the Foa Foa 4 going from Tribal Council to Tribal Council. However Natalie had the best long term strategy (and that's where the social aspect comes in). At the end of the day Russell was a master strategist, but the lack of a social game bit him in the ass. I guess you could say he was better with MANIPULATIVE strategy over SOCIAL strategy (Natalie's strong point). I just think manipulation is much, much harder to pull off over having a good social game. That's the only reason I think Russell played a better strategic game.
The other Foa Foas had just as much of a part in advancing their tribe, though. The only reason people think it was all Russell was because he took credit for everything in confessionals and always talked about how great he thought he was. If you ignore Russell talking about himself, the impression of him playing an awesome game - or doing more than everyone else - will pretty much go away. He wasn't a master at anything. He was only a master at thinking he was a master.
Spencer William I still have to disagree. Even Jeff Probst says he's one of the best, and he saw everything, not just confessionals. Natalie got Russell on one thing - winning over the jury. And yes that is huge. But that was one part of the game she topped him on compared to the rest of the season. She just happened to 1 up him in one area and it was basically a short cut to win the game.
Because various people (the whole HvV cast, most of the Samoa cast sans Shambo) have all stated in their post-show interviews that many things were attributed to Russell on the show even if he didn't have a major hand in them. When most of the players not only agree that they don't respect Russell's gameplay, but that the editing portrayed him as more dominant than he actually was, chances are the editing was inaccurate. Other people didn't get these same accusations.
Lol. Monica, Kelly, and Laura all believe production interference gave him his idols because they had checked the exact same spot so many times before, even just an hour before Russell found it. John made it clear that Russell had little to do with his flipping. He was just afraid of the purple rock. Mick and Jaison admitted to aligning with Russell as a goat so that they could win easily if they made the finals. They knew no one would vote for him. LOL at your ignorance.
IN CONCLUSION, if you are able to get the votes at the end, then you win. NO ONE deserved it more than you because you navigated the very complex social aspects of the game, and came out ahead of your opponents. This is not chess. This is not a computer game. You do not automatically "win" because you played the loudest. To win, you need to grasp the highly unpredictable, very human side of the game. That is what makes Survivor challenging and if you can do that, you deserve to win. PERIOD.
Because everything Russell did was awful. He was a jerk and a bully. What "positive light" is there. I'm sorry but I don't know what show you've been watching
Why do people even say that Russell deserved to win? They really forget the social element to the game. You know, if Fiji was not seen as a "bad" season, people would remember that Earl was the original master of the social game. Yau-Man was like a good version of Russell, in terms of strategy. Earl demonstrated to a jury of 9 people that he could play a respectable game. He didn't have to win any immunity challenges, and the guy was intelligent enough to sit back and play behind people who had their egos rising. He let them make all the bad moves, and voted them out without him actually being at fault. This is exactly what Natalie did. She simply socialized with people and was nice while staying in Russell's blind spot, similar to how Earl socialized with people and was just a nice guy who let people do the dirty work for him. He never had to get blood on his hands. Saying that an arrogant person like Russell deserved to win is like how Dreamz acted after voting Yau-Man out. "I don't feel bad. People were biting each other like snakes, rats, and weasels. This is a game of people lying, cheating, and deceiving people. I can sleep good tonight, and I got a shot at a million dollars tomorrow." Dreamz and Russell were so confident in the way that they back-stabbed people and acted very manipulative, but both of these guys failed to realize that Survivor is like a truth serum. They showed their devious sides to people, willing to break deals and do anything to win, and that kind of gameplay was only respectable for Tony because he owned up to what he did to the jury. Russell and Dreamz did not really care about all the trouble they caused to other people in game, and didn't see how it would screw them in the end. Since this comparison does make sense, it also makes sense to say Earl and Natalie deserved to win their respective seasons for playing a calm and intelligent game over an overconfident and unethical game.
You can't win by being nice to everyone. You'd need to be extremely lucky to get to the right people from the start if you can't do any backstabbing or lying. Except for here of course where Russel orchestrated everything yet it was the person following him that got the credit. If they were so much more better at "socializing", why would they be stuck with the devil? Doesn't really make the case for them. But apparently it doesn't matter who was in it as long as the jury has a scapegoat. You forget that the back stabbing includes all the people who are in it, it doesn't matter who originally came up with it. This is why in the real world negligence is a thing and it has consequences. I don't really understand how it's forgetting the social element. He was the one talking to everyone, swaying people to his side and coming along with people so well to make it to the very end. You're forgetting it was 8 to 4 people. if you call that bad socializing then I don't know what you've been watching. He was extremely good at socializing, he just wasn't honest at every turn. I don't see how just tagging with one specific group from the start is a good social game anyway, it's just being safe and having someone else deal with the socializing. It's a game, some people have to be lied to eventually, unless you're a pathetic ameba who's just following the person doing the lying and dancing to their flute. After all you will have to vote out one of your own team mates at some point, and obviously not giving them the information is huge so they don't come after you. The system is flawed as it's just a popularity vote at the end, or at least feels like it. Brett surely would've had it if he had won the final immunity just for the fact that basically the whole jury was his old team. But he didn't make it by being nice, he didn't even try to get rid of anyone when he had the chance. He just went with the flow, there was no strategy, there was no will to win. People forget it's a game, they take it personally. They get way too butthurt over getting voted out even when it's the best or only thing you can do to survive. What else are you supposed to do, just bend over and be content with how it happened to be? This is supposed to be survivor, not the nice guy contest. There's no question the title sole survivor doesn't belong to Russel, if it was surviving for real I doubt either one of the 2 would've had anything to give. The game was in Russel's control right from the get go and the other two hardly had anything to contribute other than extra votes. Where were the challenge wins? Where were the recruiments? What tactics did they contribute? What exactly would they have done without Russel?
It was Natalie who pulled off the single-most difficult move in Samoa. Getting the girls from Galu to take out their teammate Erik, and that fractured the Galu alliance permanently. Natalie made the most crucial move of the game, and even Erik respected her for it. And the jury has a right to be emotional. They are the jurors. They can vote out of emotion of resentment. Not every jury member respects strategic play. They don't have to. Russell was pretty much like Dreamz from Fiji. Good strategist, perhaps, but far too arrogant.
Mira Izuna Nicely done, you picked the only thing she actually did. It's not that difficult getting the ladies together to get rid of a guy who's annoying/patronizing/whatever especially when they still have the overwhelming majority afterwards, 7 to 4 remember. This is like a textbook move if you've watched other seasons. The sexes coming together has been a common theme. "And the jury has a right to be emotional. They are the jurors. They can vote out of emotion of resentment. Not every jury member respects strategic play." This is exactly what I mean, it's based on the emotional rather than the rational. People can't see beyond their butthurt, they take it way too personally when it's about the game only. Arrogance is irrelevant to what was actually done. "Good strategist" This is true, and why I said he should've won. I would say he was a good people person as well. It's just that the people can't see beyond their personal feelings to appreciate what and how he pulled it all off. Strategically the best moves necessarily hurt people on some level as to SURVIVE you must do things at various parts of the game.
You forget that Russell was an asshole to the jurors. He thought of people as nothing more than pawns that he could step on, and he was just as much of an asshole as Dreamz. Personal feelings can be in the game. The jurors spent at least 24 hours of 20 straight days with him. He may have been incredibly irksome off-screen as much as he was onscreen.
Yeah, I think a mule may be more up to your intellectual speed, seeing as you still don't understand how this game works. Do me a favor and search 'Survivor' Crowns A Winner, Offending Many Who Do Not Understand 'Survivor' and at least try to understand the perspective of real Survivor fans who know, love, and respect this game.
Well, you get a lot out of not being an edit sheep. Like you'll realize Russell really wasn't in control of the first three boots. The tribe booted Marissa and Betsy for weakness. Russell wanted Ben to stay, but Ben left. Russell didn't actually fool Tyson in HvV. Tyson was just trying to make sure Parvati and Danielle didn't vote for Russell, because Tyson wanted Parvati out. By actually taking the time to do your research, you'll realize that the edit can be misleading.
I did and in my opinion Russell was the most eloquent and made the best points at that final tribal council, im not taking the win away from her though. What i liked about Russells final council was how he explaind how the game was outwit, outlast, outplay and then expained in no uncertain terms how he was better than the other two. As far as her playing an amazing game, quite game yes, she made the right allience and was nice, that to me aint amazing,
HE WAS NOT DICTATING SO MUCH OF THE GAME. Do me a favor and also google "The fall of Russell Hantz." Editing =/= reality. Everyone was equally involved in the season but the editing didn't allow you to see that. Read post-show interviews if you need confirmation. And again, his edit does not prove he's a strategic player. It may even prove he was just a joke, like Phillip.
I'm sorry but if you think you're the only Russell fan who has been polluting the internet with these statements that totally disrespect the the game, and piss of real Survivor fans, then you're wrong. I admit I'm worked up but it's because you are not the only one who shares these erroneous beliefs on how the game of survivor works, and my anger and frustration is definitely cumulative.
I can't help it. Your points are really so baseless and lacking in any sort of substantiated logical coherence that it is hard for me to take you seriously. Look, the bottom line is that Russell did not deserve to win over Natalie because he did not get the votes in the end. The point of Survivor is to get the votes. You can play all the strategy you want but if you do it in a tactless way that pisses of the jury, YOU WILL LOSE. It's really that simple.
natalie made it clear that she built personal relationships with people while russell was busy scurrying around camp making everyone hate him (yeah great social game russell). also natalie also had a vital first move at the merge to vote out erik (and psychologically dismantled galu) while all russell knew what to do was bully people and find idols to play. russell is a good strategic player but natalie played a better all-round game because russell had ZERO SOCIAL GAME
Natalie did not play an amazing game. She's not underrated as a winner. She played a solid social game and didn't make any enemies. And that's basically all that she did. HOWEVER, she deserved to win this game. Natalie isn't the reason Russell lost. The jury being bitter isn't the reason Russell lost. Russell is the reason Russell lost. He played a game worthy enough to win in every aspect EXCEPT ONE, socially. Russell treated the jury members like absolute shit. He would tell them to their faces that they were going home and take outward joy and rub salt in the wound when he did send them home. Then at final tribal council he was a pompous ass basically telling the jury they HAD to vote for him because he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Russell cost himself the game. Being an arrogant prick to other people is not the way to success in life or Survivor. If he would have saved his cockiness just for the camera instead of right to other peoples faces he would have won.
@Dusto22 i knowwww... i get soo pissed when they dont vote for russel in heros vs villains and samoa. why cant people relize everything hes done got him to the end.. and he was the best strategist besides todd from china
Seriously get a life AllRequired, I just saw this season and you've been replying and spamming to every comment that disagrees with you for the last 3 years. Get over it, it's no wonder you agree w/ the emotionally biased jury, considering you're probably one of the most butthurt people I've seen online in a while.
Watch at 1:05, and listen very carefully to the next 22 seconds. funny115.com/v2/50.htm www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2009/12/survivor_crowns_a_winner_offen.html Like Russell and hate Natalie all you want, but shut up about how he was robbed and how he was the best Survivor player. And shut up about the jury; they were there, they were affected by his antics, they're the ones voting. THEY EXIST. Can't handle an emotionally biased jury, this isn't for you.
Natalie is amazing. While Russell is stabbing everyone in the back, Natalie is becoming friends with all of them. She had an incredible social game, which Russell has failed at three times now.
Okay, you are believing wikipedia and denying the common knowledge shared by all the castways post-show. If you're going to continue to be delusional, then fine. But go do your research and don't act like the proof isn't there. And second, this is a moot point. As I keep telling you, edit says nothing about how good a game you played, so your argument is going nowhere.
I am dropping the F bomb because you are being insufferable. As a hardcore Survivor fan, I just cannot take it when people pretend to respect the game, and then completely ignore that it is a SOCIAL GAME. The point of the game is not to be the best strategic player. When will people get that through their minds?? Jurors can vote ANYWAY they want because the point of the game is to vote people out while still having them like you. If the jurors don't like you, you don't deserve to win. GOD.
This season demonstrated the power of the social game over strategic game. I'd rather have a social game and no strategic game than the other way around.
Valupatitta Yew Natalie did had a some strategy. She did ID Russell as someone who rubs people the wrong way and more importantly, Natalie told the women of Erik's(Actually John's) Idea of blindsiding Monica. This cause the Galu to turn on Erik and started their implosion.
And if you were castaway on uninhabited island, you would be dead first. A corpse won't be able to talk or revenge back stabbers. At least that would happen in real survival situation. The show rules might be fine but the name should be different - something like "Survive and redeem yourself". Pure survival requires exactly the qualities what Russell demonstrated - leadership, tactics, deceit, master-mindness, ability to read others. Just my 2 cents.
@@diezuschauerin2507 Uh, that "gossip" you talk about? That was actually intel gathering.
dddddd Okay but that’s not what the show is. It’s called Survivor but that’s not what the game is defined as.
Lol, this guy coherence thinks the game of Survivor is a replica of his life. Bwhahaha. I'm laughing so hard.
One of the best moments in Survivor history! I was so happy
For those who complain about Natalie winning over Russell, keep in mind that Russell could have voted her out during Brett’s Immunity streak. However, Russell voted out Shambo (Who would have functioned a huge goat because she annoying Galu pre merge and flipping to Foa Foa) and on the basis of Shambo being unable to beat Brett in a Immunity challenge. Jaison was also voted out for basically reason as Shambo. Russell is responsible for his loss in Samoa by not considering to vote Natalie out.
But Natalie made sure that Shambo and Jaison were dealt with. She knew Russell could beat either of them. Brett's immunity run was the one thing that legitimately terrified her, and with good reason.
Russell was a good strategic player, I'd give him that. In an alternate universe where jury votes didn't matter, he would have won a season for sure. But that's not the case in Survivor - you need to get to the end and have good jury management skills, and I feel like a lot of people forget about that.
+Tiffany Ngan Jericho Anderson definitely qualifies. He doesn’t get that we’re not interested in argumentation, but in addressing how Survivor actually works and why it plays out as it does.
+Tiffany Ngan "Russell was a good strategic player" No he wasn't. If he was, he would have employed a strategy that could have actually led him to WIN. Russell will NEVER win because he's such a dick to everybody
+Jonathan Lee Russell is better suited for big brother, the jury in survivor rewards people for being nice and they just vote for their friends as opposed to the person who played the best game
Drew Thompson The person who gets voted for played the best game.
Drew Thompson What made Russell's game objectively better than Natalie's? They both managed to avoid being voted off for 38 days, which is goal number one of the game. And then Natalie succeeded in goal number two of the game (get a majority of the jury to vote for you) while Russell failed. There has never been any objective criteria as to how the jury is supposed to vote. There never was in season 1, and there isn't now. The ENTIRE point of the game is that they get to vote based on their own criteria, and you as the Survivor player are supposed to recognize what those criteria are and play to them as best as possible. In the case of Samoa, the jury wanted to reward someone who wasn't an arrogant, antisocial jackass. Russell was an arrogant, antisocial jackass. Therefore he lost, game over, bye Felicia
1:05 - 1:27
I love how Russell's worshippers forget this.
+ElectrikkPaperClipxx I guess some people don't like it when their truth tea is served hot.
greenteadiet Jericho Anderson certainly doesn't.
@Sullivan Reck it doesn't matter if she didn't deserve the money. They hate Russel more. He made too many enemies so no one voted for him regardless of how well he'd played
People always seem to forget she helped orchestrate the Erik blindside, which is perhaps the most important vote in the merge that led to Galu's dismemberment, not to mention Russell wasting an idol.
Just stop.
Nope.
No one that matters is confused. She won because Galu didn't want to vote for Russell. John has talked at length about this outside of the game. He has also talked about how many of the other jury members feel they made the wrong decision after the season was aired. The only other option for Russell would have been to bring Shambo. But even then they would have likely voted for Mick out of spite. All of this has been well documented outside of the game by the players themselves. Natalie apologists are just embarrassing and are akin in stupidity to holocaust deniers.
Really? Do you have to use the holocaust to belittle people? People can have different opinions to what you think.
She won because she understood exactly what Russell ought to have understood: these are real people, with real emotions, and real feelings, playing for the exact same very real purse for which he would go on to qualify. John's opinion holds no weight anymore, and once the big prize was awarded, the jury would forget the Tribal Council that put it in Natalie's hands.
I can't even express how happy I was for her. Very unexpected winner!
wait, I just remember, if Survivor Heroes vs Villains was filmed right after Samoa, then Russell was in TWO finales without being told who the winner is?
Yes
THANK YOU. I hate people who just don't understand or respect this game and claim that Russell "should have won." His pathetic strategy has never and will never win anyone the million.
To be a good player in Survivor there is only one thing you need to be good at; Getting Jury votes. There are many different ways people have gotten to the end, but no matter how you get there, you have to do it in a way that people want to vote for you. The goal is to not get voted out and then have the Jury vote for you. Natalie did this successfully and she deservedly won. Survivor is all Social Politics, not who can strongarm and betray the most people. If you can't win a Jury vote then nothing else really matters.
Controlling the Game: Means nothing, if you can avoid being voted out then it doesn't really matter if you control the game or not.
Making Big Moves: Means nothing if you are in a good position to begin with and don't need to.
Getting the most air time? Desirable sure. As far as winning goes, who cares?
+Lukas Feuerstein Erik's speach was not the reason Natalie won. Natalie was the reason Natalie won. But to shoot this to Dingle Barry, who responded to your exact same message, is an invitation to trolling arguments.
Dingle Barry
Shii Ann was in All-Stars, not HvV. Everything else fits.
if you were castaway on uninhabited island and act like natalie, you would be dead first. A corpse won't be able to talk or revenge back stabbers. At least that would happen in real survival situation. The show rules might be fine but the name should be different - something like "Survive and redeem yourself". Pure survival requires exactly the qualities what Russell demonstrated - leadership, tactics, deceit, master-mindness, ability to read others. Just my 2 cents.
Lukas the most deserving player doesn't always win and it was the case in Samoa, being down 8-4 in the merge was a huge comeback. Getting Shambo John was a game changer. Hidden idols blindsiding, fuck even to vote out Brett was Russells doing. The jury was just bitter and it happens sometimes, Natalie did absolutely nothing. If you think you are deserving because you didn't piss anybody off than you need to stop watching the show. Russell needed a Spencer or Jenn on the Jury. Spencer said Tony was the clear cut winner and stop being bitter cause he outplayed and blindsided everyone. Jenn said Mike deserved it because he didn't stop winning immunities...
Matthew what makes you think you, who watched 45 minutes of edited footage a week gets to decide all by yourself who 'deserves' to win? Over the jury?
Your self importance is staggering.
His strategy seemed to revolve around APPEARING like he was a good player, rather than actually thinking about how to tailor his strategy to a jury.
One of my fave winners, she may not have been the most prominent player, but she was a good social player, and slayed russell with so much righteousness!
As a viewer, I could see the pain in Micks eyes. No one from what we saw voted for him. Kick was a great player, and managed to get into the last round. He was a team play, and I would’ve either voted for him or Natalie. Natalie was an amazing team player, and a positivity spreader. I believe she does deserve to be the winner of Surviver: Samoa
Mick not Kick
Natalie was so unfairly edited. Would love to see her play again :)
+Chris Cleary Nah, it was well worth seeing the Russtards bust their nuts and blood vessels. Besides, only those closest to Natalie know exactly what she's been up to since the junket.
You have the original footage?
Russel was far more entertaining tbh. Natalie was just boring.
Boring, perhaps. But she did her job. He didn't do his.
AllRequired That's what it all comes down to in the end. I'm not saying Natalie didn't deserve to win, just that Russel was more entertaining. They both took vastly different paths to the finals, and while Russel's was more fun to watch, Natalie's worked.
She got 7 fucking votes! That shows how amazing her social game was. :)
To a Certian extent i will agree but i think some of them where a bit bitter russell dominated.
No. What makes you not a hardcore fan is your disrespect for the straightforward way Survivor is played. If you don't believe that whoever got the jury votes in the end, deserved to win that season, then you do not respect the game. Survivor has always been this way and will continue to be this way
I love how Probst could tell on like day 2 when he did his "Cast Assessment" for the season that Russell wasn't going to win. In Probst's on words he said: "Russell has either forgotten, or he's not aware that this is a SOCIAL GAME. He may get second, he damn sure ain't gonna win.". And, on the off-chance you don't believe Probst said that, go search "survivor Samoa cast assessment" click the CBS video, and watch 1:33-1:55.
What takes skill: actually voting people out without making them hate your guts. That's the whole point of the game.
She deserved to win because she was smart enough not to ruin her relationships with every single jury member. NO ONE in their right mind would have ever voted for Russell given the way he treated them. He is possibly the single worst social player ever.
Natalie not the worst winner. She is Amazing. SHe played one of the best social games ever, she made a strategic move, and she was one of the strongest females out there.
There is a reason why Natalie beat BOTH Mick and Russell. She simply has a flawless social game. That was the key to her winning. She made legit connections with the jury and made people love her EVEN if she was the one voting them out one by one.
Look at Kim. She was a gamebot and masterminded One World. Yet she was still loved.
Russell, on the other hand, is essentially hated by pretty much everyone (minus Shambo). That's how "good" of a player he is lmao
First of all, I cannot hate Russell as a person. I have never met him. The reason I don't support Russell is because he and his legion of fans are deluded. Never, in the history of this game, have people been more disrespectful of the game. To completely disregard the social aspect (which is MOST IMPORTANT) and then claim that he deserved to win and there's something "wrong" with the game is just arrogant, stupid, and wrong. As a hardcore survivor fan, I am disgusted by it.
1:05 - 1:27: It was at that point that I knew Natalie won because Jeff knew the results before hand and emphasizes why Russell would lose and that she would win. Another reason why I love him hosting.
Who wrote RATalie ? XD
Erik
I thought it was Jaison
It was shambo
@@theMcWOPPER Shambo voted for Russell
@@theMcWOPPER Shambo voted for Rusell
It is not implied. There are no rules and you can vote however you want. That is what makes Survivor challenging. If you can't get the votes, you don't deserve to win.
Ah, I love it when a great player gets to the end with two of the best goats in history. Bless you, Natalie, you deserved every bit of that million dollars.
Crebs Park And you are just rude. If you disagree, then give legitimate reasons, not bile and hate.
This was more like a final of 3 goats. The only thing closer to an all goat Final 3 was Redemption Island with Boston Blob, Natalie, and Fill-up. In both cases basically everyone who sat on the jury would have crushed the Final 3, with I guess the exception of Shambo from this season.
if you were castaway on uninhabited island and act like natalie, you would be dead first. A corpse won't be able to talk or revenge back stabbers. At least that would happen in real survival situation. The show rules might be fine but the name should be different - something like "Survive and redeem yourself". Pure survival requires exactly the qualities what Russell demonstrated - leadership, tactics, deceit, master-mindness, ability to read others. Just my 2 cents.
What universe or alternate reality are you from
@@JustinJJankbro
The reason they voted for Brian is because everyone fucking hated Clay. No one put aside any bitterness.
No. Being likable is the single most effective strategy. Have you not watched every single season? The winner is always more liked than the loser. The whole point of this game is to get the jury to like you enough to give you the money, and it frustrates me how people like you cannot understand that.
No, it is wrong from an objective standpoint because of what the game of Survivor is and has always been. It's like saying a track and field contestant deserved to win for running in the opposite direction. Sorry. Russell didn't get the jury votes, and therefore didn't deserve to win. It's really that simple. Survivor is not a complex game to grasp.
I have no qualms about your opinions about Russell. You liking his game is your prerogative, while me thinking his game was absolute shit is mine. What I'm telling you is that who deserved to win this game is NOT subjective. Whoever won it, deserved it. The game is as straightforward as that. So no matter how good you think Russell's game was, if he didn't win, you CANNOT say he deserved it over someone who actually did.
Russell would have won if he went to the final 2 against Jaison and Mick or Jaison and Shambo. It was completely in his power to make either of those happen.
He has nobody but himself to blame for his loss.
In addition, I also hate how you are frustratingly misconstruing everything I say, and totally ignoring the most IMPORTANT point: the fact that Russell was an asshole to every single person on the jury, and no normal individual would reward someone who bullied them and made them miserable.
I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE A RUSSELL FAN JESUS CHRIST. I don't care how big his fanbase is or that he's in the hall of fame.
The point I'm making is that people can like his game. They can like him. That's their prerogative. But to say he DESERVED to win over Natalie when he couldn't even scrape together nearly enough jury votes is ASININE. Why can you not follow this??
The reality is that the jury will vote how they want to vote and if they don't vote for you, you do not deserve to win. This has been the entire essence of the show since its conception. The single best strategy of this game is to be LIKABLE, or to sit beside someone less likable than you. Russell is probably the only end-gamer to not understand this simple fact, and that is why I have little respect for him as a player, and a great deal of frustration at his noisy fanbase
No. I would vote for the person who played the best game, and that person is the one who actually took the social aspect into account. Natalie's game was superior to Russell's because she got people to like and respect her enough to vote for her. Russell got people to despise and abhor him, and therefore, played an inferior game - especially when the whole point of survivor is making sure people don't hate your guts so they will vote for you in the end.
Probst, is that you? Alienating the majority of the jury is NOT a winning strategy! I fail to see how Ethan and even Cochran played any differently from Natalie, yet they seem to be given a lot more credit than she has. She not only saw Russell for the goat that he truly was, but also played a convincing dumb blonde role AND had a great social game. Without Russell, she still would have had options with Kelly, Laura, Monica, and Brett, whereas without Natalie, Russell had no other options.
Yes, but those players didn't completely disrespect every single jury member. They had some idea that to actually win Survivor, people need to like you. Russell had no awareness of that and therefore, was not playing to win, but to get to the end.
survivor is social as much as it is strategic and physical..... if you screw yourself socially then you are pretty much screwed. it is in the rule book of survivor. it is a given
First of all, I fucking hate how Russell fans insinuate that anyone who doesn't support him is not respecting the game. Russell fans are COMPLETELY disrespecting the game by denying that its primary nature is SOCIAL.
Second, I hate how Russell fans are so fucking sanctimonious. I'm sorry but I'm willing to wager that most people are not going to give 1M dollars to someone who was a total asshole to them and made their lives a living hell, no matter what he did.
He got the most airtime because he was loud, obnoxious, and would bring in ratings. It had nothing to do with his "strategic play." If anything, the editing was setting him up for the biggest fall in Survivor history, just because of how poorly his social game was.
The edit basically focused on Russell the whole time and ignored every other person on the show. With one person getting such a disproportionate focus, it's very easy for a casual fan such as yourself to be swayed, when every single person spent as much time out there playing the game, and just weren't given as much TV time because they weren't busy ruining their games and boasting about it like a clueless idiot.
Actually, the reason Natalie won was because Russell was probably the worst social player in the history of the show. Hell, if the jury were deciding between him an a rock, the rock would win. Russell was a pathetic player.
Except his awful bullying is an integral part of his gameplay. It's his SOCIAL GAME. You can't parse the two.
I never made any claims about hating Russell for being mean. I said that because he was mean, he didn't deserve to win because he ruined his social game.
And you are not going to find ONE SINGLE person who thinks your opinions are extremely intelligent. XD NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.
Take a good look at yourself please because stupidity is one thing, but lacking awareness of it just makes it twice as sad.
I would vote Natalie because she was a smarter player. Rather than piss everyone off and being unnecessarily nasty to everyone in the process, she formed relationships and made sure people would like her enough to vote for her in the end. In the game of Survivor, that's all that matters, and Natalie is a superior player for the sole fact that she acknowledged the social aspect and used it to her advantage while Russell disregarded it completely and rightfully lost because of it
I'd vote for Natalie because she treated me with respect, and the point of the game is to vote people out while still having them respect you in the end. I wouldn't respect Russell's terrible social game and I wouldn't deem him deserving because he did not take into account the most important part of Survivor - the JURY. I don't care what he does. If he didn't manage the single most important part of the game, he deserves to lose.
Russell could not do that. Therefore, he did not deserve to win. Do I think he's an awful player, yes. Does everyone else? Probably not. That part is subjective. But there is NO subjectivity in who deserved to win this season. The one who gets the votes, deserved the win. End of story.
and survivor is NOT about making big moves just for the hell of it or about how many people you can blindside. it is about how you can get to the end the best way you can with your abilities and build a good enough relationship with the jury to win the game. it is about finding the median, not the extreme of "im gonna blindside everyone and bully everyone so i can make it to the end" that goes to show that russell did not understand the repercussion of the jury as they can vote however they want
Nope. They were two "disgusting" players and they chose the lesser of two evil. And this case doesn't even apply to Russ vs. Natalie because people actually LIKED Natalie and HATED Russ. In Thailand, both were generally disliked.
Natalie White is living proof that a God does exist.
No. If Russell was playing just to get to the end, he didn't understand the game AT ALL and deserved to lose.
That is neither a reasonable or intelligent assumption. All you have to do is watch the fucking show to realize that that strategy would NEVER EVER work. And even then, he treated people like shit. If he had treated them with an ounce of respect, maybe they would have been able to vote for him, but he didn't, and he rightfully lost because of it.
Love the way that Natalie pushed Russell when he is hugging her :D
When did I ever use that logic? If anything, my logic is ANYONE who treats people like shit and thinks he can win in the end over people who have treated other people better is a stupid player. YOU CAN PLAY A GOOD GAME WITHOUT TREATING PEOPLE LIKE SHIT.
To all the people who say Russell was robbed five years after the fact, he was not. Watch the reunion. He would have won if he'd taken jaison and shambo, and his social game sucked. You own your conniving game, not make fun of the jury. That is how Tony won in s28 by playing cutthroat but owning his actions. Natalie played Russell and used his ego against him by playing dumb. How is that "bad"?
+lakehombreguy He might also have had a shot if he'd picked Liz for the merge. You should also see Jericho Anderson's comments on this very page; the very example of someone who thinks they know a hell of a lot more than they actually do.
Victor Wong It's also an extremely risky and extremely difficult strategy to implement, period, let alone seamlessly. It takes a very particular type of player to be able to brilliantly handle an impossible personality. You only need to look at Redemption Island to see just how hard it actually is.
They said that shit MONTHS after the season concluded. If he did bring Shambo, they vote Mick. Like they were always gonna be bitter. Lose-Lose situation for Russell tbh. The only time I believe what the jury says is when they said that if Coach brought Albert and Cowboy (Rick) to the end, he would win. I can see that. Should of booted Sophie around the same time Edna or Brandon left....but then there was Ozzy soooooooo yeah....
Agreed. Russell is basically a failed version of Tony who just happened to come before Tony.
Russell would have won for sure against Shambo and Jaison. It is no question. AgainstJaison and Mick it is a toss up, they might vote Russell, they might vote Mick. Either way those are the people he should have been bringing to the end if he was this master strategist he supposably is, not Natalie and even more laughably freaking Brett (who he almost decided to vote to save and push into a fire making challenge to reach the end).
Jeff Probst says in his first Samoa cast assessment that Russell will never win because he doesn't understand the jury aspect of the game. He also drills this into Russell at the HvV finale. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
While flying under the radar and aligning with the public enemy is indeed a strategy, Natalie is hands down the worst winner in Survivor history. She literally did nothing in the game and people didn't even know she existed. She was up against someone that everyone hated, but does that really make her win a deserving one? You can't even say that she played a social game because she made no moves whatsoever and she only won because people voted personally, not by gameplay.
There has never been a Survivor winner, in the history of this entire show, who has played a disgusting, revolting game, and walked away with the million. I'm sorry but for you to claim that the jury should have bowed down to Russell even if he had treated every single one of them like crap is STUPID. If someone bullies you, you do not fucking reward them, and there is no expectation for you to do so at all.
In addition, Survivor is a social game, so Russell was an awful player in that respect.
Russell did play the best social game, You do not understand, he was so good socially that he was with everyone yet against everyone at the SAME time.
AMAZING. she freaking won easily!
And I will believe the people who were ACTUALLY out there before I believe sites like wikipedia. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
When did I ever say I hated him? I said I hate his and his fans delusions that Russell played a great game and Survivor has a flaw because it is outright stupid and disrespectful. AND IF YOU DON'T CONDEMN HIM FOR HIS BULLYING, DON'T HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CONDEMN ANYONE ELSE. HYPOCRITE.
And LOL too bad he formed meaningless "alliances" with every single person before mercilessly voting them out, pissing them the fuck off. Awful awful awful social game on all counts.
ALSO, for a play by play, in depth analysis of why real Survivor fans think Russel Hantz' game is a laughable joke, google "The Fall of Russell Hantz." I'm giving you ALL the resources you need here to not be the thorn in every Survivor fan's side.
Highway robbery. Russell played the best game probably ever and he got stripped of victory. He deserved it the most.
1:05- 1:27
bye
It's not highway robbery. It's justice, pure and simple. Read The Fall of Russell Hantz, Part 1.
AllRequired lol you're redic!! Every comment against natalie, there you are.
Agreed
@@AllRequired Lol, justice? It was justice when Laura and Monica returned and got voted out, for stealing Russell's win and giving it to the "even dumber long haired blonde." That's right, she doesn't even deserve her name to be said. She got to the end as Russell's sheep and won because of a bitter jury. Plain and simple.
What's more, he did it 3x. Fucking stupid and an insult to this game that I love.
And by the way, Russell called Rupert stupid repeatedly. JUST MORE HYPOCRISY FROM YOUR SIDE.
Congrats Natalie, you deserved it.
Actually, 90 percent of the things written on the links are verbatim Russell quotes and actions. Nice try,
And for more arguments from real Survivor fans, search: 'Survivor' Crowns A Winner, Offending Many Who Do Not Understand 'Survivor'
Natalie saw that Russell was a good candidate to go to the end with. So she decided to get on his good side, not cross him, and vote for her survival along side Russell and the other Foa Foas. Did she play a better strategic game than Russell? Not by a long shot. But she won in the end and that's all that matters. Maybe it was Russell's mistake to take her to the end.
She did play a better strategic game than Russell actually...
You're overlooking the fact that Natalie had a pretty significant role in booting Eric at the merge.
But you can't separate the social aspect of the game from the strategic. They're pretty much the same thing. The only strategy that matters is how well you position yourself to be the person for whom the jury rewards on day 39. How was Russell good strategically if his strategy made it so that he could never win?
A better way to phrase what you're saying is that Russell played a better game with John and Shambo, but Natalie played a better game with the other 7 jurors which was why she won 7-2.
Spencer William I see what you're saying. I think the best way I could put it is that Russell had the best short term strategy to keep the Foa Foa 4 going from Tribal Council to Tribal Council. However Natalie had the best long term strategy (and that's where the social aspect comes in). At the end of the day Russell was a master strategist, but the lack of a social game bit him in the ass. I guess you could say he was better with MANIPULATIVE strategy over SOCIAL strategy (Natalie's strong point). I just think manipulation is much, much harder to pull off over having a good social game. That's the only reason I think Russell played a better strategic game.
The other Foa Foas had just as much of a part in advancing their tribe, though. The only reason people think it was all Russell was because he took credit for everything in confessionals and always talked about how great he thought he was. If you ignore Russell talking about himself, the impression of him playing an awesome game - or doing more than everyone else - will pretty much go away. He wasn't a master at anything. He was only a master at thinking he was a master.
Spencer William I still have to disagree. Even Jeff Probst says he's one of the best, and he saw everything, not just confessionals. Natalie got Russell on one thing - winning over the jury. And yes that is huge. But that was one part of the game she topped him on compared to the rest of the season. She just happened to 1 up him in one area and it was basically a short cut to win the game.
Because various people (the whole HvV cast, most of the Samoa cast sans Shambo) have all stated in their post-show interviews that many things were attributed to Russell on the show even if he didn't have a major hand in them. When most of the players not only agree that they don't respect Russell's gameplay, but that the editing portrayed him as more dominant than he actually was, chances are the editing was inaccurate. Other people didn't get these same accusations.
Lol. Monica, Kelly, and Laura all believe production interference gave him his idols because they had checked the exact same spot so many times before, even just an hour before Russell found it.
John made it clear that Russell had little to do with his flipping. He was just afraid of the purple rock.
Mick and Jaison admitted to aligning with Russell as a goat so that they could win easily if they made the finals. They knew no one would vote for him.
LOL at your ignorance.
She DID deserve it... Probably the first winner who didn't lie at all while playing the game.
IN CONCLUSION, if you are able to get the votes at the end, then you win. NO ONE deserved it more than you because you navigated the very complex social aspects of the game, and came out ahead of your opponents. This is not chess. This is not a computer game. You do not automatically "win" because you played the loudest. To win, you need to grasp the highly unpredictable, very human side of the game. That is what makes Survivor challenging and if you can do that, you deserve to win. PERIOD.
Natalie White, the most controversial winner ever
Jordan Hudson Only for those who don't understand how Survivor actually does work.
idk... Michele is giving her a run for her money now (I love Michele BTW and absolutely thought she should have won)
I made this comment before Kaoh Rong aired
Oh I know. I'm just commenting how things have changed :p
Yeah Michele is for sure the most controversial winner ever now, I mean people sent her DEATH THREATS over the fact she won.
Because everything Russell did was awful. He was a jerk and a bully. What "positive light" is there. I'm sorry but I don't know what show you've been watching
Believe me, it is taking skill to try to fathom your erroneous opinions.
Why do people even say that Russell deserved to win? They really forget the social element to the game. You know, if Fiji was not seen as a "bad" season, people would remember that Earl was the original master of the social game. Yau-Man was like a good version of Russell, in terms of strategy. Earl demonstrated to a jury of 9 people that he could play a respectable game. He didn't have to win any immunity challenges, and the guy was intelligent enough to sit back and play behind people who had their egos rising. He let them make all the bad moves, and voted them out without him actually being at fault.
This is exactly what Natalie did. She simply socialized with people and was nice while staying in Russell's blind spot, similar to how Earl socialized with people and was just a nice guy who let people do the dirty work for him. He never had to get blood on his hands. Saying that an arrogant person like Russell deserved to win is like how Dreamz acted after voting Yau-Man out. "I don't feel bad. People were biting each other like snakes, rats, and weasels. This is a game of people lying, cheating, and deceiving people. I can sleep good tonight, and I got a shot at a million dollars tomorrow."
Dreamz and Russell were so confident in the way that they back-stabbed people and acted very manipulative, but both of these guys failed to realize that Survivor is like a truth serum. They showed their devious sides to people, willing to break deals and do anything to win, and that kind of gameplay was only respectable for Tony because he owned up to what he did to the jury. Russell and Dreamz did not really care about all the trouble they caused to other people in game, and didn't see how it would screw them in the end. Since this comparison does make sense, it also makes sense to say Earl and Natalie deserved to win their respective seasons for playing a calm and intelligent game over an overconfident and unethical game.
+Mira Izuna Jericho Anderson could use your wisdom.
You can't win by being nice to everyone. You'd need to be extremely lucky to get to the right people from the start if you can't do any backstabbing or lying. Except for here of course where Russel orchestrated everything yet it was the person following him that got the credit. If they were so much more better at "socializing", why would they be stuck with the devil? Doesn't really make the case for them. But apparently it doesn't matter who was in it as long as the jury has a scapegoat. You forget that the back stabbing includes all the people who are in it, it doesn't matter who originally came up with it. This is why in the real world negligence is a thing and it has consequences.
I don't really understand how it's forgetting the social element. He was the one talking to everyone, swaying people to his side and coming along with people so well to make it to the very end. You're forgetting it was 8 to 4 people. if you call that bad socializing then I don't know what you've been watching. He was extremely good at socializing, he just wasn't honest at every turn. I don't see how just tagging with one specific group from the start is a good social game anyway, it's just being safe and having someone else deal with the socializing. It's a game, some people have to be lied to eventually, unless you're a pathetic ameba who's just following the person doing the lying and dancing to their flute. After all you will have to vote out one of your own team mates at some point, and obviously not giving them the information is huge so they don't come after you.
The system is flawed as it's just a popularity vote at the end, or at least feels like it. Brett surely would've had it if he had won the final immunity just for the fact that basically the whole jury was his old team. But he didn't make it by being nice, he didn't even try to get rid of anyone when he had the chance. He just went with the flow, there was no strategy, there was no will to win. People forget it's a game, they take it personally. They get way too butthurt over getting voted out even when it's the best or only thing you can do to survive. What else are you supposed to do, just bend over and be content with how it happened to be?
This is supposed to be survivor, not the nice guy contest. There's no question the title sole survivor doesn't belong to Russel, if it was surviving for real I doubt either one of the 2 would've had anything to give. The game was in Russel's control right from the get go and the other two hardly had anything to contribute other than extra votes. Where were the challenge wins? Where were the recruiments? What tactics did they contribute? What exactly would they have done without Russel?
It was Natalie who pulled off the single-most difficult move in Samoa. Getting the girls from Galu to take out their teammate Erik, and that fractured the Galu alliance permanently. Natalie made the most crucial move of the game, and even Erik respected her for it.
And the jury has a right to be emotional. They are the jurors. They can vote out of emotion of resentment. Not every jury member respects strategic play. They don't have to. Russell was pretty much like Dreamz from Fiji. Good strategist, perhaps, but far too arrogant.
Mira Izuna
Nicely done, you picked the only thing she actually did. It's not that difficult getting the ladies together to get rid of a guy who's annoying/patronizing/whatever especially when they still have the overwhelming majority afterwards, 7 to 4 remember. This is like a textbook move if you've watched other seasons. The sexes coming together has been a common theme.
"And the jury has a right to be emotional. They are the jurors. They can vote out of emotion of resentment. Not every jury member respects strategic play."
This is exactly what I mean, it's based on the emotional rather than the rational. People can't see beyond their butthurt, they take it way too personally when it's about the game only. Arrogance is irrelevant to what was actually done.
"Good strategist"
This is true, and why I said he should've won. I would say he was a good people person as well. It's just that the people can't see beyond their personal feelings to appreciate what and how he pulled it all off. Strategically the best moves necessarily hurt people on some level as to SURVIVE you must do things at various parts of the game.
You forget that Russell was an asshole to the jurors. He thought of people as nothing more than pawns that he could step on, and he was just as much of an asshole as Dreamz. Personal feelings can be in the game. The jurors spent at least 24 hours of 20 straight days with him. He may have been incredibly irksome off-screen as much as he was onscreen.
Yeah, I think a mule may be more up to your intellectual speed, seeing as you still don't understand how this game works.
Do me a favor and search 'Survivor' Crowns A Winner, Offending Many Who Do Not Understand 'Survivor' and at least try to understand the perspective of real Survivor fans who know, love, and respect this game.
Well, you get a lot out of not being an edit sheep. Like you'll realize Russell really wasn't in control of the first three boots. The tribe booted Marissa and Betsy for weakness. Russell wanted Ben to stay, but Ben left. Russell didn't actually fool Tyson in HvV. Tyson was just trying to make sure Parvati and Danielle didn't vote for Russell, because Tyson wanted Parvati out. By actually taking the time to do your research, you'll realize that the edit can be misleading.
That doesn't even make sense. I understand exactly what you are saying and have been vehemently trying to show you how wrong it is.
well , the thing is in television in our country this serie of survivor was realesed just yet so ;)
I did and in my opinion Russell was the most eloquent and made the best points at that final tribal council, im not taking the win away from her though. What i liked about Russells final council was how he explaind how the game was outwit, outlast, outplay and then expained in no uncertain terms how he was better than the other two. As far as her playing an amazing game, quite game yes, she made the right allience and was nice, that to me aint amazing,
HE WAS NOT DICTATING SO MUCH OF THE GAME. Do me a favor and also google "The fall of Russell Hantz." Editing =/= reality. Everyone was equally involved in the season but the editing didn't allow you to see that. Read post-show interviews if you need confirmation. And again, his edit does not prove he's a strategic player. It may even prove he was just a joke, like Phillip.
I'm sorry but if you think you're the only Russell fan who has been polluting the internet with these statements that totally disrespect the the game, and piss of real Survivor fans, then you're wrong. I admit I'm worked up but it's because you are not the only one who shares these erroneous beliefs on how the game of survivor works, and my anger and frustration is definitely cumulative.
@Gr33nkiwi You mean she knew her best chances of winning were against Russell. That doesn't change the fact that she shouldn't have won.
Russell was an awful player because he neglected the WHOLE POINT OF THE GAME - getting people to vote for you in the end.
I can't help it. Your points are really so baseless and lacking in any sort of substantiated logical coherence that it is hard for me to take you seriously.
Look, the bottom line is that Russell did not deserve to win over Natalie because he did not get the votes in the end. The point of Survivor is to get the votes. You can play all the strategy you want but if you do it in a tactless way that pisses of the jury, YOU WILL LOSE. It's really that simple.
natalie made it clear that she built personal relationships with people while russell was busy scurrying around camp making everyone hate him (yeah great social game russell). also natalie also had a vital first move at the merge to vote out erik (and psychologically dismantled galu) while all russell knew what to do was bully people and find idols to play. russell is a good strategic player but natalie played a better all-round game because russell had ZERO SOCIAL GAME
It should be RUSSELL
Natalie did not play an amazing game. She's not underrated as a winner. She played a solid social game and didn't make any enemies. And that's basically all that she did. HOWEVER, she deserved to win this game. Natalie isn't the reason Russell lost. The jury being bitter isn't the reason Russell lost. Russell is the reason Russell lost. He played a game worthy enough to win in every aspect EXCEPT ONE, socially. Russell treated the jury members like absolute shit. He would tell them to their faces that they were going home and take outward joy and rub salt in the wound when he did send them home. Then at final tribal council he was a pompous ass basically telling the jury they HAD to vote for him because he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Russell cost himself the game. Being an arrogant prick to other people is not the way to success in life or Survivor. If he would have saved his cockiness just for the camera instead of right to other peoples faces he would have won.
But it worked.
@Dusto22 i knowwww... i get soo pissed when they dont vote for russel in heros vs villains and samoa. why cant people relize everything hes done got him to the end.. and he was the best strategist besides todd from china
Russell should have won this season he's the best survivor player ever
The best Survivor player always wins.
Seriously get a life AllRequired, I just saw this season and you've been replying and spamming to every comment that disagrees with you for the last 3 years. Get over it, it's no wonder you agree w/ the emotionally biased jury, considering you're probably one of the most butthurt people I've seen online in a while.
Watch at 1:05, and listen very carefully to the next 22 seconds.
funny115.com/v2/50.htm
www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2009/12/survivor_crowns_a_winner_offen.html
Like Russell and hate Natalie all you want, but shut up about how he was robbed and how he was the best Survivor player. And shut up about the jury; they were there, they were affected by his antics, they're the ones voting. THEY EXIST. Can't handle an emotionally biased jury, this isn't for you.
Here u are again.
Fredward hi
I have no qualms about differing opinions, just stubborn stupidity. :)
Natalie is amazing. While Russell is stabbing everyone in the back, Natalie is becoming friends with all of them. She had an incredible social game, which Russell has failed at three times now.
Thats why Tony is a better player than Russell. Russell burned the people he sent home. Tony made friends with them
And it's wrong because Survivor doesn't work that way. Sorry.
Okay, you are believing wikipedia and denying the common knowledge shared by all the castways post-show. If you're going to continue to be delusional, then fine. But go do your research and don't act like the proof isn't there.
And second, this is a moot point. As I keep telling you, edit says nothing about how good a game you played, so your argument is going nowhere.
Russel learn that the ppl u play dirty determine ur fate
I am dropping the F bomb because you are being insufferable. As a hardcore Survivor fan, I just cannot take it when people pretend to respect the game, and then completely ignore that it is a SOCIAL GAME. The point of the game is not to be the best strategic player. When will people get that through their minds?? Jurors can vote ANYWAY they want because the point of the game is to vote people out while still having them like you. If the jurors don't like you, you don't deserve to win. GOD.