Richard Hatch, Will Kirby, Aaron Allard-Morgan

[karl100589]

The grand trilogy of reality tv is now complete. Both Richard Hatch and Dr Will Kirby managed to suceed in their respective reality series with a reliance of wit, intelligence and strategy, now we can add Aaron to this list as well I feel.

And in the same way that Richard Hatch and Will Kirby's wins revolutionised the way people approached their reality tv shows can we now say the same thing about Aaron and BBUK?

[Roy Mars III]

:worship:

[SoBig]

Richard Hatch, most overrated Survivor player ever. People only rate him that high because he was the first winner.

[Roy Mars III]

He is still one of the best. A true fan of the game. I would love to see him play in a new season when he gets out of jail and all.

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Will is cooler, Rich is smarter.

Aaron is a fab winner but he didn't win from a gameplan, he won because he was reaaaaaaal, as opposed to being faux-genuine like Jay and Alex.

[Yayita]

Russell Hanz is more of a legend than Richard Hatch IMO... even if he never won.

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Russell Hanz is more of a legend than Richard Hatch IMO... even if he never won.

Eww, he is as legendary as one of Jay's many turds.

Hantz was like Anton - a loser who just played to the camera would could never win.

[Roy Mars III]

Russell Hanz is more of a legend than Richard Hatch IMO... even if he never won.

:bored:

[MaratSafinForever]

Richard is my favourite survivor ever!

[reece(:]

will kirby :worship:

[TheManWhoLaughs]

will kirby :worship:

So true :worship:

Aaron :cheer: but not :worship:

[reece(:]

So true :worship:

Aaron :cheer: but not :worship:

precisely:hugesmile:

[SoBig]

He is still one of the best. A true fan of the game. I would love to see him play in a new season when he gets out of jail and all.
I like Richard, but I completely disagree. On his season, he was the only one that was playing the game. No one back then even wanted to be part of an alliance. So he ends up looking better than he really was. What did he do that was so impressive, walk around naked and catch fish?

Pavarotti
Russell Hantz
Boston Rob
Robb C.
Cirie
Todd
Brian
Tom
Earl
Yul

are all better players and the list is even longer than that.

Russell Hanz is more of a legend than Richard Hatch IMO... even if he never won.
Russell is the better player and its not even close, but Hatch is the bigger legend because he was the first winner.

[Roy Mars III]

will kirby :worship:

best reality show contestant ever.

[Roy Mars III]

I like Richard, but I completely disagree. On his season, he was the only one that was playing the game. No one back then even wanted to be part of an alliance. So he ends up looking better than he really was. What did he do that was so impressive, walk around naked and catch fish?


True and that's one of the reasons I would like to see him play again. On the first All Stars a lot of his tribe wanted him out just because he the was 'the godfather of the game' or whatever. I think if he played now, he wouldn't deal with that so much and we would get a much better look at how good of a player he can be.

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Pavarotti

Not even the best of the 3 Tenors :nono:

Will > Yul/Earl/RobC/other good players, because he was actually a great player and entertaining as well

[swinearefine]

Sandra Diaz Twine > all

But yeah, those three did change the way their respective shows were seen I think. But I hate Will and he's overrated as a person.

[swinearefine]

Sandra Diaz Twine > all

But yeah, those three did change the way their respective shows were seen I think. But I hate Will and he's overrated as a person.

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Sandra Diaz Twine > all

But yeah, those three did change the way their respective shows were seen I think. But I hate Will and he's overrated as a person.

Sandra is the best player ever :worship:

But Will is more entertaining - he could actually win a UK BB based on vote-to-save, Sandra would leave early because any women who aren't vapid bimbos leave early in this country :( (Courtney > Sandra based on entertainment tho)

[alex_front2]

Aaron is the first intelligent winner of BB. BB4 winner Cameron wasn't intelligent he was just not thick and had help from the production crew pushing him to win ie going to Africa.

[Cromwell1900]

The grand trilogy of reality tv is now complete. Both Richard Hatch and Dr Will Kirby managed to suceed in their respective reality series with a reliance of wit, intelligence and strategy, now we can add Aaron to this list as well I feel.

And in the same way that Richard Hatch and Will Kirby's wins revolutionised the way people approached their reality tv shows can we now say the same thing about Aaron and BBUK?

As a Aaron opposer, congrat's to you. Aaron has been a legendary winner, and the first UK winner to actually win via a better strategy than his opposition.

[SoBig]

True and that's one of the reasons I would like to see him play again. On the first All Stars a lot of his tribe wanted him out just because he the was 'the godfather of the game' or whatever. I think if he played now, he wouldn't deal with that so much and we would get a much better look at how good of a player he can be.
I'm sure he'll be on Survivor again. Jeff really wants him to be on an up coming season. He was suppose to be on Heroes Vs Villains, but couldn't because he wasn't allowed to leave the US.

He also played terribly on All Stars. He had no type of leadership role on his tribe. Lex and Colby had full control of the tribe. He had no idea of what was going on. He thought that he was never going to be voted out, because well he is Richard Hatch. His entire strategy was to walk around naked 99% of the time and try to be the provider by catching fish every other day. Turns out he wasn't even the best Fisherman on his team, Lex was.

On his season, all he did was form a 4 persons alliance. Thats it! The second best player that season was Sue Hawk. Who literally is one of the worst Survivor players ever.

Hatch is nothing special. He only gets this hype, because he was the first winner.

[SoBig]

Sandra Diaz Twine > all

But yeah, those three did change the way their respective shows were seen I think. But I hate Will and he's overrated as a person.

Sandra is the best player ever :worship:

But Will is more entertaining - he could actually win a UK BB based on vote-to-save, Sandra would leave early because any women who aren't vapid bimbos leave early in this country :( (Courtney > Sandra based on entertainment tho)

SMH

Sandra is the best player ever? lmao

She is basically the Survivor version of Jordan from BB US.

Sandra is not even the best female Survivor player. Cirie probably has the best argument. Easily one of the best manipulators and strategist ever. Dominated 2 seasons from the start to finish. Would of won Panama is she knew how to make a fire and would of definitely won Fans vs Favorites if it wasn't for the final twist where they changed it from a final 3 to a final 2. In Heroes vs. Villains it took an Idol to get her out.

Sandra doesn't control her own fate and lucked into getting in to the finals 2 times against people who the jury hated. Wasn't even the best player in her season, Fairplay was better. In HvV Pavarotti and Russell were clearly better.

[Roy Mars III]

SMH

Sandra is the best player ever? lmao

She is basically the Survivor version of Jordan from BB US.

Sandra is not even the best female Survivor player. Cirie probably has the best argument. Easily one of the best manipulators and strategist ever. Dominated 2 seasons from the start to finish. Would of won Panama is she knew how to make a fire and would of definitely won Fans vs Favorites if it wasn't for the final twist where they changed it from a final 3 to a final 2. In Heroes vs. Villains it took an Idol to get her out.

Sandra doesn't control her own fate and lucked into getting in to the finals 2 times against people who the jury hated. Wasn't even the best player in her season, Fairplay was better. In HvV Pavarotti and Russell were clearly better.

This whole post is amazing. I agree with you 100% here.

[swinearefine]

SMH

Sandra is the best player ever? lmao

She is basically the Survivor version of Jordan from BB US.

Sandra is not even the best female Survivor player. Cirie probably has the best argument. Easily one of the best manipulators and strategist ever. Dominated 2 seasons from the start to finish. Would of won Panama is she knew how to make a fire and would of definitely won Fans vs Favorites if it wasn't for the final twist where they changed it from a final 3 to a final 2. In Heroes vs. Villains it took an Idol to get her out.

Sandra doesn't control her own fate and lucked into getting in to the finals 2 times against people who the jury hated. Wasn't even the best player in her season, Fairplay was better. In HvV Pavarotti and Russell were clearly better.

If Sandra is so bad, why did she win twice? I thought the goal of the game was to win, not dominate...

[Lwize]

Dr. Will was the best. He told everyone he would lie to them, and yet they still trusted him to their detriment.

Aaron didn't play a strategy, unless making tea, spouting Oh Dear and displaying the maturity of a teenage girl at times was a strategy.

(And I wanted Aaron to win)

[BBfan6418]

Dr. Will was the best. He told everyone he would lie to them, and yet they still trusted him to their detriment.

Aaron didn't play a strategy, unless making tea, spouting Oh Dear and displaying the maturity of a teenage girl at times was a strategy.

(And I wanted Aaron to win)

No doubt, Will is the best ever. I truly believe if he was not in a relationship during all stars he would have won that as well. Janelle would have never gotten rid of him if he could of done more with her. I also couldn't find Aaron's strategy either. There are far more people I would rank ahead of Aaron as a great player.

[saiwong]

I think UK BB is totally different to USA BB.

The USA version is more strategic (like Survivor) and the USA audience
enjoy strategic players whilst the UK audience frowns opon it.

I like the USA Big Brother more than the UK version.

I think the Will Kirby was a better player than Mike Malin but I still think
Janelle Pierzina should have won 'All Stars'.

As for Survivor I don't think Sandra is the best player. Sandra deserved
her first win, but I believe a bitter jury robbed Parvati Shallow of the prize.
Parvati is the best Survivor player IMHO.

I wonder if Aarons win yesterday will bring in more strategic players to
the game. Also it would be better if they changed Big Brother by removing
the public vote and having all voting done by the housemates themselves
(just like the USA version). This would make it more a gameshow rather
than a popularity contest.

[Marc]

Richard Hatch was not that great to be honest. He won the first series because he was an arse and no body knew how to play the game properly. He failed miserably in Allstars and thats a sign of how he would never be able to win ever again. Whereas Will Kirby could if he wanted to win BB.

I feel as if I need to watch this series on catch up to see this amazing 'Will Kirby-comparison-worthy' contestant :suspect:

[TheManWhoLaughs]

I wonder if Aarons win yesterday will bring in more strategic players to
the game. Also it would be better if they changed Big Brother by removing
the public vote and having all voting done by the housemates themselves
(just like the USA version). This would make it more a gameshow rather
than a popularity contest.

Aaron wasn't really strategic though - like he said in his interview with Brian, he can't be much of a gameplayer if he was up for eviction so many times. He was just like a lot of past contestants in being able to make himself look good while getting involved in a lot of drama.

(plus, he didn't have to deal with the risk of actually getting evicted for going too far- his 'gameplan' would have failed in any other series).

[swinearefine]

As for Survivor I don't think Sandra is the best player. Sandra deserved
her first win, but I believe a bitter jury robbed Parvati Shallow of the prize.
Parvati is the best Survivor player IMHO.

The bitter jury argument is illogical. The jury are not mindless, emotionless robots. They are people who lived with the finalists for weeks. The finalists have to not only worry about surviving each TC, but make sure they bring the right people to the end and influence the jury to vote for them. In HvV Sandra stuck with Russell after she realized the heroes didn't know what was good for them, played down her status as a jury threat, and played up to the jury that she was anti-Russell and tried to help them. Russell had no chance because everyone hated him. Parvati alienated the heroes by taunting about the letter they wrote (not realizing it wasn't just JT who wrote it) and didn't separate herself from Russell.


I wonder if Aarons win yesterday will bring in more strategic players to
the game. Also it would be better if they changed Big Brother by removing
the public vote and having all voting done by the housemates themselves
(just like the USA version). This would make it more a gameshow rather
than a popularity contest.

God no. I would hate for BBUK to be a gameshow - it's a personality showcase. I wish BBUS would be more like BBUK.

[Yayita]

I like Richard, but I completely disagree. On his season, he was the only one that was playing the game. No one back then even wanted to be part of an alliance. So he ends up looking better than he really was. What did he do that was so impressive, walk around naked and catch fish?

Pavarotti
Russell Hantz
Boston Rob
Robb C.
Cirie
Todd
Brian
Tom
Earl
Yul

are all better players and the list is even longer than that.


Russell is the better player and its not even close, but Hatch is the bigger legend because he was the first winner.

You are right on thatone, he was the first one to realy play it... Remember the wman that caled him a rat that same seasn, That tribal council remains as one of the best ever!!

[Yayita]

If Sandra is so bad, why did she win twice? I thought the goal of the game was to win, not dominate...

I give her props for her achievements, but man was she annoying!!! Couldnt lok at her face on screen.

[Yayita]

Dr. Will was the best. He told everyone he would lie to them, and yet they still trusted him to their detriment.

Aaron didn't play a strategy, unless making tea, spouting Oh Dear and displaying the maturity of a teenage girl at times was a strategy.

(And I wanted Aaron to win)

Yes! He is my favorite ever... US and K combined I think.

[swinearefine]

I give her props for her achievements, but man was she annoying!!! Couldnt lok at her face on screen.

She was hilarious and bitchy and has some of the best quotes of anyone on Survivor. She and Courtney are my all-time favorites:love:

[Macie Lightfoot]

I like Richard, but I completely disagree. On his season, he was the only one that was playing the game. No one back then even wanted to be part of an alliance. So he ends up looking better than he really was. What did he do that was so impressive, walk around naked and catch fish?

People who watched Survivor while it originally aired know how big of a deal the alliance debate what. It was seriously unheard of at the time and people thought it ruined the morality of the game. However, it was brilliant at the time and that's what people don't realize.

Pavarotti
Russell Hantz
Boston Rob
Robb C.
Cirie
Todd
Brian
Tom
Earl
Yul

are all better players and the list is even longer than that.

False. Brian's the only one on that list who was better than Hatch. Parvati's extremely overrated, Russell's awful and deluded people like yourself fail to see it, Yul's highly overrated too. And the others are good, but not as good as Richard was.


Russell is the better player and its not even close, but Hatch is the bigger legend because he was the first winner.

:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker: Seriously if you think Russell is a better player than Richard and that it's "not even close" you really have no clue how Survivor works. Russell's mediocre at best, he doesn't deserve any praise.

[Marc]

Pavati was better than everybody :D

[Macie Lightfoot]

SMH

Sandra is the best player ever? lmao

She is basically the Survivor version of Jordan from BB US.

Sandra is not even the best female Survivor player. Cirie probably has the best argument. Easily one of the best manipulators and strategist ever. Dominated 2 seasons from the start to finish. Would of won Panama is she knew how to make a fire and would of definitely won Fans vs Favorites if it wasn't for the final twist where they changed it from a final 3 to a final 2. In Heroes vs. Villains it took an Idol to get her out.

Sandra doesn't control her own fate and lucked into getting in to the finals 2 times against people who the jury hated. Wasn't even the best player in her season, Fairplay was better. In HvV Pavarotti and Russell were clearly better.

Sandra's far from the equivalent of Jordan. Sandra plays a very crafty game while being under the radar. That's what people don't understand and that's why people underrate her. She presents herself as a nonentity and just a sheep, but it's all a facade. The people who don't realize that, like you, are the people who would lose to her if you were to play with her. She was definitely the best player in both her seasons. It's blasphemy that you even consider Russell's game in HvV close to Sandra's (and Parvati's for that matter.)

[Macie Lightfoot]

I think UK BB is totally different to USA BB.

The USA version is more strategic (like Survivor) and the USA audience
enjoy strategic players whilst the UK audience frowns opon it.

I like the USA Big Brother more than the UK version.

I think the Will Kirby was a better player than Mike Malin but I still think
Janelle Pierzina should have won 'All Stars'.

As for Survivor I don't think Sandra is the best player. Sandra deserved
her first win, but I believe a bitter jury robbed Parvati Shallow of the prize.
Parvati is the best Survivor player IMHO.

I wonder if Aarons win yesterday will bring in more strategic players to
the game. Also it would be better if they changed Big Brother by removing
the public vote and having all voting done by the housemates themselves
(just like the USA version). This would make it more a gameshow rather
than a popularity contest.

Janelle's an awful player. People think she deserved to win because they like her a lot, but she's an awful strategic player.

And Parvati's far from the best ever. The bitter Jury argument doesn't really hold much substance because a Jury can't be bitter, in theory. It's all reactionary and if you're causing the Jury to act in such a way, you clearly didn't do your job as a player well. It is impossible to be an abrasive, condescending, outright asshole and win Survivor.

[Yayita]

Janelle's an awful player. People think she deserved to win because they like her a lot, but she's an awful strategic player.

And Parvati's far from the best ever. The bitter Jury argument doesn't really hold much substance because a Jury can't be bitter, in theory. It's all reactionary and if you're causing the Jury to act in such a way, you clearly didn't do your job as a player well. It is impossible to be an abrasive, condescending, outright asshole and win Survivor.

Do you guys know that Pavarti has a globe trotting travel show in the US? She made something out of her survivor experience it seems.

[Yayita]

Dr. Will was the best. He told everyone he would lie to them, and yet they still trusted him to their detriment.

Aaron didn't play a strategy, unless making tea, spouting Oh Dear and displaying the maturity of a teenage girl at times was a strategy.

(And I wanted Aaron to win)

Are you watching this seasons survivor? what do you think of Coach and Ozzy coming back again? ... Dont they have jobs?

What do you think of Russell Hantz's crazy nephew?

[SoBig]

If Sandra is so bad, why did she win twice? I thought the goal of the game was to win, not dominate...
When did I say Sandra was a bad player? I simply said she is not the best player ever. She is definitely somewhere in the top 20.

Just because you won, doesn't make you a better player than someone who hasn't. Do you believe Rachel and Jordan both one time winners are better players than Danielle (BB3 &BB7)?

Danielle is clearly at worst a top 5 player in BB history and she has never won.

Dr. Will was the best. He told everyone he would lie to them, and yet they still trusted him to their detriment.
Dr. Will in BB2 was hardly impressive, but in BB7 he took his game to a whole 'nother level. At worst a top 3 player ever. Up there with Danielle(bb3) and Dan (BB10).

Janelle's an awful player. People think she deserved to win because they like her a lot, but she's an awful strategic player.

LOL @ Janelle being an awful player. Yea, she is an average strategist and manipulator, but when it comes to competitions she is the Ozzy of Big Brother. You just don't make it to the final 3 in back to back seasons by being an awful player. Winning competitions has its value.

People who watched Survivor while it originally aired know how big of a deal the alliance debate what. It was seriously unheard of at the time and people thought it ruined the morality of the game. However, it was brilliant at the time and that's what people don't realize.



False. Brian's the only one on that list who was better than Hatch. Parvati's extremely overrated, Russell's awful and deluded people like yourself fail to see it, Yul's highly overrated too. And the others are good, but not as good as Richard was.




:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker: Seriously if you think Russell is a better player than Richard and that it's "not even close" you really have no clue how Survivor works. Russell's mediocre at best, he doesn't deserve any praise.
What makes Richard Hatch this great of a player? Because he was the first to start an alliance? Are you ****ing kidding me? Explain what happened in All-stars then.

Yul made the right move every time. He played close to a perfect game. The problem that I have with Yul that season was he possessed the most powerful idol in Survivor history, which basically guarantees him a spot in the final 3. I don't know what Survivor producers were thinking when they came up with that idol. Was not fair to the other players for someone to have that much power.

He also had Ozzy on his tribe. When the mutiny happened, Ozzy went on an amazing run like no other in Survivor history. He single handily won every single challenge for his tribe and made it all the way to the final 3 just by winning competitions. If Ozzy had lost just once, he would have been evicted. At that point even Yul wanted him gone. Just for that alone, Ozzy should have won Cook Islands and would have won if Adam didn't promise Yul his vote. Even with all that said, Yul is a better player than Richard Hatch.
It's blasphemy that you even consider Russell's game in HvV close to Sandra's (and Parvati's for that matter.)
Sandra's number one goal on All-stars was to get Russell Hantz evicted, how did that work out for her? Nothing went the way Sandra wanted it to go. She was just there for the ride.

Russell perfected the blindside. Anytime he wanted someone evicted, best believe they went home packing. Russell's biggest problem was he back stabbed everyone, besides the people he made an alliance with on day one (Parvati and Natalie White) and he was just very cut throat. He played a very similar game to the one that Boston Rob played in All-stars, but with a lot more strategy.

Look how he destroyed Boston Rob in this clip. He knows exactly the right move to make every single time. Even Stephen Fishback has said numerous times that Russell is the best Survivor strategist ever.
dT4PHS1caI4
Another great thing in that clip, by using the idol on Parvati. That caused Jerri to believe everything that Russell was telling her and she immediately jumped to his side. That was just a brilliant strategic move. Hands down the best move in Survivor history.
YCReYMNlMtU

The problem with you is, you aren't objective at all. Your hatred for Russell clouds your judgement.

[SoBig]

Are you watching this seasons survivor? what do you think of Coach and Ozzy coming back again? ... Dont they have jobs?

What do you think of Russell Hantz's crazy nephew?
We have a Survivor thread. Check it out

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175949

[TheManWhoLaughs]

The problem with you is, you aren't objective at all. Your hatred for Russell clouds your judgement.

Russell is easily the second-best contestant in the history of the show, if the goal is just to finish as a runner-up (Amanda being #1).

[SoBig]

Thats one thing I don't like about Survivor. Most of the contestants take everything so personal. They don't realize that its just a game. You should vote for who played the best game, not who you like better. Whereas in BB US, they don't really have that problem. Only one or two times that a player has gotten robbed in the final two, Danielle(BB3) and Natalie (BB10). Just this year Shelly voted for Rachel to win, because she was the best player, even though she absolutely despised her.

[saiwong]

The bitter jury argument is illogical. The jury are not mindless, emotionless robots. They are people who lived with the finalists for weeks. The finalists have to not only worry about surviving each TC, but make sure they bring the right people to the end and influence the jury to vote for them.

But bitterness is an emotion (this is my point) !!!!
The people on the jury were outplayed, but their ego's didn't allow them to
think logically and vote for the better player.
That is the difference between Survivor seasons. Some jury members
can remove the emotion from their final jury vote whilsts other can't.

note: IMHO I think in Heroes v's Villans the jury saw Sandra as a proxy-Hero
who told Rupert the truth of what was going on on the villans team.

Both 'All-Star' seasons have had bitter jury's. Take the 1st 'All Star' season.
Do you really think the jury felt that Amber was a better player than
Boston Rob ? I think not. The jury was bitter that Rob outplayed them and
vented their anger by giving their vote to Amber.

[SoBig]

But bitterness is an emotion (this is my point) !!!!
The people on the jury were outplayed, but their ego's didn't allow them to
think logically and vote for the better player.
That is the difference between Survivor seasons. Some jury members
can remove the emotion from their final jury vote whilsts other can't.

note: IMHO I think in Heroes v's Villans the jury saw Sandra as a proxy-Hero
who told Rupert the truth of what was going on on the villans team.

Both 'All-Star' seasons have had bitter jury's. Take the 1st 'All Star' season.
Do you really think the jury felt that Amber was a better player than
Boston Rob ? I think not. The jury was bitter that Rob outplayed them and
vented their anger by giving their vote to Amber.
Exactly.

Amber had no business winning All-stars. Lex was upset that Rob lied to him about helping him out if he saved Amber. But Lex did the same exact thing to Jerri and Ethan a few days before. (How bad was Lex in all-stars. He killed his tribe chances at having a numbers advantage, by voting out their best swimmer(Hatch), their 2 best athletes (Ethan and Colby) plus the whole Amber thing.)

Natalie White also had no business winning Samoa. Russell clearly deserved it. In HvV it should have gone to either Parvati or Russell.

Some people can't take that they were outwitted, outplayed and outlasted. Bitter juries are a disgrace.

The whole notion that the jury can do no wrong is just stupid. The jury consist of humans and humans are known for making mistakes.

Like how the hell does Courtney get 2 votes in China? Makes no sense.

[Macie Lightfoot]

LOL @ Janelle being an awful player. Yea, she is an average strategist and manipulator, but when it comes to competitions she is the Ozzy of Big Brother. You just don't make it to the final 3 in back to back seasons by being an awful player. Winning competitions has its value.

Let me correct myself, an awful strategic player. And you give Ozzy way too much credit :joker: your bias is bright as day in all these posts.

What makes Richard Hatch this great of a player? Because he was the first to start an alliance? Are you ****ing kidding me? Explain what happened in All-stars then.

He was the only one to see it as a strategic game. Not only did he make the first alliance, but he had to work hard at keeping it together with Kelly befriending Pagong, Kelly and Sue fighting, etc. He had both Sue and Kelly thinking he was on their side of the argument and it paid off in the end when Kelly sided with Richard in the revote at F4 and Sue voted for Richard in the end. And what happened in All-Stars? He had a target. It's human nature, he's the first winner, of course he was going to have a target. Especially with someone as bitter as Jenna Lewis going on a rampage against the winners. Richard did a great job at trying to downplay his target though, probably the best compared to Tina, Ethan, and Jenna.

Yul made the right move every time. He played close to a perfect game. The problem that I have with Yul that season was he possessed the most powerful idol in Survivor history, which basically guarantees him a spot in the final 3. I don't know what Survivor producers were thinking when they came up with that idol. Was not fair to the other players for someone to have that much power.

He also had Ozzy on his tribe. When the mutiny happened, Ozzy went on an amazing run like no other in Survivor history. He single handily won every single challenge for his tribe and made it all the way to the final 3 just by winning competitions. If Ozzy had lost just once, he would have been evicted. At that point even Yul wanted him gone. Just for that alone, Ozzy should have won Cook Islands and would have won if Adam didn't promise Yul his vote. Even with all that said, Yul is a better player than Richard Hatch.

Yul definitely played the best game of his season, but he made a lot of potential mistakes and luck played a big factor in his win. Not to mention the whole controversy about possible production manipulation, but that's another story. Your argument that Ozzy deserved to win because he won Challenges is asinine, you really are showing that you don't understand how Survivor works in each post you make. As bold of a statement as it may be, Candice played a better game than Ozzy in Cook Islands.

Sandra's number one goal on All-stars was to get Russell Hantz evicted, how did that work out for her? Nothing went the way Sandra wanted it to go. She was just there for the ride.

Sandra may not have been able to take him out, but at the end of the day, she was far from the only one to target him. She was able to target him without appearing as a threat, something which is very difficult to pull off. She was able to work both sides of the Heroes and the Villains and truly know what was going on throughout the whole game. And she played to the Jury's tastes very well in the Final TC. Her game had strategic decisions, but they were under the radar, and since you only look at the big, show-off, "glitz and glamour" type of moves, you fail to recognize them and consider them inferior, which shows how little you know about the game itself.

Russell perfected the blindside. Anytime he wanted someone evicted, best believe they went home packing. Russell's biggest problem was he back stabbed everyone, besides the people he made an alliance with on day one (Parvati and Natalie White) and he was just very cut throat. He played a very similar game to the one that Boston Rob played in All-stars, but with a lot more strategy.

Look how he destroyed Boston Rob in this clip. He knows exactly the right move to make every single time. Even Stephen Fishback has said numerous times that Russell is the best Survivor strategist ever.

Another great thing in that clip, by using the idol on Parvati. That caused Jerri to believe everything that Russell was telling her and she immediately jumped to his side. That was just a brilliant strategic move. Hands down the best move in Survivor history.

You're so wrong it isn't even funny. Russell's game in HvV is so flawed and a big mess. His strategy was very sloppy and unorganized, his social game was horrendous (and as much as you don't think social game should matter and as much as you fail to think about social game, it matters. End of story), and played without being able to get any Jury votes. He had absolutely zero chance of winning the whole time, so how can you praise him for being a great player if he could never win?

The problem with you is, you aren't objective at all. Your hatred for Russell clouds your judgement.

:joker: at that coming from an Ozzytard, if you wanna talk about clouding judgment. The problem with you is, you fail to see all aspects of the game. You just look at what's on the surface. You care about who can pull off big moves and big blindsides, failing to look at the consequences and repercussions that come afterwards. You look at all competitive and strategic game and fail to look at the social aspect, which can make or break the game.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Thats one thing I don't like about Survivor. Most of the contestants take everything so personal. They don't realize that its just a game. You should vote for who played the best game, not who you like better. Whereas in BB US, they don't really have that problem. Only one or two times that a player has gotten robbed in the final two, Danielle(BB3) and Natalie (BB10). Just this year Shelly voted for Rachel to win, because she was the best player, even though she absolutely despised her.

It's human nature to take things personally. If you don't understand that, you don't deserve to win. If you're an asshole and abrasive and you burn all your bridges, you can't possible to expect to convince those same people to vote for you. That's the beauty of Survivor, your actions will come back to you. Danielle's case in BB3 is an anomaly because the Jury wasn't sequestered and got to see her DRs. BB11 was another weird case, where Lydia was jealous of Jessie/Natalie's friendship and was able to turn Jessie's vote (alongside with her vote) to Jordan. Jordan also benefited from Chima's expulsion because Chima would've kept Jessie/Lydia in line. And the only reason Shelly voted for Rachel was because she wanted to get back into Jordeff's good graces. It had nothing to do with Rachel being the best player. And out of curiosity, what makes you think Rachel was the best player? Because I would have to disagree with that, but that's opening up another can of worms.

[Macie Lightfoot]

But bitterness is an emotion (this is my point) !!!!
The people on the jury were outplayed, but their ego's didn't allow them to
think logically and vote for the better player.
That is the difference between Survivor seasons. Some jury members
can remove the emotion from their final jury vote whilsts other can't.

note: IMHO I think in Heroes v's Villans the jury saw Sandra as a proxy-Hero
who told Rupert the truth of what was going on on the villans team.

Both 'All-Star' seasons have had bitter jury's. Take the 1st 'All Star' season.
Do you really think the jury felt that Amber was a better player than
Boston Rob ? I think not. The jury was bitter that Rob outplayed them and
vented their anger by giving their vote to Amber.

But bitterness is inevitable. These aren't robots, people have emotions. It's human nature to be upset when you've put so much effort into a game you have passion for and you're voted off. The whole bitter Jury argument is illogical because a Jury is reactionary. You're sending people to the Jury, and you're going to need their help later on. You can't win Survivor by casting four votes for yourself at the finale, you need everyone's help. The people who realize that are the good players, and that's how they separated themselves from the Russells in this world. And Amber was a better played than Rob in the same sense that Natalie was a better player than Russell. Rob and Russell played badly socially and Amber and Natalie played very well socially, and it helped them out.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Exactly.

Amber had no business winning All-stars. Lex was upset that Rob lied to him about helping him out if he saved Amber. But Lex did the same exact thing to Jerri and Ethan a few days before. (How bad was Lex in all-stars. He killed his tribe chances at having a numbers advantage, by voting out their best swimmer(Hatch), their 2 best athletes (Ethan and Colby) plus the whole Amber thing.)

Natalie White also had no business winning Samoa. Russell clearly deserved it. In HvV it should have gone to either Parvati or Russell.

Some people can't take that they were outwitted, outplayed and outlasted. Bitter juries are a disgrace.

The whole notion that the jury can do no wrong is just stupid. The jury consist of humans and humans are known for making mistakes.

Like how the hell does Courtney get 2 votes in China? Makes no sense.

Amber and Natalie both deserved to win their seasons as I noted in my previous post, so I'm not going to reiterate that. Brett even played a better game than Russell in Samoa.

But what's the mistake in a Jury voting for someone to win? They choose the winner, that's the point of the game. It's not a mistake if they vote for someone to win, that's ludicrous. And besides, every Jury votes emotionally. You've spent ample time with these people, obviously feelings and emotions are going to play a part in your vote, either consciously or subconsciously. Face it, that's how human nature is.

And how does Courtney get two votes in China? Socially of course. Once again, you fail to recognize the power of social game, final Tribal Council performances, etc. You just look for the big moves and what's on the surface and think that makes a good winner. There's a reason why those people never win :wavey:

[Yayita]

We have a Survivor thread. Check it out

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175949

Oooooh thanks... coming over now :)!

[Yayita]

When did I say Sandra was a bad player? I simply said she is not the best player ever. She is definitely somewhere in the top 20.

Just because you won, doesn't make you a better player than someone who hasn't. Do you believe Rachel and Jordan both one time winners are better players than Danielle (BB3 &BB7)?

Danielle is clearly at worst a top 5 player in BB history and she has never won.


Dr. Will in BB2 was hardly impressive, but in BB7 he took his game to a whole 'nother level. At worst a top 3 player ever. Up there with Danielle(bb3) and Dan (BB10).


LOL @ Janelle being an awful player. Yea, she is an average strategist and manipulator, but when it comes to competitions she is the Ozzy of Big Brother. You just don't make it to the final 3 in back to back seasons by being an awful player. Winning competitions has its value.


What makes Richard Hatch this great of a player? Because he was the first to start an alliance? Are you ****ing kidding me? Explain what happened in All-stars then.

Yul made the right move every time. He played close to a perfect game. The problem that I have with Yul that season was he possessed the most powerful idol in Survivor history, which basically guarantees him a spot in the final 3. I don't know what Survivor producers were thinking when they came up with that idol. Was not fair to the other players for someone to have that much power.

He also had Ozzy on his tribe. When the mutiny happened, Ozzy went on an amazing run like no other in Survivor history. He single handily won every single challenge for his tribe and made it all the way to the final 3 just by winning competitions. If Ozzy had lost just once, he would have been evicted. At that point even Yul wanted him gone. Just for that alone, Ozzy should have won Cook Islands and would have won if Adam didn't promise Yul his vote. Even with all that said, Yul is a better player than Richard Hatch.

Sandra's number one goal on All-stars was to get Russell Hantz evicted, how did that work out for her? Nothing went the way Sandra wanted it to go. She was just there for the ride.

Russell perfected the blindside. Anytime he wanted someone evicted, best believe they went home packing. Russell's biggest problem was he back stabbed everyone, besides the people he made an alliance with on day one (Parvati and Natalie White) and he was just very cut throat. He played a very similar game to the one that Boston Rob played in All-stars, but with a lot more strategy.

Look how he destroyed Boston Rob in this clip. He knows exactly the right move to make every single time. Even Stephen Fishback has said numerous times that Russell is the best Survivor strategist ever.
dT4PHS1caI4
Another great thing in that clip, by using the idol on Parvati. That caused Jerri to believe everything that Russell was telling her and she immediately jumped to his side. That was just a brilliant strategic move. Hands down the best move in Survivor history.
YCReYMNlMtU

The problem with you is, you aren't objective at all. Your hatred for Russell clouds your judgement.

Yes sir!!!!! I am with you 10% on the Russell Hantz analysis, great player really... made the show so interesting and made me want to keep watching. I always rooted for him, too bad he just didnt get the social part right and thus never won... Survivor legend indeed!

[SoBig]

Let me correct myself, an awful strategic player. And you give Ozzy way too much credit :joker: your bias is bright as day in all these posts.



He was the only one to see it as a strategic game. Not only did he make the first alliance, but he had to work hard at keeping it together with Kelly befriending Pagong, Kelly and Sue fighting, etc. He had both Sue and Kelly thinking he was on their side of the argument and it paid off in the end when Kelly sided with Richard in the revote at F4 and Sue voted for Richard in the end. And what happened in All-Stars? He had a target. It's human nature, he's the first winner, of course he was going to have a target. Especially with someone as bitter as Jenna Lewis going on a rampage against the winners. Richard did a great job at trying to downplay his target though, probably the best compared to Tina, Ethan, and Jenna.



Yul definitely played the best game of his season, but he made a lot of potential mistakes and luck played a big factor in his win. Not to mention the whole controversy about possible production manipulation, but that's another story. Your argument that Ozzy deserved to win because he won Challenges is asinine, you really are showing that you don't understand how Survivor works in each post you make. As bold of a statement as it may be, Candice played a better game than Ozzy in Cook Islands.



Sandra may not have been able to take him out, but at the end of the day, she was far from the only one to target him. She was able to target him without appearing as a threat, something which is very difficult to pull off. She was able to work both sides of the Heroes and the Villains and truly know what was going on throughout the whole game. And she played to the Jury's tastes very well in the Final TC. Her game had strategic decisions, but they were under the radar, and since you only look at the big, show-off, "glitz and glamour" type of moves, you fail to recognize them and consider them inferior, which shows how little you know about the game itself.



You're so wrong it isn't even funny. Russell's game in HvV is so flawed and a big mess. His strategy was very sloppy and unorganized, his social game was horrendous (and as much as you don't think social game should matter and as much as you fail to think about social game, it matters. End of story), and played without being able to get any Jury votes. He had absolutely zero chance of winning the whole time, so how can you praise him for being a great player if he could never win?



:joker: at that coming from an Ozzytard, if you wanna talk about clouding judgment. The problem with you is, you fail to see all aspects of the game. You just look at what's on the surface. You care about who can pull off big moves and big blindsides, failing to look at the consequences and repercussions that come afterwards. You look at all competitive and strategic game and fail to look at the social aspect, which can make or break the game.
Since Hatch there have been players that are just simply better. If you replace Hatch with Cirrie, Pavatti, Boston Rob or any of the all-time Survivor greats, you get a similar result in Boneo if not better. Now on the other hand, if you replace Boston Rob, Cirrie etc. with Hatch on their seasons, do you honestly believe that Hatch would have dominated like they did and would have gotten as far?

Ozzy should have won, because he would have gotten to the final 3 regardless if he had Yul or the idol on his side. Yul wouldn’t have made it as far without Ozzy or the super powered idol. There is just no way, Candice played a better game than Ozzy, that’s just crazy talk. Especially, after she flipped to the other side.

Rachel had arguably the 2nd biggest target on her back. Porsche wasn’t a good strategic player or manipulator. Neither was Rachel, but she was the better of the two. Porsche half the time didn’t know what was going on. Danielle and Kalia were the brains behind their alliance. All Porsche did was gossip when they were together. I don’t consider Rachel to be a great player or anything like that. To me what really gives her the edge was the fact that she won more competitions than Porsche. Overall I think Shelly probably was the best player this season, even though I couldn’t stand her. If it wasn’t for the final duo twist, she probably would have made it to the final 2. She played a similar game to Dr. Will.

It doesn't matter what Sandra was trying to do undercover, because nothing she did worked out the way she wanted it to. Nothing. The only reason she made it to the final 3 was because Russell wanted to be up against two winners, because he thought for sure the jury was not going to vote for people that had already won Survivor. Sandra was pretty irrelevant.

What you are forgetting is if Russell had played any other way in Samoa, he would have been evicted before or after the merge. Remember his tribe was down 8- 4 at the merge. What he did to get the final 3 was very impressive. I just don’t understand how you ignore the strategic part of the game altogether. You want to reward ass kissing and how popular someone is with the tribe over strategic play. I just don’t respect that. Vote for who played the best game. Not for who was the most likeable or most popular.

You know something is wrong, when Rupert, Jerri or Colby would have won HvV if they were up against Pavatti and Russell in the final 3. No matter what, the jury was dead set on not letting those two win, because of personal feelings.

[SoBig]

Another thing. People that vote for someone, because that person knows their child's name or some other bs. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PLAYING SURVIVOR? You are not playing Survivor to make friends.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Since Hatch there have been players that are just simply better. If you replace Hatch with Cirrie, Pavatti, Boston Rob or any of the all-time Survivor greats, you get a similar result in Boneo if not better. Now on the other hand, if you replace Boston Rob, Cirrie etc. with Hatch on their seasons, do you honestly believe that Hatch would have dominated like they did and would have gotten as far?

Ozzy should have won, because he would have gotten to the final 3 regardless if he had Yul or the idol on his side. Yul wouldn’t have made it as far without Ozzy or the super powered idol. There is just no way, Candice played a better game than Ozzy, that’s just crazy talk. Especially, after she flipped to the other side.

Rachel had arguably the 2nd biggest target on her back. Porsche wasn’t a good strategic player or manipulator. Neither was Rachel, but she was the better of the two. Porsche half the time didn’t know what was going on. Danielle and Kalia were the brains behind their alliance. All Porsche did was gossip when they were together. I don’t consider Rachel to be a great player or anything like that. To me what really gives her the edge was the fact that she won more competitions than Porsche. Overall I think Shelly probably was the best player this season, even though I couldn’t stand her. If it wasn’t for the final duo twist, she probably would have made it to the final 2. She played a similar game to Dr. Will.

It doesn't matter what Sandra was trying to do undercover, because nothing she did worked out the way she wanted it to. Nothing. The only reason she made it to the final 3 was because Russell wanted to be up against two winners, because he thought for sure the jury was not going to vote for people that had already won Survivor. Sandra was pretty irrelevant.

What you are forgetting is if Russell had played any other way in Samoa, he would have been evicted before or after the merge. Remember his tribe was down 8- 4 at the merge. What he did to get the final 3 was very impressive. I just don’t understand how you ignore the strategic part of the game altogether. You want to reward ass kissing and how popular someone is with the tribe over strategic play. I just don’t respect that. Vote for who played the best game. Not for who was the most likeable or most popular.

You know something is wrong, when Rupert, Jerri or Colby would have won HvV if they were up against Pavatti and Russell in the final 3. No matter what, the jury was dead set on not letting those two win, because of personal feelings.

Once again that's all a matter of opinion. We can't prove/disprove anything since you're speaking in hypothetical terms.

Ozzy didn't have any game besides his physicality. Throwing a Challenge to get Billy out was stupid, he was on the outside of Aitu before the mutiny, the mutiny had a lot of manipulation with bottle twist to even things up, and even when in the final six, five, four, etc., Ozzy was still talked about being voted off. The only thing he had going for him was physicality. No real strategic game, not much of a social game, nothing special at all. Meanwhile, Candice had good ties with everyone on Raro, was in control in Aitu, was in control on Raro. Her downfall only started with the production manipulation that made the numbers 5v4 and not listening to Jonathan about the HII. She was always thinking strategically and made moves to advance herself further, while Ozzy's only move was to be physical.

Rachel hardly had a target on her back. Brendon and Jeff were always targeted over her and she was able to hide behind them for a majority of the game. Meanwhile, Porsche had to fight to be saved the first week, and even then the general consensus was that she would be evicted when the Golden Key twist ended. It's phenomenal that Porsche made it to the end considering it was 6 vs. 3 at final nine. The only people who would've nominated Rachel and her allies were Porsche, Kalia, and Daniele. Compare that to six people who would've nominated D/K/P and you can't argue that they didn't overcome a lot. Being a competitor didn't matter nearly as much for Rachel as it did for Porsche since Porsche had a bigger target on her back. And going back to you claiming Shelly voted based on strategy, besides trying to get back into Jordan/Jeff's graces, Porsche was the person Shelly hated the most, since the first day in the House. Porsche was onto Shelly's game and Shelly had it out for her the whole time. Once again, a Juror voting for someone they like more, especially after Shelly trashed Porsche for opening Pandora's Box and thinking Porsche was the reason she was evicted.

Sandra played up to Russell's ego, saying she just wanted the $100,000 at the end because she wouldn't receive any votes. Russell foolishly bought into that and took her along. It wasn't what she tried to do undercover, it's what she did undercover. You only look at stuff on the surface that Russell and Parvati do and fail to see the little, but significant things, that matter in the end.

Russell brought a Jury threat with him to the merge in Samoa, and did so willingly and knowingly! He said he'd bring Natalie over Liz because Natalie would get in with Galu better! How can you say someone played the best game when they brought someone who can get along with the eventual Jurors with them?! Human nature isn't a flaw in the game, that's something you need to understand. You need to know how people work to know how Survivor works. If you abuse a Jury, obviously they're not going to reward you with a million dollars for it, it's not rocket science.

And whose fault is that? Russell doesn't understand how the Jury works, so he wouldn't win against anyone. That's besides the point. Parvati would've only won if Danielle was in the final three with her and Russell, but that shows the flaws in Parvati's game. She played well, but she was cliquey and that turned some people off socially. Plus the bonds that Sandra had with the Heroes and Courtney was strong enough to win their votes. Everyone votes personally to a degree, you can't be completely objective in your vote, that's human nature. That's something you need to accept because that's how we all operate.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Another thing. People that vote for someone, because that person knows their child's name or some other bs. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PLAYING SURVIVOR? You are not playing Survivor to make friends.

Human nature buddy. People respect social game because we are humans and we have feelings. Being social is arguably the greatest strategy. It's not all about the moves you make and the stuff on the surface.

[rk3388]

can i report this thread for being offensive?

[Yayita]

can i report this thread for being offensive?

What is offensive about the thread?

[Yayita]

Did you guys think Adam was the most delusional player ever? he really thought he could win.. Iv'e never seen such a huge floater in all the seasons of Big brother.

[lostalex]

Parvati is the greatest survivor player of all time., BY FAR. She would have won twice if it wasn't for Russell dragging her down.

HBIC of the WORLD.

http://cdn.blogs.sheknows.com/realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/2010/05/parvati.jpg

http://survivormuch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Parvati-Shallow.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/scottitude/S20/E03/S20-E03_006_parvati_shallow.png

[SoBig]

Once again that's all a matter of opinion. We can't prove/disprove anything since you're speaking in hypothetical terms.

Ozzy didn't have any game besides his physicality. Throwing a Challenge to get Billy out was stupid, he was on the outside of Aitu before the mutiny, the mutiny had a lot of manipulation with bottle twist to even things up, and even when in the final six, five, four, etc., Ozzy was still talked about being voted off. The only thing he had going for him was physicality. No real strategic game, not much of a social game, nothing special at all. Meanwhile, Candice had good ties with everyone on Raro, was in control in Aitu, was in control on Raro. Her downfall only started with the production manipulation that made the numbers 5v4 and not listening to Jonathan about the HII. She was always thinking strategically and made moves to advance herself further, while Ozzy's only move was to be physical.

Rachel hardly had a target on her back. Brendon and Jeff were always targeted over her and she was able to hide behind them for a majority of the game. Meanwhile, Porsche had to fight to be saved the first week, and even then the general consensus was that she would be evicted when the Golden Key twist ended. It's phenomenal that Porsche made it to the end considering it was 6 vs. 3 at final nine. The only people who would've nominated Rachel and her allies were Porsche, Kalia, and Daniele. Compare that to six people who would've nominated D/K/P and you can't argue that they didn't overcome a lot. Being a competitor didn't matter nearly as much for Rachel as it did for Porsche since Porsche had a bigger target on her back. And going back to you claiming Shelly voted based on strategy, besides trying to get back into Jordan/Jeff's graces, Porsche was the person Shelly hated the most, since the first day in the House. Porsche was onto Shelly's game and Shelly had it out for her the whole time. Once again, a Juror voting for someone they like more, especially after Shelly trashed Porsche for opening Pandora's Box and thinking Porsche was the reason she was evicted.

Sandra played up to Russell's ego, saying she just wanted the $100,000 at the end because she wouldn't receive any votes. Russell foolishly bought into that and took her along. It wasn't what she tried to do undercover, it's what she did undercover. You only look at stuff on the surface that Russell and Parvati do and fail to see the little, but significant things, that matter in the end.

Russell brought a Jury threat with him to the merge in Samoa, and did so willingly and knowingly! He said he'd bring Natalie over Liz because Natalie would get in with Galu better! How can you say someone played the best game when they brought someone who can get along with the eventual Jurors with them?! Human nature isn't a flaw in the game, that's something you need to understand. You need to know how people work to know how Survivor works. If you abuse a Jury, obviously they're not going to reward you with a million dollars for it, it's not rocket science.

And whose fault is that? Russell doesn't understand how the Jury works, so he wouldn't win against anyone. That's besides the point. Parvati would've only won if Danielle was in the final three with her and Russell, but that shows the flaws in Parvati's game. She played well, but she was cliquey and that turned some people off socially. Plus the bonds that Sandra had with the Heroes and Courtney was strong enough to win their votes. Everyone votes personally to a degree, you can't be completely objective in your vote, that's human nature. That's something you need to accept because that's how we all operate.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm just going to correct you on a few things.

They wanting to vote out Ozzy had nothing to do with his social game or lack thereof. He was being targeted because he was winning every single challenge and they were all afraid that no one could beat him in the Final 3. Challenge denominators are always targeted.

The reason Russell picked Natalie, was because Liz was starting to figure out Russell's game and was telling him that she didn't think that she could trust him. He was losing his control over her. He couldn't risk her flipping at the merge and turning against him. He even said so.

Porsche literally did nothing in the first week other than accepting Dick's offer. Then she told Keith about her new alliance with the Vets. That caused the newbies to not trust her at all. It’s Keith that screwed himself over in week 1. When he had that meeting with the newbies and called out Kalia. After he did that Kalia decided she was going to flip her vote. Had nothing to do with anything Porsche did.

Rachel was up for eviction FIVE times. If that’s not having a target on your back, then I don't know what is. Even in week 2, Jeff and Jordan were seriously considering nominating both Brendon and Rachel, because they couldn't stand being around her anymore. Yes, it’s true that Danielle and friends always targeted Brandon over Rachel, but they always targeted her over Jeff. If you remember, Kalia nominated Jeff and Rachel, with Rachel being the intended target. They were all afraid of the repercussions of going after Jeff.

Why would the Vets target Porsche after the Golden Key twist ended? She was a part of their alliance! Rachel liked her as a friend. Its only after Porsche accidentally helped Kalia win her first HOH, she was forced to team up with Kalia and Danielle, because the vets no longer trusted her. Porsche making it far in the game should have been expected. Danielle, Kalia, Jeff, Jordan, Brendon and Rachel all had bigger targets than her.

Shelly hated Rachel on a personal level. Towards the end of the show Shelly hated her more than anyone else in the house.

[SoBig]

Parvati is the greatest survivor player of all time., BY FAR. She would have won twice if it wasn't for Russell dragging her down.

HBIC of the WORLD.

http://cdn.blogs.sheknows.com/realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/2010/05/parvati.jpg

http://survivormuch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Parvati-Shallow.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/scottitude/S20/E03/S20-E03_006_parvati_shallow.png
How can she be the best when she was never the best player in any of her seasons?

In Cook Islands Ozzy and Yul were better. In FvF Cirrie was better and in HvV Russell was arguably better.

And LMAO @ Russell dragging her down. If it wasn't for Russell in week 1 and in week 2 Pavatti would have been voted off. He convinced the Villains to vote Randy out first. Then he got Tyson to flip his vote and he used the hidden immunity idol on Pavatti. Also after the merge the Heroes were targeting Pavatti and who saved her? Yea, Russell did. Too bad he dragged her down. :bored:

[Macie Lightfoot]

SoBig you'll never get it. If anyone doesn't understand why Russell is not good at Survivor, please read this:

http://funny115.com/v2/39.htm

and this

http://funny115.com/v2/3.htm

and hopefully you'll be enlightened (but I'm sure you won't be)

[SoBig]

SoBig you'll never get it. If anyone doesn't understand why Russell is not good at Survivor, please read this:

http://funny115.com/v2/39.htm

and this

http://funny115.com/v2/3.htm

and hopefully you'll be enlightened (but I'm sure you won't be)
Thats an extremely biased review of Russell of game. Can't expect me to take that seriously.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that someone who led their alliance to the final 3 in back to back seasons is a bad player. Not buying that at all.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Thats an extremely biased review of Russell of game. Can't expect me to take that seriously.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that someone who led their alliance to the final 3 in back to back seasons is a bad player. Not buying that at all.

So it was a good move for Russell to make a final three deal with Coach (even after he was already in final three deals with Parvati, Danielle, and Jerri, which is bad enough as it is) and then blindside him the next episode for no reason (alongside with yelling at Danielle when she didn't like that idea)? Was it a good move to keep Sandra over Courtney? Was it a good move to declare that he/Parvati/Danielle all trust each other at Tribal Council, failing to mention Jerri in that group? Was it a good move to swear on his children that he was with the Heroes? Was it a good move when Russell told Rupert he's a dumbass and doesn't give a **** about him? Was it a good move to blindside Candice after promising her final three the round before? Was it a good move to target Danielle, the person who he has the best (still small) chance of beating in the end, simply because he's butthurt Parvati/Danielle are close? Was it smart to threaten Parvati and Jerri into voting Danielle? Was a good move to make Danielle cry right before putting her on the Jury? Was it a good move to make a final three with Rupert/Colby (two people he would NEVER beat in the finals), and then go back on that the same round, sending another angry person to the Jury? Was it a good move to make Parvati cry when she's his only ally left in the game? Was it smart to want to go to the end with Sandra and Jerri, meaning an angry Parvati would be on the Jury? Was it smart to bring Sandra to the end with the Jury is full of people who like her and cheered for her when she used her Hidden Immunity Idol at Tribal Council? Was it smart to reaffirm his final three deal with Jerri and vote her out the same episode?

It's funny you say Russell led his alliance to the final three when it actually looks like he lead all his alliances straight to Jury, in a very angry fashion at that :joker: and you still think he's good?

[iRyan]

How can she be the best when she was never the best player in any of her seasons?

In Cook Islands Ozzy and Yul were better. In FvF Cirrie was better and in HvV Russell was arguably better.

And LMAO @ Russell dragging her down. If it wasn't for Russell in week 1 and in week 2 Pavatti would have been voted off. He convinced the Villains to vote Randy out first. Then he got Tyson to flip his vote and he used the hidden immunity idol on Pavatti. Also after the merge the Heroes were targeting Pavatti and who saved her? Yea, Russell did. Too bad he dragged her down. :bored:

Parvati was very, VERY clearly the best player in FvF and I laugh in the face of anyone who says otherwise. She 100% above and beyond deserved to win. She was one of the best in HvV as well.

[SoBig]

Parvati was very, VERY clearly the best player in FvF and I laugh in the face of anyone who says otherwise. She 100% above and beyond deserved to win. She was one of the best in HvV as well.
Don't make me laugh. Watch that season over again. Cirie was the mastermind behind the female's alliance. She came up with the plan to blindside Ozzy, came up with the plan to get Erik to give up his Immunity Necklace, etc. Everything that went down she had a hand in it. Pavatti was the second best player, but not better than Cirie. If it wasn't for that final twist, Cirie would have won FvF. FACT. By the way I'm not even a Cirie fan and I like Pavatti. In Panama, Cirie was against Terry(One of my favorite players ever) and in FvF she was the mastermind behind Ozzy (my favorite player) getting voted out.

Pavatti deserved to win over Amanda, but no way in hell over Cirie. Pavatti lucked out with that final twist. In HvV she has a case for being the best player. What gives Russell the edge is he controlled who was voted out.

[SoBig]

So it was a good move for Russell to make a final three deal with Coach (even after he was already in final three deals with Parvati, Danielle, and Jerri, which is bad enough as it is) and then blindside him the next episode for no reason (alongside with yelling at Danielle when she didn't like that idea)? Was it a good move to keep Sandra over Courtney? Was it a good move to declare that he/Parvati/Danielle all trust each other at Tribal Council, failing to mention Jerri in that group? Was it a good move to swear on his children that he was with the Heroes? Was it a good move when Russell told Rupert he's a dumbass and doesn't give a **** about him? Was it a good move to blindside Candice after promising her final three the round before? Was it a good move to target Danielle, the person who he has the best (still small) chance of beating in the end, simply because he's butthurt Parvati/Danielle are close? Was it smart to threaten Parvati and Jerri into voting Danielle? Was a good move to make Danielle cry right before putting her on the Jury? Was it a good move to make a final three with Rupert/Colby (two people he would NEVER beat in the finals), and then go back on that the same round, sending another angry person to the Jury? Was it a good move to make Parvati cry when she's his only ally left in the game? Was it smart to want to go to the end with Sandra and Jerri, meaning an angry Parvati would be on the Jury? Was it smart to bring Sandra to the end with the Jury is full of people who like her and cheered for her when she used her Hidden Immunity Idol at Tribal Council? Was it smart to reaffirm his final three deal with Jerri and vote her out the same episode?

It's funny you say Russell led his alliance to the final three when it actually looks like he lead all his alliances straight to Jury, in a very angry fashion at that :joker: and you still think he's good?
Last season Boston Rob had a final 3 deal with EVERYONE. How in the hell is that a bad move?

Russell always stayed true to his day 1 alliance.

Every move that Russell made helped him to get to the final 3. That was his goal. Getting rid of Danielle was a GREAT MOVE. Her loyalty lied with Parvati and they were both planning on getting rid of Russell at some point. By getting rid of Danielle, Russell took away any bit of power Parvati had and ended any chance of an all female alliance happening, like what happened in FvF. Could Russell even trust Danielle to begin with? Danielle had an alliance with Terry in Panama, even though he saved her a few times, she screwed him over at the end. You don't think Russell remembered that?

[BBfan6418]

Will Kirby is in a league of his own.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Last season Boston Rob had a final 3 deal with EVERYONE. How in the hell is that a bad move?

Russell always stayed true to his day 1 alliance.

Every move that Russell made helped him to get to the final 3. That was his goal. Getting rid of Danielle was a GREAT MOVE. Her loyalty lied with Parvati and they were both planning on getting rid of Russell at some point. By getting rid of Danielle, Russell took away any bit of power Parvati had and ended any chance of an all female alliance happening, like what happened in FvF. Could Russell even trust Danielle to begin with? Danielle had an alliance with Terry in Panama, even though he saved her a few times, she screwed him over at the end. You don't think Russell remembered that?

You can only pull that type of gameplay off if you have charisma and are charming. Boston Rob is very charismatic, Russell is far from that.

And really? Marisa? Ashley? Betsy? Danielle? He stayed true to all of them?

Getting rid of Danielle was his worst move he's made, and one of the worst moves in the game. They weren't planning on getting rid of Russell. Danielle, Parvati, and Russell ALL needed to be in the final three to have a chance at winning. They were the three evils villains and could only win against each other. Obviously Parvati and Danielle were close, Russell brought the three of them all together, they all were a team. There wasn't going to be a female alliance and Russell didn't accomplish anything other than voting out the one person he had the best chance at beating, making her cry right before her boot, and creating the angriest juror. His move was all impulsive and he just wanted to assert his authority over Parvati cause he felt threatened, but wasn't thinking in the long run and what effects that would have.

And no I don't think Russell remembered that. Just like how he didn't remember Sandra didn't take **** from anyone and fought against Johnny Fairplay. Just like how he didn't remember how well swearing on children worked for Twila. Russell didn't even watch most of the seasons before Samoa.

And just to show you how bad Russell is as a player, in case you don't get it by now, there was a scene that wasn't shown, but was shown online, where Coach gives Russell a cross necklace as a sign of trust and to solidify their pact. After he backstabbed Coach, he used that same cross necklace to make a final three deal with Colby and Rupert. So Rupert walked into Ponderosa with Coach's necklace that Coach thought Russell had... Russell had a lot of explaining to do and got DESTROYED by the Jury, but that wasn't shown cause the whole subplot wasn't shown. If you don't understand why any of that makes Russell a terrible social player, you really don't understand how Survivor work and how people work.