[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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Originally Posted by saiwong

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]

Originally Posted by saiwong

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.

Originally Posted by saiwong

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]

Originally Posted by SoBig

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]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by Yayita

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

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

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.

Originally Posted by SoBig

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.

Originally Posted by SoBig

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

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

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

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.

Originally Posted by Lwize

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).

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

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.

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

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.




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.

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

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.

Youtube video

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.

Youtube video

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

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by Yayita

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/foru...d.php?t=175949

[TheManWhoLaughs]

Originally Posted by SoBig

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]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

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]

Originally Posted by saiwong

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]

Originally Posted by SoBig

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 your bias is bright as day in all these posts.

Originally Posted by SoBig

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.

Originally Posted by SoBig

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.

Originally Posted by SoBig

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.

Originally Posted by SoBig

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?

Originally Posted by SoBig

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by saiwong

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.