[smartalec2718]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Yup and so do majority of the people that watch Survivor. Both Rob and Russell were robbed by a bitter jury.

I hate it when people make this excuse as to why someone "should have" won. There is no such thing as being "robbed" by a bitter jury. The jury have the ultimate say in who wins the game, so PART of the game is not making them bitter. Capisce?

Probst repeats some iteration of this idea every year when the jury phase begins. The key in the jury phase is to vote people out while not making them hate you so they'll turn around and give you the money at the end. If you piss jurors off on their way out, you're playing a bad game and don't deserve to get rewarded for it.

Rob in All-Stars and Russell in both Samoa and HvV left jurors with a bad taste in their mouths. Sure, avoiding elimination and controlling votes is part of playing a good game, but another part is positioning yourself well in the eyes of the jury. Albert and Coach utterly failed at doing so, but Sophie did a brilliant job of it in the F5 tribal council (her emotional breakdown, which I'm convinced was at least partially strategy) and at FTC (calling Coach a girl, spilling the beans about the idol, the to-the-point outwit-outlast-outplay answer).

I'm sick of people claiming some winners are undeserving. Only people who actually DO win the game are DESERVING of doing so, because they have fulfilled all the necessary requirements.