LoVeJunkie

EXPLAIN PLEASE

DiBye23

I completely agree with this, especially the bolded part

Touldengal

she had to hide behind parv and russ, she rode their coattails cuz her plan didnt work out. i was really rooting for her to get something done once they merged, but she couldnt. she was forced to hide behind her villains.
i agree that she was on her own and didn't have immunity wins to hide behind, but at the same time, only one person wins immunity in each round... so really, she wasnt the only one vulnerable at every TC this isnt BB. if u dont win immunity, you're not safe.

DiBye23

I don't think she hid behind Parv and Russel at all. She wasn't kissing their buts or anything. She was pretty up front about what she wanted out of the game and Russel and Parv didn't see her as a threat. That was THEIR mistake as well as part of her game plan.

lovely elizabeth

I don't think she rode coattails. She wasn't even with them, she tried to get the Heroes to see what stupid dumbasses they were but they didn't listen. Her hands were tied. I just don't agree with the 'riding coattails' comment.

HappilyEverNow

She didn't ride Parv or Russell's coattails, as she was never in an alliance with them. I think you have to at least be in an actual alliance with somebody in order to ride their coattails. How can you be hiding behind somebody if you're always trying to get them out? Doesn't make any sense to me. Sandra never hid IMO. This is all just my opinion. So yeah....

Touldengal

It's the reason they are all on jury, for sure.
But then again, I could only attribute that to Russ He did it. It's just weird. In a BB AS, u KNOW Russ would be getting mad props for that and would win by a landslide. It's just different on survivor.

I think her lack of influence just casts her as a shadow in the game, tbh. I truely believe that had she gotten 4th place instead of Jerri, she wouldn't have gotten much screen time. It sort of feels like her screentime was forced just because she ended up winning. If you think about it, 99% of her confessionals about her plans, didn't come through. Why waste our time showing it? I'm sure Colby, Jerri, Rupert and many others had confessionals with plans that didnt go through... none of which made the screen.

DiBye23

I agree. She wasn't even with them.

Beth I love your Icon/Sig

I don't agree with that at all. There is a difference between playing hard and playing a game that people can respect. And Russel didn't play a game people respected, and he couldn't make a good enough argument during jurry.

If you look at someone like Will from BB, he played dirty, but he still maintained a good relationship with the other contestents. Russel was hostile with other people. He didn't care if they liked him. And to win this game, you have to care about the jurry because its a big part of the game.

But the point of Survivor is not to get people out... it's to stay in yourself. And she did. And in the end she convinced people she deserved the money. That's the game. The game isn't about lying, cheating, etc. Yes those are things sometimes used in the game... but they are not the only ways to win. It's like when Jordan won BB, just because she didn't play an overly aggresive game didn't mean she didn't deserve the win.

lovely elizabeth

Thanks!

Everyone's screentime was cut for Russell, I disagree. And I don't think her screentime was forced at all.

Touldengal

I don't think you have to be a nasty player to win, that's true. But at the end of the day, except for BB3 when Lisa won, every season afterwards, the deserving winner won. For the most part, the person who played the better game, won [including dick btw]
We won't agree about Russ. That's fine. I know he was nasty to people and was unnecessarily harsh, so that's fine. His social game sucked. I'm not arguing against it. I just know, personally, that I would have much rather vote for him than Sandra.
In reality though, you have a perfectly amazing player in the F3: Parvati. She was sweet, smart, strong, strategic and pulled THE biggest move in the game. I assume she didn't mention it in jury questions, because im sure it was edited to some degree, and im wondering if the outcome would have been different had she mentioned it.
Jerri, Coach and Danielle <3 voted for the strongest player IMO... and Courtney acknowledged it.
In fact, most of the jurors acknowledged Parv's game, yet still voted for Sandra, which blows my mind.
I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that Candice and Rupert were bitter.

Always & Forever

Wow! Much debate going on here!

Like I said before, I don't care that Sandra won over Parvati, just as long as it wasn't Russell!

Di, I agree with you about what Tom said. Every person who won deserved to win, no matter what. Whether you liked the way they played or not. Obviously people in the jury had to vote for someone and who knows what their reasons are, but they saw something in the winner that maybe we don't see and therefore they voted for that person to win! I remember back in Season 6 when Christy said she would never vote for Jenna to win, and in the end she did. When Jeff asked her why at the finale, she said, "Because she 'outwitted, outlasted, and outplayed' me, and even if I don't like it, that person deserves to win." So, yeah. I agree with that statement. Would I be singing a different tune if Russell had won? Maybe! But then I would think that he did deserve it in some ways.

Touldengal

technically all 3 of them outlasted, outwitted and outplayed the rest of the players

DiBye23

But they didn't out wit or out play if they didn't bring it home in the end. The jurry is just as important as the rest of the game.

Amanda was my favorite in China and FVF but I can respect Parv winning because she brought it home. She handled the jurry better.

Sandra handled the jurry better than Parv and Russel. Not just in the questions but through out the entire game.

See that's the thing. You're basing it on you and what YOU would do. When a player heads in to the finals they need to think about what the people in the jurry are going to respect. Russel and Parv didn't do that as well as Sandra (though Parv did so better than Russel). They've all played this game more than once. Heck, they've all been in the finals more than once. It isn't like they don't know that. They do.

Those are qualities YOU see in her. Other people may not. I happen to think she played a good physical and strategic game, but not as good of a social game as she had in past seasons. And I would also say that Sandra is sweet (at least as sweet as Parv, smart, strong (in her own ways), strategic, and maybe she didn't make a big move... but she also didn't depend on idols or an alliance to get her through. I'm not saying it's wrong to depend on those things... but getting through the game on your own CAN be seen as a strength. And Sandra smartly played that up.

Most of the jurors acknowledged Parv AND Sandra as good players.

Towards Russel. Rupert didn't seem bitter towards Parv and neither did Candice. They could have given her a vote but they respected Sandra's game more. That's THEIR choice. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean they chose for the wrong reasons.

Touldengal

they outwitted and outplayed the jury because they took them out.
parv certainly did with the use of those 2 idols to weaken the heroes.
russ certainly did when he had JT give him his idol. come on... it's pretty obvious they outwitted and outplayed the jury.
the fact of the matter is, we just disagree on the way we see the game. I dont attribute people voting sandra to win the overall game as a reason why sandra played the best game. it's just not how i see things. i respect that u guys do, so let's just leave it at that.

DiBye23

I guess we see the game totally differntly. I don't agree with the logic that the jurry isn't a big factor at all. Like Jeff said, the concept of Survivor is putting a group on an island, having them vote each other off, and then in the end bringing the group back and voting for a winner. To me Russel and to an extent Parv were only playing for the first part of the game. But we'll have to agree to disagree.