TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through December 22, 2009

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: Survivor ARCHIVES: Survivor XIX - Samoa ~ 2: Survivor XIX - Samoa: Finale Show, Dec. 20th: ARCHIVES: Archive through December 22, 2009 users admin

Author Message
Adven
Member

02-06-2001

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Adven a private message Print Post    
I also think Russell is uniquely polarizing. His bullying, bragging and misogyny often went from "Russell being Russell" to something really ugly and unacceptable. Yet, he could be very charismatic and his astonishing drive and focus are hard not to admire. My feelings for him changed from one episode to the next and I'm still not sure whether I like him or not.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 11:55 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Oh, I don't like him at all. But I did admire his tenaciousness and understanding of the game. He was just brilliant about the game play at times; while being stupid about people at the same time.

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 12:04 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Brenda1966 a private message Print Post    
I'm a big Russel Fan, also a fan of Evil Dick, even a fan of Johnny Fairplay! Doesn't mean I like them as people. Now I do like Boston Rob as a person. But all of these I am a fan of how they played. Super entertaining, clever, aggressive, smart, bold, brash etc.

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 12:18 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
Well put, both Adven and Karuuna. Although I am completely with Karuuna on not liking him, and that was mostly cemented after seeing his behavior on the reunion show and in exit interviews. I will more likely remember him now as the sorest loser ever and not as the guy who maybe should have won.

FWIW, I remember Boston Rob as the guy who should have won, in his All Stars season.

Russell really was a brilliant Survivor player, but I do believe he shot himself in the foot with his people skills. I do believe the jury voted against Russell more than for Natalie.

I'm curious, Adven, why you said you were hoping for Natalie given how much you admire Russell? Is it because you want to see her in lingerie?

(I remember you saying that about Amber way back when. I have a mind like a steel trap. It's frightening sometimes.)

Beekindpleez
Member

07-18-2006

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 12:31 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Beekindpleez a private message Print Post    
I found it pretty interesting how small a part Mick played in both final jury questioning and the Finale show.

Russell seemed quite bitter. Even when he won the $100,000 for favorite player, he kind of lifted his hands like he was saying, "Of course." Nary a "thank you". LOL
Also, I think his offer to Natalie of $10,000 to give him the title was condescending in a way it really didn't need to be.

The night before, when he was telling them what they should be telling the jury was a foreshadowing for me that he wouldn't win, no matter what. He was just too convinced that no one else deserved it. Which gave Natalie the ammo she needed for her answers.

I really enjoyed this season and much of that was because of Russell. But, his very end game did turn me off. And his bitter behavior during the finale pretty much ended my Russell love. I prefer a man who can show some gratitude and humility...even when they don't think they should have to.

Roxip
Member

01-29-2004

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 1:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Roxip a private message Print Post    
If Russell was "just playing the game" as he has repeatedly stated, then he has to realize that not winning is part of playing. He seems to have taken everything into consideration except the part where he didn't win.

Mgmriver
Member

04-27-2009

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 1:33 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Mgmriver a private message Print Post    
Jeff does sound like he's lusting after his Russie. I don't get how a network or a host can promote with pleasure a man that called the winner a wohre? Shame on them all. There is much more to this game than finding idols without a clue.

Adven
Member

02-06-2001

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 1:43 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Adven a private message Print Post    
That's simple, Hermione. I hoped for Natalie over Russell because she's a nice person and he isn't. To be honest, though, I liked them both.

My defense of Russell is based on what we all say for 16 weeks: him dominating. To deprive him of the million for a poor "social game" (translation: we don't like you) is pretty base. To paraphrase Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now, the jury were grocery clerks and errand boys sent to collect a bill.

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 1:51 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
Damn. I was hoping it was the lingerie factor so I could sneer at you. I'm crushed.

Adven
Member

02-06-2001

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 1:54 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Adven a private message Print Post    
The fact there is a lingerie factor goes without saying.

Lilfair
Member

07-09-2003

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 1:57 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lilfair a private message Print Post    
Survivor really sank low, to want this lowlife woman-hater on their show again. But it's a done deal, sigh. I'm surprised no one (Jeff) said anything or told Russell that it was inappropriate calling Natalie a w***. Other slurs wouldn't be tolerated by Jeff or the network.

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 2:04 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
<sneer!>

Nerovh
Member

06-11-2005

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 2:07 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Nerovh a private message Print Post    
Wow, I missed the part where Russell called Natalie that. To me, that just proves that his behavior on the show was not all an act, and that his nasty side is for real. That should not be tolerated from any contestant at any time. I have no respect or admiration of any kind for somebody like that, no matter how "entertaining" they were on a reality show. I would expect that crap from a VH1 show, but I'm disgusted to see it leaking over onto Survivor.

Jezzedout
Member

09-07-2006

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 2:25 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jezzedout a private message Print Post    
Such a strange season. I'm amazed to see so much continuing discussion here after this forum was so quiet for the past month.

Russell is indeed a very polarizing character. In the beginning of the season people either loved him right away, or as it seemed with the majority, disliked Russell's approach to sabotaging his tribe and said they would tune out for the rest of the season. Now here we are at the end and so many people are outraged at the finish. I don't think I've seen this much debate since Jenna took the title in the Amazon season!

Anyway, a few thoughts...

I'll restate here that I'm a fan of Russell. He brought a lot of fun and excitement to the Samoa season and it wouldn't have been the same without him. But those who feel that Natalie's win was a travesty are, IMHO, confusing Survivor gameplay with great TV. Russell was great TV. No doubt about it, hands down, he is a bold character who says and does outrageous things, and in the context of a TV program like Survivor, he made for a great show. I didn't care for his sexist and disrespectful behavior at times but I've seen worse, and in terms of making great TV that part of Russell just made things more interesting.

Now with that said, despite Russell being the dominant character on the show and despite his making big, bold moves in the game, he simply did not play the best game. He did not play a game that would secure the win. In the final phase of Survivor, as Jeff would say, "the power shifts to the Jury." That is the way Survivor is structured. The jury phase is a vital component of the game and a strategy that doesn't take the jury into account is a flawed strategy. Jeff refers to the jury repeatedly during tribal councils, reminding the players throughout the end phases of the game how powerful the jury is becoming as more and more players exit the game and take a seat alongside the others whose torches have been snuffed.

Although the F2/F3 have an opportunity before the vote to address the jury and make one last attempt to influence the game in their own favor, in the end, ultimately, their fate "lies in the hands of the jury" of evicted players. Like it or not, the behavior one demonstrates in the game and the way in which they got to the finals becomes a big part of the voting. That's what makes winning so difficult achieve. We've seen bitter juries before, and as unless the game changes significantly (which I hope it doesn't!) we will see others.

The fact that juries tend to vote emotionally needs to be factored into your gameplay. Natalie thought about that. It appears even Mick thought about that. Russell didn't think about that. He thought he could just say, "Hey, I made the biggest, boldest moves in the game. I found three hidden immunity idols without even having clues. I blindsided most of you on the jury. I played the most aggressive game out here. Now give me the money!" I thought he actually made a pretty good argument, but it unfortunately lacked a sense of respectful gameplay. If he was really playing the game, he could have stroked the jurors egos, telling Laura that she was too powerful in the game and that's why she had to go. Or telling John that he was too smart and it was too dangerous to keep him around. Or he could have told Kelly that she was too well liked and that made her a threat. Or reinforced to Monica that he admired her attempts to scramble at the end.

Russell keeps saying that Natalie "jumped on my back and rode me all the way to the end." What he seems to be forgetting is that his own gameplay could be likened to beating someone with a wooden club, stomping on their fallen body, and then taunting (I think that's the word Natalie has used in her interviews) them as you walk away. Russell categorically did not play the best game. He did not play a game that would enable him to earn the vote of the jury at the end.

It's possible that my memory is failing me here, but I thought I read somewhere that the one season of Survivor Russell had watched was Survivor China, where Todd schemed and plotted his way to the finals and easily won the final vote. Russell thought if he could amp up his game even more, nobody could touch him at the end.

I posted in the spoiler thread last week, and I believe somebody else even re-posted it in this thread yesterday, an analysis of Natalie's and Russell's gameplay as compared to the guidelines referred to in David Bloomberg's regular series of articles over at Reality News Online. If you're not familiar with it, it's a great series. Anyway, since Russell seems to be comparing himself to Todd, I thought it would be interesting to look at Bloomberg's article "Why Todd Won" from the end of the China series. Here's the article with my comments following.

Survivor: China – Why Todd Won
by David Bloomberg -- 12/18/2007

Todd played a strategic game from start to finish. But was his planning the only thing that led him to a million dollars, or was there more to it? Why did Todd win?

Todd has been a Survivor fan for as long as there have been Survivor fans. This was his dream come true and he got to play it out on national television. He had a plan that he put into action and it actually worked. How did he manage to do that? Why did Todd win?

Throughout this season, we have looked at why 15 other players lost by looking back at What China Survivors Should Have Learned. Now it’s time to turn the tables a bit and use those same rules to figure out how Todd made himself a million dollars richer.

The first rule, as always, is to scheme and plot. This rule, like many others, came directly from watching the first master of the game, Richard Hatch. While we certainly don’t support Hatch’s behavior after the game (and inducted him into the Reality TV Hall of Shame for it), this doesn’t erase that he was a brilliant Survivor player upon which many have based their own strategies (for which we inducted him into the Reality TV Hall of Fame).

Why do I mention Hatch? Because Todd has been watching since the days of Hatch and built some of his own strategy based on him, according to what was said in Todd’s Early Show interview. And Todd obviously paid attention.

Let’s look more closely at this rule. In one part, it says, “From the very beginning, you have to start making alliances and cementing relationships.” That’s exactly what Todd did. He had an alliance with Amanda on Day 1. He brought in Aaron soon after. Courtney followed. Jean-Robert, James, Denise, and eventually Frosti – all were brought into alliances with Todd.

Another portion of the rule talks about how Rich Hatch and Rob C. planned for the types of people they wanted to align with before they ever got into the game. Todd did the same thing, as he explained in my interview with him.

Todd formed a solid core alliance and took it to the very end. That alliance served his purposes – they didn’t vote for him to leave and they did vote the way he wanted them to. They kept Todd around even though they should have gotten rid of him. He surprised even himself with his ability to stick around.

This is especially true given that a number of people thought Todd schemed and plotted too much, in violation of the second rule. Indeed, it sometimes appeared that he changed the voting target on a whim – though he later explained his reasoning. But the problem with saying he did too much of this was that it never caught up with him! The rule is there to prevent people from catching on and turning on a player. Todd managed to do what few players before him have done – he convinced people he was lying to everybody else but them.

The master of this was, of course, Will Kirby on Big Brother. But Todd did an admirable job as well, with each person he booted from Fei Long pretty much being blindsided.

That said, Todd really should have been gone, instead of Denise, at the final four Tribal Council. Amanda didn’t trust him and considered getting rid of him. She was right on both counts, yet she failed to act. Ironically, Todd was more honest to Amanda than anybody else in the game!

As for the other two main points in the second rule, Todd did a good job on these also. He kept his scheming secret and didn’t backstab until he felt he needed to, contributing to his ability to blindside people while still getting some of their votes in the end.

The third rule tells players, among other things, not to tie themselves to one alliance and just hope it survives. It might seem, at first glance, that this is what Todd did. But Todd was more like Yul. As this rule says:

The key was that Yul didn’t just “hope” the alliance survived – he worked at it. He ensured everybody in the Aitu four was comfortable. … He subtly manipulated the situations such that nobody wanted to jump ship, even though it might have been a better option for some of them. He essentially convinced the others that they didn’t need that flexibility. So he convinced the others to go against this rule, thus using it to his advantage.

Sound like anybody else we know? Yes, Todd did some very similar things, somehow persuading people that he was a better choice to take along to the final Tribal Council.

Besides, Todd did show flexibility when he needed to, such as when he switched from targeting James to going after Jean-Robert. Another example was when he wanted to target Frosti but made it clear he would go after Courtney instead if she didn’t stick to the plan.

Moving to the fourth rule, one thing Todd never, ever did was allow his emotions to control him. He came into Survivor knowing it was a game. He knew he was going to form relationships and have to vote those people out. He understood the emotional part of the game much better than, say, Amanda (who admitted as much in my interview with her). What more can we say? He did a great job.

Despite what we saw on TV, I also think Todd did well in terms of the fifth rule, which says to pretend to be nice. Yes, he made snide remarks to the cameras about people, but one thing at least one other contestant mentioned to me was that they didn’t see that side of him during the game. Indeed, Amanda told Courtney, in the final episode, that she feared Todd in part because he had forged relationships with a number of the jurors. You don’t accomplish that unless you know how to pretend to be nice. Todd knew he needed to make friendships and then stab people in the back, and so he played nice with them to their faces.

Todd also worked hard to succeed in the sixth rule, not being too much of a threat. He knew early on he could be perceived as a threat to the strength of the tribe, so he made sure to align with somebody smaller and weaker than himself – Courtney. Later he knew somebody stronger could be seen as a threat, and made plans for that as well.

Still later in the game, Todd did not want to be seen as a threat to win it all. So he kept telling Amanda, Courtney, and Denise that he would lose in the end because of all the people he’d stabbed in the back. He actually felt he could win, but he sure wasn’t going to tell them that (unlike Denise, who did provide reasons why she shouldn’t be brought along).
clear pixel

The seventh rule, which advises against being lazy, was meaningless for Todd. So we’ll head straight to the portion that talks about the jury phase.

Todd did a masterful job here. Because he is such a student of the game, Todd knew that he had to be thinking about the jury far before he was going to have to face them. So some of the actions he took were done with this in mind.

For example, Todd told me he didn’t boot James earlier in part because he wanted to make James think he was helping him, so James might carry that feeling into the jury box with him. Maybe it worked, since James did indeed vote for Todd to win.

But more importantly, Todd knew exactly what he was going to say to the jury. He understood the necessity of making a good impression and saying what they need to hear. For example, he apologized without apologizing – saying that all of his personal relationships with them were real, but the strategy was just part of the game. This managed to encompass two main points of this rule.

He went even further in flattering Jean-Robert by talking about how great and how much of a threat he was. James and some of the other jurors laughed at how Todd shut Jean-Robert up, but it truly worked. Jean-Robert voted for Todd based on what he said!

We know that Jaime did as well. Indeed, she barely knew any of the three finalists, having been booted right after the merge. So what else could she base her vote on? Todd easily gave the best answers to her question, and probably the best answers overall.

I can’t end this article without pointing out one fact – that Todd really didn’t have much competition in terms of strategic play this season. Amanda did okay until her emotions overwhelmed her. Peih-Gee gave it a shot as well, but was perpetually in the minority group. Todd was the only one in a position to make it work.

But this shouldn’t detract too much from his win. Todd played an excellent game all around. He knew what he wanted to do, and he followed through with it. Yes, he could have been taken out before the final three. I would even say he should have been taken out before then. But he wasn’t, and we have to give him some credit for that. He didn’t just sit around and wait for things to happen around him – he made them happen.

Todd schemed, Todd plotted, Todd backstabbed. But he also put on a friendly front and made personal connections. At the same time, he knew the difference between what was personal and what was game, and never had trouble with that line. Combining all of these together explains why Todd won.


Ok, so my thoughts...

It's pretty obvious Russell did not play the same kind of game Todd did. And in my analysis of Russell's gameplay last week I pointed out that he had failed against several of Bloomberg's rules, primarily:

- the rule that says not to scheme and plot too much (Russell was viewed as shady and shifty)

- the rule that not to be too much of a threat (he made himself more of a threat every time he flaunted his hidden immunity idol)

- and he failed miserably at the rule that says to pretend to be nice (I don't think any further explanation is necessary on that one...LOL!)

Based on Bloomberg's guidelines for Survivor gameplay, Natalie played a nearly flawless game. Todd played a nearly flawless game. Russell did not. And that is why Russell lost.

Lexie_girl
Member

07-30-2004

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 2:40 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lexie_girl a private message Print Post    
As much as I loved Russell's game, when the F3 were together back at camp and he started hammering on Mick and Nat about how he expected the jury to vote for him, it turned me off just a little bit. I found it very uncomfortable to watch.

I don't care how many challenges someone wins. The jury has to like you. Parvati (who I couldn't stand in her first season, and intensely disliked in her second season even more) is a perfect example of playing a great social game. Whenever someone won a reward, they took Parvati. Parvati didn't miss too many meals out there. And while I don't remember her winning a lot of RC or IC, there had to be something very likeable about Parvati for the jury to give her the money, even though the cameras didn't show it.

Adven
Member

02-06-2001

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:20 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Adven a private message Print Post    
I would hope, too, that as a result of this season, that the message being sent to future contestants isn't that being bland and friendly and safe is the best/only way to win. It's the Russells and Boston Robs and Johnny Fairplays that make the show fun to watch.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
When did Russell call Natalie a wh***?

Hermione69
Member

07-24-2002

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:43 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hermione69 a private message Print Post    
I enjoyed the heck out of Boston Rob and Johnny Fairplay, but often had a hard time watching Russell. I'm not sure what the difference is except maybe I always felt that BR and JF were able to laugh at themselves, too. They had healthy senses of humor. I didn't have that impression of Russell. He made me uncomfortable. This is purely a personal reflection and has no bearing on the gameplay of these men.

ETA: Parvati, in the season she won, was the perfect example of someone who played the game well from both a strategic and social standpoint. She was awesome that season.

Bonbonlover
Member

07-13-2000

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:54 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bonbonlover a private message Print Post    
Jezze... nice post and very well analyzed. But from TVWatch.People.com Russell only watched he says he watched All-Stars:

Were you a fan of Survivor before going on it?
I had never been a fan of the show. I just never really watched it! I put my application in, never thought they would call me up, but then I watched the last all-stars, where Parvati won, then I fell in love with it.

Survivor: Samoa’s Russell Hantz: ‘I Am Really Good At This Game’

Keldogg
Member

08-12-2005

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:55 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Keldogg a private message Print Post    
What we as viewers have to remember is that we are watching a show that is highly edited. Basically cramming 3 days of events and conversations into a one hour show. What actions they show, what discussions they show, what confessionals they show is up to the editors. We don't know what we don't see. Just because we see Russell saying that everything that happened was because of him, does not mean it was true. He was just the most dynamic character, therefore the show was edited to show him the most.

Bonbonlover
Member

07-13-2000

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 3:57 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bonbonlover a private message Print Post    
Also I find it interesting that Russell got to keep his HII... (they should have let Erik Keep his. But I guess they only needed one to auction off at the end):

You held on to your third hidden immunity idol when you didn’t play it the last time you could. Where is it now?

Oh, it’s in my game room. It’s in my game room with a picture of me finding it and the rules for it and the idol just sitting there!

Colordeagua
Member

10-25-2003

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 4:35 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Colordeagua a private message Print Post    
Were you a fan of Survivor before going on it?
I had never been a fan of the show. I just never really watched it! I put my application in, never thought they would call me up, but then I watched the last all-stars, where Parvati won, then I fell in love with it.

From Bonbonlover's post and quote with link above.

A huge SURVIVOR fan, this self-made man built his business from scratch by working hard, speaking his mind and stepping on anyone who got in his way. Russell won’t apologize for his style of game play either saying, “I’m not going out there to make friends. I’m just not doing it. But everybody is going to think I’m their best friend, because I’m just such a lovable character.” Link


Make up your mind, Russell.

Jezzedout
Member

09-07-2006

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 4:38 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jezzedout a private message Print Post    
Hey Bon, good find on that comment from Russell.

So, then let's compare his game to Parvati in Micronesia. Here's Bloomberg's article, "Why Parvati Won." My comments follow.

Survivor: Micronesia – Why Parvati Won
by David Bloomberg -- 05/15/2008

Parvati came into Survivor: Micronesia with the goal of going all-out and winning the million dollars. And she did! She had to backstab her friend to do it, but she made the right moves at the right times. But surely knocking out Ozzy wasn’t only reason for her victory? Why did Parvati win?

It might seem a bit odd that I’m writing about why Parvati won before I discuss why Amanda lost, but you’ll see why when Amanda’s column comes out. In the meantime, we’ll focus on the new millionaire. So why did Parvati win?

Throughout the season, we’ve looked back at What Micronesia Survivors Should Have Learned to see why various contestants lost. Now it’s time to do the same type of evaluation, but this time on the winner.

It should be clear (though for some reason, there are some people out there who don’t seem to see it) that Parvati knew the importance of scheming and plotting, and used it to her great advantage. She formed an alliance from the very beginning of the game – using the obvious connection to her friend Ozzy and also linking up with Amanda and James. Then, when she saw that she was a target from the other Favorites, Parvati did what she needed to do in order to bring in Cirie (of course Cirie wanted in to the alliance, but she also had very specific demands, as described in my interview with her).

But Parvati didn’t just have a five person alliance. She co-created the final three suballiance of herself, Parvati, and Amanda. Then when she was shuffled to a tribe separately from most of her allies, she formed a new alliance with Natalie and Alexis.

All of this put Parvati in a key position throughout the game. Of course, we know she blindsided Ozzy to take out a huge threat, but Parvati did much more than that. Indeed, Parvati herself spelled it out when I interviewed her:

I think pulling together the women’s alliance was a huge move for me because I was right in the middle and both groups trusted me and would have been very loyal to me.

I agree completely with her. She had the five Favorites alliance, the all-women alliance, the three female Favorites suballiance, and the Natalie/Alexis suballiance – all going on at once! This worked out very well for her.

For example, when it looked like Amanda was going to get voted out, Parvati told Natalie and Alexis she couldn’t vote against Amanda, but she didn’t stop them from deciding to do it. If it had worked, she would have still been aligned with Natalie and Alexis (both of whom had told Cirie they wouldn’t turn on Parvati) for the final three. When it didn’t work, she still had her alliance with Amanda and Cirie. She was set either way!

But Parvati also managed to avoid scheming and plotting too much, thus doing well according to the second rule. Yes, she backstabbed Ozzy – but she waited until just the right moment to do so. And she properly kept her scheming secret, such as not telling James or Amanda, whom she knew would in turn let Ozzy know.

Even when it came to voting off Alexis and Natalie, Parvati did it without incurring their wrath. She promised them what she could, and she stuck to it, so they felt like she had upheld her end of the bargain and even voted for her to win.

Another area in which Parvati did well was the third rule, which says to be flexible. After all, if I didn’t just describe flexibility a few paragraphs ago, I don’t know what is! She set things up so she could go in different directions depending on what happened in the game – smart move.

This rule also notes, “You need to have your finger on the pulse of every member of your tribe.” Again, Parvati succeeded, when I asked her what she saw on TV that surprised her, she laughed and told me, “I knew pretty much everything that was going on all the time. I was very good about being everywhere at once.” That’s precisely what a good player needs to do. Each time, Parvati was the blindsider, never the blindsided.

Parvati did an excellent job in terms of the fourth rule as well. It says not to allow emotions to control you. So let’s talk about Ozzy. He never suspected – never imagined – Parvati would turn on him the way she did. Why? Because they were friends outside the game. Fine, I can give him that. But the fact is that it didn’t really matter to Parvati. She came to win the money, and she knew that if she allowed him to stick around, she would not have a chance. So when the iron was hot, she struck. It was a key play and one she never would have made if she had allowed her emotions to take control.

Similarly, Parvati formed a bond with Natalie. Yet when the time came, she cut her loose. Sure, she also had formed bonds with Cirie and Amanda, but it was also strategically the proper thing to do.

The fifth rule tells players to pretend to be nice. As much as it seemed some of Parvati’s fellow players thought she would be the most easily beaten because she had pissed off some of the jurors, it didn’t really seem to me like she angered too many people. Of course Ozzy and James held a grudge. But beyond that? She helped boot Alexis and Natalie without any bad feelings, and even still voted for her though Eliza didn’t particularly like her. I would say she could have been nicer towards Eliza, as Eliza could have easily gone the other way (she was obviously very conflicted). But that was about the only situation where I’d say she could have done noticeably better here.

Indeed, by being so nice to Amanda, and by keeping their relationship close, Parvati helped to ensure that Amanda would pick her for the final two. So while Parvati was willing to cut the bonds of friendship with Ozzy, she used such a bond with Amanda to help her progress in the game.

However, because Parvati had the reputation that she would not be well-received by the jury, that made her less of a threat at the end. When Amanda had to choose between Parvati and Cirie at the end, she went with Parvati. As I noted in Why Cirie Lost, “Amanda apparently had it in her head for a while that Parvati would be the easier one to beat. After all, Parvati had been the one who was really viewed as the double-crosser, the backstabber. Cirie said to me that Amanda ‘told me she wasn’t good speaking in front of people and she felt I was. When a lot of the scrambling was going on, everyone was talking about who they’d like to take. Erik said it would be him, me, and Parvati; Natalie said the same thing. In every threesome, Parvati’s name was mentioned. I knew there was no way Amanda would take the chance of sitting next to me in a final two.’”

We can blow by the seventh rule, which didn’t play a role here. So then the question becomes one of the jury phase. Amanda had been down this road before and failed, so she should have known what she needed to do. She didn’t, but we’ll get to that in her article. Parvati, on the other hand, had not made it to speak in front of the jury – but she still did a much better job of it.

First of all, Parvati seeded the jury with several people who were likely to vote for her. Her social relationships with Natalie and Alexis, along with following through on her promise to do what she could to help them get further, made it a virtual lock that they would vote for her at the end. The way she worked with Cirie on almost every move made her a likely vote as well.

The jury phase discussion notes, “Be ready to tell the jury why they should vote for you and not for the other person. Many Survivor winners have been decided by a single vote, which could have been changed during that final Tribal Council.” Eliza was just such a swing vote. Eliza had reason to not like Parvati, but Parvati’s statements at the final Tribal Council swung her over.

Parvati owned Tribal Council from the moment of the opening statements. She took credit for playing aggressively and beating her competition before they had a chance to beat her. She made bold power plays and helped guide a powerful group of women to some of the biggest moves in Survivor history.

Parvati’s ability to answer questions well showed up especially in response to Cirie. She admitted that Cirie played “a pretty brilliant game,” similar to her own, and further admitted that she couldn’t compete with a mother of three. In other words, she gave her due recognition while also patting herself on the back.

Overall, this was definitely a situation in which the better player of the final two won. Overall? Maybe not, as Cirie certainly could lay claim to that title. But Parvati was not far behind, if she was behind at all. And Parvati succeeded a bit more at the social game, which may have been the deciding factor.

Parvati played a multifaceted game. She played strategically while eliminating emotional decisions, but also played socially, thus building up emotional attachments. She took out the threats when they needed to be gone, and she set herself up in a prime position to give her an enormous amount of flexibility to go forward no matter which side came out ahead. She set herself up to make it to the end, and then did a fine job with the jury. When you add up everything that she did in Micronesia, it is easy to understand why Parvati won.


Russell's game doesn't compare to Parv either. Critical differences were that Parv had multiple suballiances leaving her much more protected than Russell's core four alliance. (Russell tried to make Galu alliances, but he was viewed as so shifty that nobody trusted him.) Parv also played a very strong social game, which Russell neglected completely. Last, and most importantly, Parv worked the jury during final tribal. She paid her due to the eliminated players, taking credit for her strategy and gameplay while also recognizing the strengths of her opponents. I'm not a huge Parvati fan, but she did in fact play a better game than Russell.

So I stand by my assertion that Russell's gameplay was flawed. And again, that is why Russell lost.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 4:40 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
I believe Russells actions and scheming were gameplay and he was masterful at it, where he lost me totally was with his one on ones with the camera (no survivors present) and she spoke about the other survivors in such a denigrating manner. That wasn't gameplay that was Russell, the real Russell. Every week I would hope that the survivors would get a clue and evict him, he almost came close but natalie saved him convinced others that they needed him so she also carried him along.

His bitterness goes to what sort of a person he is in real life and I am pretty confident that however he earned his money came at the expense of a number of people. He is the type that struck me as having no ethics whatsoever. I wonder if he would have been voted fan favorite if the vote was after the finale show and after the morning interviews.

I am happy that Russell lost, happy because it will give him a bit of his own medicine.

Aurora
Member

11-24-2006

Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 5:14 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Aurora a private message Print Post    
His bitterness goes to what sort of a person he is in real life and I am pretty confident that however he earned his money came at the expense of a number of people.



Maris, Russell admits this on his russellgotscrewed website. Click on the "About" box at the site.

"A relatively new SURVIVOR fan, this self-made man built his business from scratch by working hard, speaking his mind and stepping on anyone who got in his way."

http://www.russellgotscrewed.com/