Survivor 2010 came to a close last night as Sandra Diaz Twine was named sole Survivor of the All-Star’s season Heroes vs. Villains.
Despite the fact that millions of viewers are up in arms this morning over the fact that Sandra won, we think the title went to the person it was supposed to go to. Here’s why:
1. Any person who wins Survivor twice deserves the recognition and the title of sole survivor. Sandra should have been one of the biggest targets since she already won, so why was everyone letting her slip under the radar – again? If Russell is as good as he thinks he is, he should have taken out the big players early on in the game.
2. Riding coattails is a strategy. Anyone who’s ever watched (or played) Survivor, should know that riding the coattails of a key player is not only an acceptable strategy it’s one that’s proven most successful. Everyone remembers the Boston Rob/Amber fiasco that went down in the first Survivor All-Stars season, right? If you’ve studied the strategies, you should realize going in that it’s better to lay low than come out with your fists blazing and a huge bulls eye on your head.
3. If you don’t like the way the voting works, blame it on CBS. It’s not fair to knock Sandra for winning because you think the jury made the wrong choice. Sandra knew how the voting worked and studied the personalities of those who would ultimately end up on the jury. She also probably realized that if you piss anyone off (like Russell did) the wounds would still be fresh at the time of voting. If America had the final vote, Sandra may have played the game completely different. And, believe it or not, she still may have won.
If you want to argue any or both of the points above, feel free but we’re standing by our decision that Sandra Diaz Twine deserved to win Survivor 2010 – and Russell and Parvati very much deserved to lose.
Comments
Will
May 17th, 2010 - 6:40:52 AM
I think Russel assumed "Aint nobody gonna vote for this Puerto Rican girl over me because,I am a white male" He was soo wrong :) I am not playin the race card but lets be open and honest.
1
gapeach
May 17th, 2010 - 7:14:23 AM
Russell is a sore loser, he didn't win Survivor twice because of the way he chose to play the game, which obviously didn't win him any friends when it came time for the vote. I partly agree with you Will, I think Russell's arrogance and attitude towards people was his downfall in both seasons of Survivor and probably at home as well. I still can't get over that most people in the game didn't see through his BS and get rid of him early in the game.
2
Russ
May 17th, 2010 - 7:15:10 AM
Rusell is a victim of his own success and Human pride, he makes other players look so silly ,That they get angry and bitter, and they lack the humility to say "you were the better player , congratulations" and that is where the game is flawed , there is no justice in letting "the losers" of a game decide the winner! they were too stupid to stay in the game and too stupid to pick a winner
3
Tim
May 17th, 2010 - 8:34:09 AM
Messed up..........I know Russell is a snake but he played completely with in the so called rules.......Parvarti pretty much did the same.......Sandra did nothing............... got the votes by default. Here's my way of solving this type of situation. The jury rates each finalist in the 3 categories....Outwit.....Outlast....Outplay. Score each finalist after questioning them 1 thru 5 for each category. One(1) being the lowest score and five(5) the highest. Outwit: Strategies Outlast: Winning Immunity challenges, Alliances, Idol play Outplay: Social game Outwit Outlast Outplay Total Russell 5 4 3 12 Parvarti 4 5 4 13 *Winner Sandra 2 1 2 5 I gave Parvarti a slight edge because she did win immunity which saved her a few more times than Russell. Any way how can Russell win player of the season and lose the million? Rupert was the runner up in player of the season? This would force the jury to be realistic and honest. You must be the most/best complete player for that season to win. JMO Tim
4
sushigirl
May 17th, 2010 - 9:31:39 AM
The public forgets that we only 40 minutes of what went on every week. The players lived it 24/7. It is not about being a sore loser (jury). People forget that it is usually the whole package that wins. Russell may have played a strategic game (as well as bullying people around)but others faltered as well. Russell forgets that the social aspect is also a big part of the game - real life survivor would include that. It is more than just strategy. And he must realize that making all these alliances and then stabbing them in the back (when he got paranoid) wasn't going to win him votes. People forget that this is a game and that a game encompasses all the aspects of life. I mean, does Russell attend to his oil business with just strategy, threats, bullying and believing that he is the sole reason for his success (what about his staff?)? But then maybe he does. I'm not trying to rag on Russell but he needs to acknowledge that others did play a part on his road to the final 3. And he needs to be more gracious about losing. Nothing worse than a ranting sore loser.
5
Rishara
May 17th, 2010 - 9:49:07 AM
Will, it's not necessarily a racist thing with Russell--he thinks all women are stupid. Look at his comments from last season when he said all the girls were stupid and his puppets. He has way too much of a God complex.
6
michael
May 17th, 2010 - 1:31:01 PM
Let get it straight , Sandra did not win , Russell made her win.If Jerry didnt get voted out , Jerry would of won.The only strategy Sandra had , was TRYING to get RUSSELL out.Guess what , she failed.When you have by far the worst player winning Survivor not once but TWICE , you know something needs to be changed.Russell you got robbed not once but twice.I may not agree with your style, but you are on the top 3 players of all time hand down.I bet Mark Brunnett is looking how to change this so it make it fair, for the TRUE survivor to win.If he dont, TRUST me Survivor wont be around much longer.
7
Jon
May 17th, 2010 - 3:37:23 PM
Russell should get $1 million just for creating a CBS TV rating storm!! What would the viewership have been for a final 3 of Sandra, Jerri & Parvati???? Duh!!! Those 3 were hangers-on; that's not a strategy! That's ineptness! They waited for Russell to carry them into the final. Russell is almost a Charlie Manson-like charismatic figure that people tuned in to watch week after week! Sandra did nothing except be politically correct, hang on, make no waves, but had NO STRATEGY -- kind of reminds me of the current Obama Administration strategy??
8
Sue
May 17th, 2010 - 5:42:23 PM
I called that Sandra would win it all a few weeks ago. She DID play the game - laying low is a great strategy - and she was very funny! I love when she found the idol! and the sarcasm when she finally used it. I will admit that Russell definitely made the season interesting and captivating - only because I sat there most nights with my mouth dropped open NOT BELIEVING the stuff coming out of his mouth and anticipating what would be next. Who is he that everyone has to tell him what they are doing, who they're voting for, etc. He does have a GOD complex. He belittled everyone and is such a male-chauvinist pig -- no one is his little pet. I don't know why they were all scared to vote him off and gave him so much control. Someone please explain that to me! And, he's so dumb, he did the same exact strategy 2 times in a row. I thoroughly enjoyed last night. I loved looking at him sulk in anger while the votes were read off! Not a single vote!! Well deserved.
9
Patrick
May 17th, 2010 - 7:18:02 PM
Parvati should definitely have won. She got Russel to take her to the final 3 and she was definitely stronger in all ways (Strategy, Physically, Mentally) than Sandra. Sandra was my favorite to watch because she is just so awesome with her "I don't even care..." attitude. She was so funny and her sarcasm was great. I really liked her. But, to vote her the sole survivor is INSANE. Russel played and incredibly bad social game and his hubris cost him. Based on the tenants of the game... Outwit, Outplay, Outlast... Parvati should definitely have won.
10
survivor wanna bees
May 17th, 2010 - 7:34:57 PM
Too bad JT made such a critical error in judgement and that so many incredible players made such bad moves ie) duh Tyson. But in the end...did no one watch Russell work his psycho magic in the season prior? Why didn't anyone rally to get rid of that freak. Really hoping that we don't see Mr Creepy in any more episodes!!!
11
Happy viewer
May 18th, 2010 - 7:50:44 AM
What is all the fuss about? Remember that Survivor is a TV sensation ... a game of competition. There is as much luck involved as strategy. Many times the best athlete does not win. There are too many variables to assure any strategy will be successful. Cudos to Sandra for her win. Let's be happy for her good fortune, not critical.
12
Joan
May 18th, 2010 - 5:16:59 PM
too bad Rupert lost the favorite survivor vote.He did so much with his winnings last time.(unselfishly)
13
Adam
May 19th, 2010 - 9:03:32 PM
Russel was the only reason I watched the last 2 seasons. People like him make the game exciting, and coattail riding, while a strategy, is boring. I'd like to see survivor with 20 Russels, Boston Robs, and Parvati's.
14
bernice thompson
May 26th, 2010 - 7:50:33 PM
I don't think sandra should have won,I do think russell play the best game not that i agreed with everything he done,i only watched it because of russell he made it interseting,he should be given some credit for that......
15
David
June 7th, 2010 - 2:41:39 PM
I didn't watch the season because of Russell. He wasn't a ratings grabber for everyone. Non of us at work watched. Hope the show is cancelled now. Boring.....
16
Jim
June 8th, 2010 - 9:11:04 AM
Russell was fun to watch - no doubt about it. Over the years the jury has gone from respecting "anything goes" actions in the game tempered with who they had alliances with, to an all out attempt to "pay back" whoever they felt is the reason they got voted out, or a "morality judgement" about who should get the money. It will kill this game if it continues. Going to 3 finalists is the problem - Russell has a much better case to aurgue vs. Parvati alone - she did everything I did - and more if you count the double idol play (that Russell had nothing to do with). Sure his personality is the real issue - a bit of polish and better discussion with the jury would help. But the hero's final downfall was her action alone - not Russell's. He failed to bring that up. It would not matter with Sandra since she pulled so many of the votes.
17
Bob
October 19th, 2010 - 7:15:54 PM
Russell did not win the game because he did not play in a way which allowed him to win. He should have realized that with the way that he was playing the game he would not be able to win. Sandra played in a way which allowed her to win in the end and thus won. Even if Russell played in a way which impressed viewers and got great tv ratings he did not deserve to win. Does anyone want to see more money going to the arrogant sly big oil company executives anyways?
18