After watching all 37 seasons of American Survivor, and rewatching most of them, sometimes several times, I've finally given in to trying out Australian Survivor. And what can I say? I've reached the merge of 2016 and it made my top 5 pre-merge seasons in Survivor history. I hoped Australian Survivor would be good, but I had no idea in my wildest dreams that it would be this good. It truly just feels like another season of Survivor.
I feel like in order to watch this season "correctly" I need to make predictions and assess the castaways just as I would any other "new" season of Survivor. Below you'll find a castaway-by-castaway assessment dissecting who can win this game. First, a couple of notes: I'm basing almost all my assessments on the edit. I have heard that Australian Survivor is edited very similarly to American Survivor, but with some unique twists. That's all I have to go on. Without further ado, here's the assessment:
Top Contenders
Kate: Kate enters the merge with #1 odds for several reasons. First of all, there are only three members of the newest Vavau tribe and ever since the main (3 tribe to 2 tribe) swap the editorial focus has been on Vavau. Vavau losing every challenge, Vavau's strategy, Vavau's tribal bonds, so on. There has been unusually little focus on Saanapu. The focus has been Vavau's losing streak rather than Saanapu's winning streak. All this, plus Craig's unusually edited exit with the words "somebody on this tribe better win" all lead me to believe that one of the Vavauians will likely pull this off. So why Kate over Christie or Conner? Overall she has the most well-rounded and strongest "winner edit". The original Vavau tribe was on a giant winning streak, but despite winning, they were edited to be the goofballs that couldn't make fire and had bad camp life. They were likely edited this way to foreshadow the eventual downfall of Vavau, but it also painted their tribe members to be somewhat incapable, which is not what you want to see in a winner. The one person that was not painted in this light was Kate. She was seen as the positive energy among a group of debbie downers. The person that got the confessional when something good happened for the tribe but never when something bad happened. Other highlights of her edit include last couple episodes when there have been quotes of other players saying "Kate can win this whole game" or "Kate's a serious threat out here". Other plusses for her edit are lots of personal content and a good story arc. The only downside to her edit is that she's had incorrect foreshadowing several times, especially regarding Vavau's ability to win challenges. That's a red flag, but given that Australian Survivor editing is supposed to be a bit different than American Survivor editing, and also given that Nick Wilson (winner of David vs Goliath) had incorrect foreshadowing at times, I don't think it's enough to knock Kate off the #1 spot.
Christie: Christie was new Vavau so would also fit the bill for someone from new Vavau winning. She was old Aganoa which could be seen as a plus sense old Vavau was edited to be a trainwreck. Her edit is overall very favorable and I'm still intrigued by her early paranoia which got more airtime than it needed to. I think Christie is set for a deep run, especially since her edit picked up right as Phoebe was eliminated. If the ally of the "Anna Khait edit" ends up winning, the winner's edit usually picks up right as the "Anna Khait" is eliminated (think Michele in Kaoh Rong). Christie has had enough personal content, a large enough story arc, and enough gameplay focus to be a top contender. The only things that knock her a peg below Kate are a few very subtle negative tones in her edit, and some continued comments that she's "too paranoid" (though that could just be adding to her story arc).
Conner: It was a bit tough deciding whether to rank Christie or Conner higher, but I ultimately chose to rank Christie higher since her edit has grown throughout the pre-merge, whereas Conner started out strong and then dropped off a bit. That said, he's an old Saanapu, new Vavau and throughout the season has had a very winner-esque edit (his premiere was probably the strongest of anyone left in the game). He's had the personal content, he has a story arc, he has good relationships (his strongest being with Kate). There was also the quote this past episode of Kate and Conner wanting to go to the end together. Could that be foreshadowing of both of them in the FTC? Quite possibly. Conner's edit has felt a bit "light" and "lacking" compared to Kate and Christie but if it picks up at the merge Conner could be as likely as anyone to win.
Contenders
Flick: If Flick was new Vavau she may be a top contender, but sense I believe the winner comes from new Vavau, I have to put her at the top of the next group instead. As I said, new Saanapu has been weirdly ignored in the edit, but when they do show new Saanapu, Flick is the lead narrator and it's clear that the editors don't want us to forget her. She was in control of old Saanapu and seems to be the lead strategist on new Saanapu. Numbers wise, she appears to enter the merge in one of the strongest positions. Her edit seems "off" compared to the three new Vavau tribe members (less personal content etc) but like Conner, if her edit picks up at the merge, and if the new Vavau storyline fades, Flick could easily become the top contender.
Lee: Lee had a fantastic edit when he was on Aganoa with plenty of personal content and successful strategy. He got concerningly few confessionals on new Saanapu but the editors did go out of their way to show him fishing, show his relationship with Sam, etc. It's clear that Lee is a major part of this season, and he's another one whose edit could pick up at the merge and head towards a win.
Nick: Nick is a very interesting one. I haven't counted confessionals, but it wouldn't surprise me if he has the most of anyone entering the merge. His edit has been undeniably huge, but has it been a winner edit? Hard to say. He's clearly been edited as the Tony Vlachos/Joe Mena overplaying but entertaining villain edit. I see him more as a Joe -- someone whose overplaying will eventually get the best of them, probably mid-post-merge, but there's still the chance that he is a Tony that ends up pulling it all off. If he was to win, his edit needs to actually slow down a bit, his play needs to become more methodical and less emotional, and he also needs a bit more personal content and a few more stronger bonds.
Jenna Louise: Although Jenna Louise is by no means a villain, her edit is somewhat similar to Nick's in that it has been very large, but not necessarily a winner edit. I feel that I need to at least consider her as a contender due to the size of her edit alone, and maybe in Australian Survivor, the winner will get less personal content, or the personal content will start later in the season. That said, her edit has been nearly strictly strategic, and a winner generally has more than that. Her edit was more of an Anna Khait than a winner, and I'm a bit surprised she's still her TBH. Where do I see her edit going? She could be the runner up, the merge boot, the winner, or one of the last boots, in that order of likelihood.
Long Shots
Sam: Sam has had a relatively large edit, but I feel it's been primarily circumstantial, in that he's only been shown when he's relative to a larger story (for example, the first swap that he was a part of). He lacks much personal content and hasn't made any or at least many strategic moves. The one thing that keeps him at the top of the long shots group is his bromance with Lee which has gotten a lot of focus, and Sam has been the main one talking about the bromance in confessionals.
Brooke: Brooke would be a bigger contender if her edit had kicked off sooner. She's shown to be strategic and she's had at least a little bit of personal content, but only in the last four or five episodes. Before that, zilch, notta, nothing. With Australian Survivor having 12 extra episodes, maybe a winner edit wouldn't kick off until late-pre-merge, but I have a heard time believing that the winner would be so heavily ignored for so long. Another strike against Brooke is that she's tight with Flick, but has continually been shown as the "second wheel" in that alliance, rather than an equal, never a good sign for a winner.
El: El is the longest shot of the long shots, and is not lower, simply because there's not much bad to say about her. There's also not much good to say about her. She's been... there. She's clearly been second to Lee, she hasn't had much airtime, I mean, what can I say? Her edit needs to pick up N-O-W for her to have any shot. Realistically, her best hope is probably for an Alison Raybould-type edit-spike at the merge and to become a significant part of the game before her eventual, inevitable vote-out.
Nearly out of contention
Matt: Matt winning would be so odd I don't even know what to say. The only reason he's not in the bottom two in terms of chances is how large his edit has been. In terms of number of confessionals, he should be a winner contender. Except for his dominance in puzzles, he's been seen as either a goofball or a whiny brat, whether it's his jealousy of Lee for taking his "Charlie's angels" away from him, or his stupid idea to free the chickens. In American Survivor, I'd probably consider him out of contention, but this is Australian Survivor, and if they want to give us the weirdest winner edit in Survivor history, well maybe, just maybe, they will. But I don't think so.
Kylie: Kylie's first few episodes keep her off the bottom. She started out strong with personal content, an idol find, plenty of positive tone, you name it. But from the time she wasted her idol on she's been edited as someone with a terrible social game that fundamentally does not seem to know how to play Survivor. That's the last way you want to enter the merge, and unfortunately, I don't see a way for her to turn it around. Prove me wrong Kylie.
Out of Contention
Sue: Sue won't win. Let's just settle that right now. She had virtually no air time until Brooke took her to Saanapu, and even then, way less than I would expect she would have had being part of such a unique twist. She has been perceived as a goat that has very little strategic ability and is just along for the ride. Dare I say it, she makes Kylie look like a Survivor genius. Sue will probably be the ultra-forgettable mid-post-merge boot. If she makes it to the finale I'll be floored.
Well, there we have it! I can't wait to see how accurate my predictions are and how the rest of this awesome season plays out.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Friday, January 11, 2019
Survivor: Blood vs Water - strategic credit
I recently rewatched Survivor: Blood vs Water and decided to do something a bit different during my rewatch. I thought I'd give one or two players "credit" for each vote of the season. If one player nearly singlehandedly made the vote happen (such as Aras with the first Laura M. vote), I give that one person full credit. If more than one person made the vote happen, I give full credit to the player that had the most influence, and half credit to the player that was second most important in making the vote happen. Full credit = 2 points, half credit = 1 point.
I recognize that the strategic game is only one of three aspects of Survivor, and that there's strategy beyond just votes, but this was something fun to do that at least gives some insight as to how hard each player played. Read on to find out who was behind the vote outs of Blood vs Water! *Note: the first two vote offs (Candice and Laura B.) are not included here as each player was voting on their own merit only.
Marissa: Brad Culpepper (full credit) and John Cody (half credit) -- There is no denying the fact that Brad Culpepper was behind most of the early-game strategy on Tadhana. He was the leader of the men's alliance and most of the guys did what he said. I debated only giving him credit for this move, but he did consult John who is the first person that threw out Marissa's name (though I'm almost positive that Brad would have named her about two seconds later).
Rachel: Vytas Baskauskas (full credit) and Brad Culpepper (half credit) -- Vytas and Brad were both instrumental with this one so I struggled with who to give full credit but it was pretty clearly Vytas that came up with the idea of voting someone off who's loved one might switch, so I went with him. After he came up with that idea and named Rachel, Brad contacted Hayden and Caleb to lock in the votes so he more than earned his half credit.
John: Brad Culpepper (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- The John vote was primarily Brad's doing but I felt Ciera deserved a half credit because earlier in the episode, she was the first person to name John as a smart player to vote for, and who knows how much that influenced Brad's later decision to oust John.
Brad: Caleb Bankston (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- I contemplated only giving Caleb credit for this one as he is the one that flipped the script and saved Ciera. That said, it was clear at tribal that Caleb "did not want Ciera to go home" and that that was part of his reason for flipping. Earlier in the episode we had seen Ciera making social connections to Caleb, and who knows how much influence those conversations had on Caleb's decision making, so I felt that Ciera earned half credit.
Laura M. #1: Aras Baskauskas (full credit) -- And now we come to the first vote that was orchestrated single-handedly. Aras played Laura M. like a fiddle, she said that she trusted him "completely". But at that point he was still aligned with Tyson's alliance, and came up with the brilliant plan to oust Laura, due to her challenge strength, he hoped that she could beat Culpepper at Redemption who would be a threat at the merge. Aras' plan worked to perfection and everyone voted against Laura M.
Kat: Monica Culpepper (full credit) and Tina Wesson (half credit) -- In a way Kat got herself voted out. She poorly orchestrated a plan to oust Monica but when Tina told that to Monica, Monica instead orchestrated the elimination of Kat. Tina started the ball rolling by telling Monica but then Monica made the vote happen.
Laura B: Tina Wesson (full credit) and Monica Culpepper (half credit) -- To be perfectly honest, Laura B pretty much did herself in by telling Vytas he was going. But the plan was to vote out Vytas until Laura B did that, and Tina and Monica were the people that made the vote switch. It was hard to decide which one of them should get full credit. I ended up giving it to Tina because she's the one that told Vytas to vote Laura B, making her look a little bit more in control of the vote than Monica.
Aras: Tyson Apostol (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- Once the merge hit, Tyson emerged from his shell and set out to play one of the most dominant post-merge games Survivor has ever seen. Starting with this Aras vote, his name was on every vote (except the rock draw) as either full or half credit. Tyson knew Aras was a threat and that he needed to get him out, and he made it happen. Ciera definitely deserves half credit here as she got her and her mom's votes with the singles rather than the couples.
Vytas: Laura Morett (full credit) and Tyson Apostol (half credit) -- Throughout the season Laura M. was amazing physically and decent socially, but not super strong strategically. This was her one big move. She recognized and convinced the entire alliance that Vytas should go before Tina/Katie. Tyson helped spread the word to Gervase and Monica to make sure they where on board, but Laura took the lead on this one.
Tina #1: Tyson Apostol (full credit) -- This was probably the most straightforward vote of the season, and that's part of the reason that it only took one person to make it happen. Katie and Tina were on the outs and Katie had the immunity necklace so that left one person to vote for. Tyson told everyone "Tina" and the deal was done.
Laura M. #2: Tyson Apostol (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- This is an interesting one, because at face value, it was Tyson that made this move happen (in fact, after the immunity challenge Ciera was campaigning to get Katie out briefly, and Tyson convinced her to go for her mom). Therefore Tyson gets full credit for the move. Ciera more than earned her half credit though as she was willing to vote out her mom (even before Tyson mentioned it), and when she did, it was one of the most emotionally tough votes ever cast in Survivor history. The interesting part of this one is that, for that reason, had Tyson and Ciera both made FTC, I think the jury would have given Ciera full credit for the move, even though Tyson really deserved it. This is a good example of my "system" being entirely centered around strategic credit, but the social game is just as important, if not more, and Ciera truly excelled socially.
Caleb: Ciera Eastin (full credit) and Tyson Apostol (half credit) -- This was one of the more dynamic votes of the season as at least three names were being thrown around, an idol was played, and I don't think anyone felt safe. It's also one that both Ciera and Tyson deserve a lot of credit for. In the end I give Ciera the credit, simply because she had the opportunity to go with Hayden/Caleb/Katie and not only chose not to, but told Tyson about their plan, and named Caleb for elimination. She was in control of that vote, Tyson just helped round up the troops to ensure it happened.
Katie (rock draw): Ciera Eastin (full credit) and Hayden Moss (half credit) -- This was not only the most dynamic vote of the season, but is up there in terms of all-time great tribals. Ciera entered tribal tight with Tyson/Monica/Gervase but Hayden did a brilliant job convincing her she was #4 (and Gervase helped Hayden's case by repeatedly calling her #4 at tribal). Then, Ciera forced the first modern rock draw in Survivor history. Unfortunately for her and Hayden, their ally Katie drew the wrong rock, but they did what they could to make a Big. Move. and I respect the hell out of that. To be perfectly honest, both Hayden and Ciera deserve full credit for this move, but I give full credit to Ciera for two reasons: first off, Hayden had nothing to lose, Ciera had everything. You can talk all day long, but if Hayden's hand was going in that bag of rocks, would he have made the move? Who knows. Not many people in Survivor history have. Ciera not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. Also, I do think that Gervase blowing it at tribal was almost, or just as influential on Ciera as Hayden's speech was, which might make Hayden's influence a little less important.
Hayden: Tyson Apostol (full credit) and Monica Culpepper (half credit) -- This was actually one of the toughest votes of the season to give credit for. Tyson and Gervase really only had one option on who to vote for since Ciera had immunity but I still got the sense that Gervase would do whatever Tyson wanted him to, so I give him credit for sticking with his alliance. I also give Monica half credit since Ciera and Hayden tried their best to flip her, but she stuck with the guys. One thing I want to point out here is that you can get strategic credit for making a move, even if it's not necessarily the best move for your game. I do believe that at this point in the game, Monica was in a bit of a lose-lose spot. She was never going to beat Tyson. She was never going to beat Ciera. That said, I think her best bet was to flip and by doing so "make a move", and hope that Laura or Tina would reenter the game and that she could vote out Ciera and sit next to that person and Hayden at FTC. Even then I don't know if she'd win, Hayden had a pretty darn good game going as did Laura M., but it was probably her best chance.
Ciera: Gervase Peterson (full credit) and Tyson Apostol (half credit) -- Tyson made an interesting decision at the F5 to let Gervase and Monica decide who to vote for. Not sure if I agree with that move or not, but it was quickly clear that Gervase wanted Ciera out (IMO this was the better move) and Monica wanted Tina out. Gervase got his way so clearly he deserves full credit. I contemplated not giving anyone half credit, but especially since Gervase didn't mention the Ciera vote as a big move of his at FTC, I think that off camera Tyson did help convince Monica that Ciera was the right F5 boot.
Tina #2: Tyson Apostol (full credit) -- Despite Tina's best efforts to flip Monica and force fire, the final vote really was straightforward once Tyson won final immunity. He reassured Gervase and Monica that the best Final 3 was the three of them and the deal was done.
TO RECAP, each player's game:
Tyson Apostol (13 points) -- There's a reason that Tyson is the eighth best in my winner rankings. His Blood vs Water strategic game was straight up fantastic. He controlled nearly every vote post-merge. He found two idols. He won the last two immunity challenges. He convinced Gerv and Monica to be his "goats". The social game was his biggest flaw, but with the exception of Vytas, it didn't matter, especially after an exceptionally good FTC.
Ciera Eastin (8 points) -- Stay tuned for an article as to why I believe Ciera is the second best player to never win, but first let me recap her Blood vs Water game here: she played so well this season. Far and away, the second best player of the season. The question is would she have beaten Tyson? I think so. Very very likely. And her social game is why. Yes, her strategic game was great (the Laura M vote and the rock draw being her two biggest of many moves) but so was Tyson's, but she had so many more friends on the jury than Tyson. And true friends, not just people that liked her. And there's no question that she would have beaten anyone but Tyson. I respect the hell out of Ciera for what she did at the F6 tribal. It was risky, but you gotta play to win. She got a bit of bad luck that night, and I just would have loved to see what would have happened had Tyson drawn the white rock. I bet Ciera would be our winner.
Brad Culpepper (5 points) -- Giving credit only where it's due, Tyson and Ciera were the two strategic stars of Blood vs Water. And that becomes obvious when the person with the third most points was one of the early season boots. Culpepper played hard, but I would argue, way too hard. He was pretty poor socially, and even though he's a strong guy, he couldn't win a challenge for his tribe. Just because you have a lot of points, doesn't mean you're a super smart player. Culpepper is a good example of that.
Monica Culpepper (4 points) -- Monica not only lasted longer than Brad in Blood vs Water but also played a whole lot better (despite receiving one less strategic point). Post-swap she made a couple good moves but unfortunately for her she became complacent post-merge in the Tyson alliance and failed to make a big move when she could have. She won three immunity challenges and her social game was average, not bad as it is made out to be. Monica's game can best be summarized as one that had a lot of potential, but never really took off.
Tina Wesson (3 points) -- Tina is an interesting one. Like Monica, her only real good moves were post-swap but her social game was one of the best of the season, and physically she was quite good as she proved on Redemption Island. Would she have beaten Tyson? I say no, Tyson dominated, but some say yes, just because of her social game. Tina is a good example of a player whose entire game is not demonstrated on this type of credit list.
Vytas Baskauskas (2 points) -- Vytas made one big move early on with the Rachel vote. Other than that he never really took off strategically, but like Tina, he had a great social game (the way he handled himself on the post-swap Galang tribe is an excellent example). Tyson and his gang got the best of Vytas which is a real shame because I feel he had more game in him.
Aras Baskauskas (2 points) -- Aras is an interesting one. He had a really good game going socially, strategically, and physically. He only went to tribal once pre-merge but orchestrated the vote that night. It seems as if he may have overplayed a bit, as Tyson recognized him as a strategic threat and promptly voted him out at the merge. If Tyson and no-one else had recognized him as said threat, I think Aras would have had a deep run and could have possibly won again.
Caleb Bankston (2 points) -- Caleb was definitely an underrated player, partly due to the fact that he was under-edited. His only successful strategic move was the big Brad Culpepper blindside, but that was a huge one that took some guts to pull off. I have mad respect for that move. He also tried to make a move at the F7, but ultimately it's the move that backfired on him. I think he'd be a great player in a Second Chance type season, but tragically that will never happen.
Gervase Peterson (2 points) -- With no disrespect meant, Gervase played a pretty poor game on all levels. The Ciera blindside was his one keystone move, but for all the other votes he simply followed Tyson. You could call him a goat. Socially he wasn't much better and although he won one individual challenge, so did everyone in the F5 and the two people he was next to at FTC both won more than one. So yes, I hate to say it, but he didn't deserve any votes at FTC.
Laura Morett (2 points) -- In both her seasons, Laura took a backseat strategically while playing excellent physical and decent social games, making her lack of points somewhat misleading of her game overall. She did take the lead on the Vytas vote and that was her one big strategic move.
John Cody (1 point) -- John is a player that never really had a chance to take off as he was an early Brad victim. If he'd stuck around I think he could have become quite a good strategic player.
Hayden Moss (1 point) -- If Brad is the example of a player that can become incredibly "overrated" by a ranking like this, Hayden is the player that becomes drastically "underrated". 1 point is not a good overview of Hayden's game. Unfortunately for him, he played from a minority position for much of the game, which limited his ability to get credit for moves, but he was trying everything he could throughout the game and never took his eye off the prize. He was instrumental at the rock draw tribal, and I wish my system allowed him to get more than 1 point for that. His social game was on point and he's no slouch physically. This guy needs to come back to Survivor and try his hand again, he's a darn good player.
Candice Cody, Rupert Boneham, Marissa Peterson, Rachel Fougler, Colton Cumbie, Kat Edorson, Laura Boneham, Katie Collins (0 points) -- With the exception of Katie, all these players were pre-merge boots who either never really had the chance to play, quit, or made dumb moves at one of their first tribals, resulting in their elimination. Katie, well, what can I say. She made it deep in the game but just never really "played" (except for her one challenge win). She was drug along until she picked the wrong rock.
I recognize that the strategic game is only one of three aspects of Survivor, and that there's strategy beyond just votes, but this was something fun to do that at least gives some insight as to how hard each player played. Read on to find out who was behind the vote outs of Blood vs Water! *Note: the first two vote offs (Candice and Laura B.) are not included here as each player was voting on their own merit only.
Marissa: Brad Culpepper (full credit) and John Cody (half credit) -- There is no denying the fact that Brad Culpepper was behind most of the early-game strategy on Tadhana. He was the leader of the men's alliance and most of the guys did what he said. I debated only giving him credit for this move, but he did consult John who is the first person that threw out Marissa's name (though I'm almost positive that Brad would have named her about two seconds later).
Rachel: Vytas Baskauskas (full credit) and Brad Culpepper (half credit) -- Vytas and Brad were both instrumental with this one so I struggled with who to give full credit but it was pretty clearly Vytas that came up with the idea of voting someone off who's loved one might switch, so I went with him. After he came up with that idea and named Rachel, Brad contacted Hayden and Caleb to lock in the votes so he more than earned his half credit.
John: Brad Culpepper (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- The John vote was primarily Brad's doing but I felt Ciera deserved a half credit because earlier in the episode, she was the first person to name John as a smart player to vote for, and who knows how much that influenced Brad's later decision to oust John.
Brad: Caleb Bankston (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- I contemplated only giving Caleb credit for this one as he is the one that flipped the script and saved Ciera. That said, it was clear at tribal that Caleb "did not want Ciera to go home" and that that was part of his reason for flipping. Earlier in the episode we had seen Ciera making social connections to Caleb, and who knows how much influence those conversations had on Caleb's decision making, so I felt that Ciera earned half credit.
Laura M. #1: Aras Baskauskas (full credit) -- And now we come to the first vote that was orchestrated single-handedly. Aras played Laura M. like a fiddle, she said that she trusted him "completely". But at that point he was still aligned with Tyson's alliance, and came up with the brilliant plan to oust Laura, due to her challenge strength, he hoped that she could beat Culpepper at Redemption who would be a threat at the merge. Aras' plan worked to perfection and everyone voted against Laura M.
Kat: Monica Culpepper (full credit) and Tina Wesson (half credit) -- In a way Kat got herself voted out. She poorly orchestrated a plan to oust Monica but when Tina told that to Monica, Monica instead orchestrated the elimination of Kat. Tina started the ball rolling by telling Monica but then Monica made the vote happen.
Laura B: Tina Wesson (full credit) and Monica Culpepper (half credit) -- To be perfectly honest, Laura B pretty much did herself in by telling Vytas he was going. But the plan was to vote out Vytas until Laura B did that, and Tina and Monica were the people that made the vote switch. It was hard to decide which one of them should get full credit. I ended up giving it to Tina because she's the one that told Vytas to vote Laura B, making her look a little bit more in control of the vote than Monica.
Aras: Tyson Apostol (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- Once the merge hit, Tyson emerged from his shell and set out to play one of the most dominant post-merge games Survivor has ever seen. Starting with this Aras vote, his name was on every vote (except the rock draw) as either full or half credit. Tyson knew Aras was a threat and that he needed to get him out, and he made it happen. Ciera definitely deserves half credit here as she got her and her mom's votes with the singles rather than the couples.
Vytas: Laura Morett (full credit) and Tyson Apostol (half credit) -- Throughout the season Laura M. was amazing physically and decent socially, but not super strong strategically. This was her one big move. She recognized and convinced the entire alliance that Vytas should go before Tina/Katie. Tyson helped spread the word to Gervase and Monica to make sure they where on board, but Laura took the lead on this one.
Tina #1: Tyson Apostol (full credit) -- This was probably the most straightforward vote of the season, and that's part of the reason that it only took one person to make it happen. Katie and Tina were on the outs and Katie had the immunity necklace so that left one person to vote for. Tyson told everyone "Tina" and the deal was done.
Laura M. #2: Tyson Apostol (full credit) and Ciera Eastin (half credit) -- This is an interesting one, because at face value, it was Tyson that made this move happen (in fact, after the immunity challenge Ciera was campaigning to get Katie out briefly, and Tyson convinced her to go for her mom). Therefore Tyson gets full credit for the move. Ciera more than earned her half credit though as she was willing to vote out her mom (even before Tyson mentioned it), and when she did, it was one of the most emotionally tough votes ever cast in Survivor history. The interesting part of this one is that, for that reason, had Tyson and Ciera both made FTC, I think the jury would have given Ciera full credit for the move, even though Tyson really deserved it. This is a good example of my "system" being entirely centered around strategic credit, but the social game is just as important, if not more, and Ciera truly excelled socially.
Caleb: Ciera Eastin (full credit) and Tyson Apostol (half credit) -- This was one of the more dynamic votes of the season as at least three names were being thrown around, an idol was played, and I don't think anyone felt safe. It's also one that both Ciera and Tyson deserve a lot of credit for. In the end I give Ciera the credit, simply because she had the opportunity to go with Hayden/Caleb/Katie and not only chose not to, but told Tyson about their plan, and named Caleb for elimination. She was in control of that vote, Tyson just helped round up the troops to ensure it happened.
Katie (rock draw): Ciera Eastin (full credit) and Hayden Moss (half credit) -- This was not only the most dynamic vote of the season, but is up there in terms of all-time great tribals. Ciera entered tribal tight with Tyson/Monica/Gervase but Hayden did a brilliant job convincing her she was #4 (and Gervase helped Hayden's case by repeatedly calling her #4 at tribal). Then, Ciera forced the first modern rock draw in Survivor history. Unfortunately for her and Hayden, their ally Katie drew the wrong rock, but they did what they could to make a Big. Move. and I respect the hell out of that. To be perfectly honest, both Hayden and Ciera deserve full credit for this move, but I give full credit to Ciera for two reasons: first off, Hayden had nothing to lose, Ciera had everything. You can talk all day long, but if Hayden's hand was going in that bag of rocks, would he have made the move? Who knows. Not many people in Survivor history have. Ciera not only talked the talk, but walked the walk. Also, I do think that Gervase blowing it at tribal was almost, or just as influential on Ciera as Hayden's speech was, which might make Hayden's influence a little less important.
Hayden: Tyson Apostol (full credit) and Monica Culpepper (half credit) -- This was actually one of the toughest votes of the season to give credit for. Tyson and Gervase really only had one option on who to vote for since Ciera had immunity but I still got the sense that Gervase would do whatever Tyson wanted him to, so I give him credit for sticking with his alliance. I also give Monica half credit since Ciera and Hayden tried their best to flip her, but she stuck with the guys. One thing I want to point out here is that you can get strategic credit for making a move, even if it's not necessarily the best move for your game. I do believe that at this point in the game, Monica was in a bit of a lose-lose spot. She was never going to beat Tyson. She was never going to beat Ciera. That said, I think her best bet was to flip and by doing so "make a move", and hope that Laura or Tina would reenter the game and that she could vote out Ciera and sit next to that person and Hayden at FTC. Even then I don't know if she'd win, Hayden had a pretty darn good game going as did Laura M., but it was probably her best chance.
Ciera: Gervase Peterson (full credit) and Tyson Apostol (half credit) -- Tyson made an interesting decision at the F5 to let Gervase and Monica decide who to vote for. Not sure if I agree with that move or not, but it was quickly clear that Gervase wanted Ciera out (IMO this was the better move) and Monica wanted Tina out. Gervase got his way so clearly he deserves full credit. I contemplated not giving anyone half credit, but especially since Gervase didn't mention the Ciera vote as a big move of his at FTC, I think that off camera Tyson did help convince Monica that Ciera was the right F5 boot.
Tina #2: Tyson Apostol (full credit) -- Despite Tina's best efforts to flip Monica and force fire, the final vote really was straightforward once Tyson won final immunity. He reassured Gervase and Monica that the best Final 3 was the three of them and the deal was done.
TO RECAP, each player's game:
Tyson Apostol (13 points) -- There's a reason that Tyson is the eighth best in my winner rankings. His Blood vs Water strategic game was straight up fantastic. He controlled nearly every vote post-merge. He found two idols. He won the last two immunity challenges. He convinced Gerv and Monica to be his "goats". The social game was his biggest flaw, but with the exception of Vytas, it didn't matter, especially after an exceptionally good FTC.
Ciera Eastin (8 points) -- Stay tuned for an article as to why I believe Ciera is the second best player to never win, but first let me recap her Blood vs Water game here: she played so well this season. Far and away, the second best player of the season. The question is would she have beaten Tyson? I think so. Very very likely. And her social game is why. Yes, her strategic game was great (the Laura M vote and the rock draw being her two biggest of many moves) but so was Tyson's, but she had so many more friends on the jury than Tyson. And true friends, not just people that liked her. And there's no question that she would have beaten anyone but Tyson. I respect the hell out of Ciera for what she did at the F6 tribal. It was risky, but you gotta play to win. She got a bit of bad luck that night, and I just would have loved to see what would have happened had Tyson drawn the white rock. I bet Ciera would be our winner.
Brad Culpepper (5 points) -- Giving credit only where it's due, Tyson and Ciera were the two strategic stars of Blood vs Water. And that becomes obvious when the person with the third most points was one of the early season boots. Culpepper played hard, but I would argue, way too hard. He was pretty poor socially, and even though he's a strong guy, he couldn't win a challenge for his tribe. Just because you have a lot of points, doesn't mean you're a super smart player. Culpepper is a good example of that.
Monica Culpepper (4 points) -- Monica not only lasted longer than Brad in Blood vs Water but also played a whole lot better (despite receiving one less strategic point). Post-swap she made a couple good moves but unfortunately for her she became complacent post-merge in the Tyson alliance and failed to make a big move when she could have. She won three immunity challenges and her social game was average, not bad as it is made out to be. Monica's game can best be summarized as one that had a lot of potential, but never really took off.
Tina Wesson (3 points) -- Tina is an interesting one. Like Monica, her only real good moves were post-swap but her social game was one of the best of the season, and physically she was quite good as she proved on Redemption Island. Would she have beaten Tyson? I say no, Tyson dominated, but some say yes, just because of her social game. Tina is a good example of a player whose entire game is not demonstrated on this type of credit list.
Vytas Baskauskas (2 points) -- Vytas made one big move early on with the Rachel vote. Other than that he never really took off strategically, but like Tina, he had a great social game (the way he handled himself on the post-swap Galang tribe is an excellent example). Tyson and his gang got the best of Vytas which is a real shame because I feel he had more game in him.
Aras Baskauskas (2 points) -- Aras is an interesting one. He had a really good game going socially, strategically, and physically. He only went to tribal once pre-merge but orchestrated the vote that night. It seems as if he may have overplayed a bit, as Tyson recognized him as a strategic threat and promptly voted him out at the merge. If Tyson and no-one else had recognized him as said threat, I think Aras would have had a deep run and could have possibly won again.
Caleb Bankston (2 points) -- Caleb was definitely an underrated player, partly due to the fact that he was under-edited. His only successful strategic move was the big Brad Culpepper blindside, but that was a huge one that took some guts to pull off. I have mad respect for that move. He also tried to make a move at the F7, but ultimately it's the move that backfired on him. I think he'd be a great player in a Second Chance type season, but tragically that will never happen.
Gervase Peterson (2 points) -- With no disrespect meant, Gervase played a pretty poor game on all levels. The Ciera blindside was his one keystone move, but for all the other votes he simply followed Tyson. You could call him a goat. Socially he wasn't much better and although he won one individual challenge, so did everyone in the F5 and the two people he was next to at FTC both won more than one. So yes, I hate to say it, but he didn't deserve any votes at FTC.
Laura Morett (2 points) -- In both her seasons, Laura took a backseat strategically while playing excellent physical and decent social games, making her lack of points somewhat misleading of her game overall. She did take the lead on the Vytas vote and that was her one big strategic move.
John Cody (1 point) -- John is a player that never really had a chance to take off as he was an early Brad victim. If he'd stuck around I think he could have become quite a good strategic player.
Hayden Moss (1 point) -- If Brad is the example of a player that can become incredibly "overrated" by a ranking like this, Hayden is the player that becomes drastically "underrated". 1 point is not a good overview of Hayden's game. Unfortunately for him, he played from a minority position for much of the game, which limited his ability to get credit for moves, but he was trying everything he could throughout the game and never took his eye off the prize. He was instrumental at the rock draw tribal, and I wish my system allowed him to get more than 1 point for that. His social game was on point and he's no slouch physically. This guy needs to come back to Survivor and try his hand again, he's a darn good player.
Candice Cody, Rupert Boneham, Marissa Peterson, Rachel Fougler, Colton Cumbie, Kat Edorson, Laura Boneham, Katie Collins (0 points) -- With the exception of Katie, all these players were pre-merge boots who either never really had the chance to play, quit, or made dumb moves at one of their first tribals, resulting in their elimination. Katie, well, what can I say. She made it deep in the game but just never really "played" (except for her one challenge win). She was drug along until she picked the wrong rock.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Top 15 Non-Winners
It's no secret that many of the show's best players are winners. It only makes sense, right? Well, yes it does, but there are also those players who played so well that some argue they should have won.
Before I dive into my 15 best players to never win, I want to make it clear that I am judging players on their entire Survivor careers, not just a single game. For example, someone like Lex Van den Berg might have played one of the 15 best non-winning single games in Africa but his All Stars game loses him a spot on this list. Without further ado, here we go:
#15 David Wright (Survivor: Millennials vs Gen X) -- David is one of those who could be higher up if this was a ranking of single games, and I admit that creating the list the way I am makes it a bit biased towards multi-time players, simply because they've had more of a chance to prove themselves. That said, 15th is no small feat and David absolutely earned this spot. He was one challenge away from a guaranteed win and with the new F4 format, he may have gotten it. I can't wait to see how he fares in Edge of Extinction.
#14 Russell Hantz (Survivor: Samoa, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains, Survivor: Redemption Island) -- Russell was a very tough one to rank. Strategically he may be the best to never win. He made it to the end twice and in both those seasons was the mastermind behind the majority of big moves. That said, he is one of the worst social players in the show's history, and despite his strategic prowess, I have a hard time seeing Russell ever winning a jury vote. And that's the sole reason he's so low on this list.
#13 Andrea Boehlke (Survivor: Redemption Island, Survivor: Caramoan, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Although she was still finding her footing a bit in RI, her Caramoan and Game Changers games were excellent displays of strategy, social play, and physical prowess. The reasons she is this low are the fact that she's never made the true end game (except in RI when she only had a slim chance of winning), and the fact that she was voted out with an idol in her pocket in Caramoan (though I'll give her that she couldn't have necessarily seen that blindside coming).
#12 Malcolm Freberg (Survivor: Philippines, Survivor: Caramoan, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Malcolm's Philippines game was fantastic except for his minor blunders at the end. I have real questions about his Caramoan game. The double idol play was amazing on the surface, but why. Philip? He could've taken out a real threat like Andrea or Cochran but failed to do so. I don't hold his early Game Changers exit against him as it happened due to a series of events completely out of his control. In fact, I like Malcolm's GC game as for the few rounds he lasted he seemed to be playing well.
#11 Tai Trang (Survivor: Kaoh Rong, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Tai has a higher average days-lasted record than any other multi-time player. That's pretty frickin' impressive. He was also amazingly close to winning, or at least tying, in GC had Culpepper not made the dumb move of taking Sarah to FTC. I do have critiques about his Kaoh Rong game but overall I can't ignore the fact that he's played very well and made it extremely far not once, but twice.
#10 Jerri Manthey (Survivor: The Australian Outback, Survivor: All Stars, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains) -- Aus. Outback was so early that most of the play was social and physical over strategic, and Jerri wasn't the best. Her All Stars game was very decent for a pre-merge game, and her HvV game was nearly a winning game. Overall not the very best, but definitely an extremely good, non-winner.
#9 Aubry Bracco (Survivor: Kaoh Rong, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Aubry's 38 days average is not far behind Tai's record 38.5. I believe her Game Changers game was a bit quiet (though socially she made some big improvements from KR). Her Kaoh Rong game was extremely strong strategically and she was a wonderful physical competitor in both her seasons. She's nearly the entire package when it comes to a Survivor player, and I'll have my eyes on her during Edge of Extinction.
#8 Kelley Wentworth (Survivor: San Juan del Sur, Survivor: Cambodia) -- Wentworth is another that could be even higher if this was a ranking of single non-winning games as her Cambodia appearance was a work of art. Her pre-merge exit in SJDS did knock her down a few pegs but I do believe that by and large she was a swap victim, and that her exit was out of her control. She has all the makings of a Survivor winner, and was dangerously close in Cambodia. Can she pull it off? I'm hoping that she can in EoE.
#7 Spencer Bledsoe (Survivor: Cagayan, Survivor: Cambodia) -- Spencer's Cagayan game, although it has a few flaws, would have definitely won him the votes if he made FTC. He played amazingly well for such a young, first-time player. I have more critiques of his Cambodia game as he didn't get a single jury vote and made some questionable social moves, though his strategy and physical prowess were still strong. He definitely deserves his ranking on this list.
#6 Ozzy Lusth (Survivor: Cook Islands, Survivor: Micronesia, Survivor: South Pacific, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Oh Ozzy. Still one of the most debated-about contestants to this day. Some people claim he's the best to never win while others don't think anything of him at all. Personally, I am somewhere in the middle. I don't think you can actually deny that he is a great player. I have Yul ranked as the second best winner ever and Ozzy was one vote away from beating him at FTC in the Cooks. Personally, I think South Pacific was his best game as he was one challenge away from a guaranteed win and played with gumption that season. Although his earliest exit, I personally felt he was playing fairly well in Game Changers too. The reason he doesn't quite make the Top 5 non-winners is his Micronesia game. Sure, he tried to play, but TBH he failed, and was voted out with an idol in his pocket (and unlike Andrea's blindside in Caramoan, he should have been able to see his blindside coming).
#5 Domenick Abbate (Survivor: Ghost Island) -- It speaks to the strength of Dom's game that he was able to land a Top 5 spot on this list with only one appearance. I'm not taking anything away from Wendell's game, I think he deserved to win, but Dom really controlled the season strategically (while Wendell controlled it socially). They were one of the most dynamic duos in Survivor history and the 5-5-0 jury vote was 100% justified. In the end, Wendell's social play edged out Dom, but it was a slight edge and Dom came so close to winning that season. Closer than any other non-winner in history.
#4 Amanda Kimmel (Survivor: China, Survivor: Micronesia, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains) -- Amanda is an interesting one. Like Russell, ten spots lower on this list, Amanda made it to FTC twice but never won. On the surface, there's a legit argument for why she should be lower on this list too. But when you dive deeper into her game, there's a lot more there. Amanda is fully capable of winning Survivor, she would just need the right jury and she'd need to be sitting next to the right people. She plays well enough socially, strategically, and physically to win. Her biggest fault is her FTC performances. She can't close it out. It doesn't help that in both China and Micro the juries came in to FTC with open minds. In a season like Ghost Island where people pretty much had their minds made up going into FTC, Amanda would stand a better shot. It also doesn't help that Amanda was next to great players (Todd and Parvati) who also played extremely well throughout the season, and who are both very strong at FTC. What you can't argue is that Amanda knows how to get herself to the end game (she was closer than people realize in HvV too) and in the right situation, could win.
#3 Rob Cesternino (Survivor: The Amazon, Survivor: All Stars) -- Cesternino is another interesting one to rank. IMHO, the three best non-winning single games in history are probably Cesternino in The Amazon and Cirie in Micronesia. Cesternino would be in a solid second place on this list if it wasn't for his All Stars game. It really wasn't the best. He was lazy around camp and over-played. That said, I overall still believe that Rob deserves this high ranking because his Amazon game really was a work of art, and it's possible/likely that one of the reasons for his early vote-out in All Stars was his reputation, not what he actually did in All Stars.
#2 Ciera Eastin (Survivor: Blood vs Water, Survivor: Cambodia, Survivor: Game Changers) -- This may be my most controversial placement of anyone on this list but I'm ready to defend it all day long. I actually plan to write a full article at some point on why Ciera is the second best player to never win, but a brief summary for now: she plays the game hard. So many people on this list (Amanda is a wonderful example) don't always capitalize on their opportunities to, in Ciera's words, Play To Win. Ciera does. In either BvW or Cambodia I struggle to see her losing FTC, regardless of who she sits next to (yes, even Tyson). She made it very close to the FTC in BvW (without RI in play she was in the F4), and I truly believe she would have made it very deep, quite possibly FTC, in Cambodia, had she not been idoled out. And what about Game Changers, you ask? I really believe that it was her past reputation more than her GC game that got her voted out, so I don't hold that against her. It's actually a compliment. I'm essentially giving Cesternino, Ciera, and Cirie all one "free pass" for their early exits, since their other game(s) outshine the early exits.
#1 Cirie Fields (Survivor: Panama, Survivor: Micronesia, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains, Survivor: Game Changers) -- There is no doubt in my mind that Cirie is the best to never win. She's one notch above everyone else on this list. Like Cesternino and Ciera, Cirie had one early exit but her other three games are all works of art. She was the best player of both Panama and Micronesia, being the last boot both times. I ultimately believe her Game Changers performance may have been her best as she was on track to win it all until that notorious F6 tribal. I'll be the first to say that it was "fair" what happened there as Cirie couldn't win an immunity challenge or get an advantage/idol, yet to a large extent, what happened was totally out of her control. And she was playing so well. Another reason I love her GC game is that she made it so deep despite being such a target. She should have been out at her first tribal, but the other players let her go deep, and that's because of her phenomenal social/strategic games. I'm not sure if it'll happen or not, but I would absolutely love to see Cirie back for a fifth time. I wouldn't be shocked to see her make it deep again, and maybe she could finally win.
Before I dive into my 15 best players to never win, I want to make it clear that I am judging players on their entire Survivor careers, not just a single game. For example, someone like Lex Van den Berg might have played one of the 15 best non-winning single games in Africa but his All Stars game loses him a spot on this list. Without further ado, here we go:
#15 David Wright (Survivor: Millennials vs Gen X) -- David is one of those who could be higher up if this was a ranking of single games, and I admit that creating the list the way I am makes it a bit biased towards multi-time players, simply because they've had more of a chance to prove themselves. That said, 15th is no small feat and David absolutely earned this spot. He was one challenge away from a guaranteed win and with the new F4 format, he may have gotten it. I can't wait to see how he fares in Edge of Extinction.
#14 Russell Hantz (Survivor: Samoa, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains, Survivor: Redemption Island) -- Russell was a very tough one to rank. Strategically he may be the best to never win. He made it to the end twice and in both those seasons was the mastermind behind the majority of big moves. That said, he is one of the worst social players in the show's history, and despite his strategic prowess, I have a hard time seeing Russell ever winning a jury vote. And that's the sole reason he's so low on this list.
#13 Andrea Boehlke (Survivor: Redemption Island, Survivor: Caramoan, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Although she was still finding her footing a bit in RI, her Caramoan and Game Changers games were excellent displays of strategy, social play, and physical prowess. The reasons she is this low are the fact that she's never made the true end game (except in RI when she only had a slim chance of winning), and the fact that she was voted out with an idol in her pocket in Caramoan (though I'll give her that she couldn't have necessarily seen that blindside coming).
#12 Malcolm Freberg (Survivor: Philippines, Survivor: Caramoan, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Malcolm's Philippines game was fantastic except for his minor blunders at the end. I have real questions about his Caramoan game. The double idol play was amazing on the surface, but why. Philip? He could've taken out a real threat like Andrea or Cochran but failed to do so. I don't hold his early Game Changers exit against him as it happened due to a series of events completely out of his control. In fact, I like Malcolm's GC game as for the few rounds he lasted he seemed to be playing well.
#11 Tai Trang (Survivor: Kaoh Rong, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Tai has a higher average days-lasted record than any other multi-time player. That's pretty frickin' impressive. He was also amazingly close to winning, or at least tying, in GC had Culpepper not made the dumb move of taking Sarah to FTC. I do have critiques about his Kaoh Rong game but overall I can't ignore the fact that he's played very well and made it extremely far not once, but twice.
#10 Jerri Manthey (Survivor: The Australian Outback, Survivor: All Stars, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains) -- Aus. Outback was so early that most of the play was social and physical over strategic, and Jerri wasn't the best. Her All Stars game was very decent for a pre-merge game, and her HvV game was nearly a winning game. Overall not the very best, but definitely an extremely good, non-winner.
#9 Aubry Bracco (Survivor: Kaoh Rong, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Aubry's 38 days average is not far behind Tai's record 38.5. I believe her Game Changers game was a bit quiet (though socially she made some big improvements from KR). Her Kaoh Rong game was extremely strong strategically and she was a wonderful physical competitor in both her seasons. She's nearly the entire package when it comes to a Survivor player, and I'll have my eyes on her during Edge of Extinction.
#8 Kelley Wentworth (Survivor: San Juan del Sur, Survivor: Cambodia) -- Wentworth is another that could be even higher if this was a ranking of single non-winning games as her Cambodia appearance was a work of art. Her pre-merge exit in SJDS did knock her down a few pegs but I do believe that by and large she was a swap victim, and that her exit was out of her control. She has all the makings of a Survivor winner, and was dangerously close in Cambodia. Can she pull it off? I'm hoping that she can in EoE.
#7 Spencer Bledsoe (Survivor: Cagayan, Survivor: Cambodia) -- Spencer's Cagayan game, although it has a few flaws, would have definitely won him the votes if he made FTC. He played amazingly well for such a young, first-time player. I have more critiques of his Cambodia game as he didn't get a single jury vote and made some questionable social moves, though his strategy and physical prowess were still strong. He definitely deserves his ranking on this list.
#6 Ozzy Lusth (Survivor: Cook Islands, Survivor: Micronesia, Survivor: South Pacific, Survivor: Game Changers) -- Oh Ozzy. Still one of the most debated-about contestants to this day. Some people claim he's the best to never win while others don't think anything of him at all. Personally, I am somewhere in the middle. I don't think you can actually deny that he is a great player. I have Yul ranked as the second best winner ever and Ozzy was one vote away from beating him at FTC in the Cooks. Personally, I think South Pacific was his best game as he was one challenge away from a guaranteed win and played with gumption that season. Although his earliest exit, I personally felt he was playing fairly well in Game Changers too. The reason he doesn't quite make the Top 5 non-winners is his Micronesia game. Sure, he tried to play, but TBH he failed, and was voted out with an idol in his pocket (and unlike Andrea's blindside in Caramoan, he should have been able to see his blindside coming).
#5 Domenick Abbate (Survivor: Ghost Island) -- It speaks to the strength of Dom's game that he was able to land a Top 5 spot on this list with only one appearance. I'm not taking anything away from Wendell's game, I think he deserved to win, but Dom really controlled the season strategically (while Wendell controlled it socially). They were one of the most dynamic duos in Survivor history and the 5-5-0 jury vote was 100% justified. In the end, Wendell's social play edged out Dom, but it was a slight edge and Dom came so close to winning that season. Closer than any other non-winner in history.
#4 Amanda Kimmel (Survivor: China, Survivor: Micronesia, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains) -- Amanda is an interesting one. Like Russell, ten spots lower on this list, Amanda made it to FTC twice but never won. On the surface, there's a legit argument for why she should be lower on this list too. But when you dive deeper into her game, there's a lot more there. Amanda is fully capable of winning Survivor, she would just need the right jury and she'd need to be sitting next to the right people. She plays well enough socially, strategically, and physically to win. Her biggest fault is her FTC performances. She can't close it out. It doesn't help that in both China and Micro the juries came in to FTC with open minds. In a season like Ghost Island where people pretty much had their minds made up going into FTC, Amanda would stand a better shot. It also doesn't help that Amanda was next to great players (Todd and Parvati) who also played extremely well throughout the season, and who are both very strong at FTC. What you can't argue is that Amanda knows how to get herself to the end game (she was closer than people realize in HvV too) and in the right situation, could win.
#3 Rob Cesternino (Survivor: The Amazon, Survivor: All Stars) -- Cesternino is another interesting one to rank. IMHO, the three best non-winning single games in history are probably Cesternino in The Amazon and Cirie in Micronesia. Cesternino would be in a solid second place on this list if it wasn't for his All Stars game. It really wasn't the best. He was lazy around camp and over-played. That said, I overall still believe that Rob deserves this high ranking because his Amazon game really was a work of art, and it's possible/likely that one of the reasons for his early vote-out in All Stars was his reputation, not what he actually did in All Stars.
#2 Ciera Eastin (Survivor: Blood vs Water, Survivor: Cambodia, Survivor: Game Changers) -- This may be my most controversial placement of anyone on this list but I'm ready to defend it all day long. I actually plan to write a full article at some point on why Ciera is the second best player to never win, but a brief summary for now: she plays the game hard. So many people on this list (Amanda is a wonderful example) don't always capitalize on their opportunities to, in Ciera's words, Play To Win. Ciera does. In either BvW or Cambodia I struggle to see her losing FTC, regardless of who she sits next to (yes, even Tyson). She made it very close to the FTC in BvW (without RI in play she was in the F4), and I truly believe she would have made it very deep, quite possibly FTC, in Cambodia, had she not been idoled out. And what about Game Changers, you ask? I really believe that it was her past reputation more than her GC game that got her voted out, so I don't hold that against her. It's actually a compliment. I'm essentially giving Cesternino, Ciera, and Cirie all one "free pass" for their early exits, since their other game(s) outshine the early exits.
#1 Cirie Fields (Survivor: Panama, Survivor: Micronesia, Survivor: Heroes vs Villains, Survivor: Game Changers) -- There is no doubt in my mind that Cirie is the best to never win. She's one notch above everyone else on this list. Like Cesternino and Ciera, Cirie had one early exit but her other three games are all works of art. She was the best player of both Panama and Micronesia, being the last boot both times. I ultimately believe her Game Changers performance may have been her best as she was on track to win it all until that notorious F6 tribal. I'll be the first to say that it was "fair" what happened there as Cirie couldn't win an immunity challenge or get an advantage/idol, yet to a large extent, what happened was totally out of her control. And she was playing so well. Another reason I love her GC game is that she made it so deep despite being such a target. She should have been out at her first tribal, but the other players let her go deep, and that's because of her phenomenal social/strategic games. I'm not sure if it'll happen or not, but I would absolutely love to see Cirie back for a fifth time. I wouldn't be shocked to see her make it deep again, and maybe she could finally win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)