Kitty Pryde1 wrote:I wouldn't say Steph dominated the game. She led her already fucked up tribe into losing every tribal IC. She was certainly the best of the worst, but in two seasons she only won 1 individual challenge. I wouldn't say she's bad, but she's not worthy of the top 40.
I'll give Steph credit for being able to dominate the game so much, even if she managed to kill all chances of winning. And Amber deserves to be on the list just for being a winner (just like a certain snub from another SSS list). And Kelly, cut her some slack. She played in the first season, and even by today's standards, Richard isn't that great. Kelly still almost won and probably would've won if Greg hadn't won the merge immunity challenge.
I normally would include any winner, but Amber won on ASS. Survivor is supposed to be about a bunch of strangers stranded together. Since previous relations factored into ASS so much, I wouldn't say anyone from that season deserved to be on the list. She played well, but it was under completely different circumstances.
And Kelly, IMHO, shouldn't even be considered for the sole fact that she wanted out of a guaranteed final 4 spot (and would have gone further than that anyways). You can say that if we take away Greg's immunity win then she wins 4-3, but take away any one of her 4 wins, and Richard probably wins anyways. She chose to rely on immunity rather than common sense. Even though it was the first season, I don't see how anyone could see Kelly's decision as smart (everyone in the FTC thought she was wishy-washy, and her votes were primarilly against Richard, not for her).
Teresa was robbed.
