To be honest, lately I've really started to re-think what I think about both Sandra, as well as many of the other winners.
The bottom line with Survivor is that you simply need to OUTLAST every other player. You don't need to outwit everyone else (by controlling all the votes). You don't need to even outplay them (in challenges). All you need to do is be the last man or woman standing.
And with that criteria it's hard not to see Sandra as a very strong player. Or Tina. Or others who seem to often be chosen as the bottom of the barrel winners.
If no one votes for you, except when it matters, YOU WIN the game. Period. And Sandra, more than any other player, seems to have the qualities of always making the vote for someone else. It doesn't matter if she picked the player who goes. It doesn't matter if she had an immunity necklace around her neck. If, every single time there was a tribal council, she simply made sure the vote was for someone other than herself, then I think major kudos.
All other strategies seem only semi-reliable. Winning all the challenges is never guaranteed. Trying to control all the votes frequently backfires. And making all sorts of alliances will get you booted if anyone gains wind of what you're doing. . . And, sure, players have all won with those strategies, but I'm staring to think that the strategy that would most often secure a victory would be a Sandra type strategy. Which, in my opinion, also includes people like Tina and Ethan. I just think maybe Sandra is better at that strategy simply 'cause she could talk herself out of anything. I dunno. I'm really starting to change my opinion of who the best players are.
The best manipulators are the ones who can manipulate and never let you realize they're doing it. And don't have to flaunt to the cameras that they're doing it.
I think that's a reality that has, for too long, been ignored by people who rate the winners. If you watch Survivor: Australia, for example, you can subtly see Tina manipulate everyone, but she'd never admit it to a camera. . .
The bottom line with Survivor is that you simply need to OUTLAST every other player. You don't need to outwit everyone else (by controlling all the votes). You don't need to even outplay them (in challenges). All you need to do is be the last man or woman standing.
And with that criteria it's hard not to see Sandra as a very strong player. Or Tina. Or others who seem to often be chosen as the bottom of the barrel winners.
If no one votes for you, except when it matters, YOU WIN the game. Period. And Sandra, more than any other player, seems to have the qualities of always making the vote for someone else. It doesn't matter if she picked the player who goes. It doesn't matter if she had an immunity necklace around her neck. If, every single time there was a tribal council, she simply made sure the vote was for someone other than herself, then I think major kudos.
All other strategies seem only semi-reliable. Winning all the challenges is never guaranteed. Trying to control all the votes frequently backfires. And making all sorts of alliances will get you booted if anyone gains wind of what you're doing. . . And, sure, players have all won with those strategies, but I'm staring to think that the strategy that would most often secure a victory would be a Sandra type strategy. Which, in my opinion, also includes people like Tina and Ethan. I just think maybe Sandra is better at that strategy simply 'cause she could talk herself out of anything. I dunno. I'm really starting to change my opinion of who the best players are.
The best manipulators are the ones who can manipulate and never let you realize they're doing it. And don't have to flaunt to the cameras that they're doing it.
I think that's a reality that has, for too long, been ignored by people who rate the winners. If you watch Survivor: Australia, for example, you can subtly see Tina manipulate everyone, but she'd never admit it to a camera. . .
