Russel:"America needs to have a percentage of the votes!" Rupert,winner of America's tribal council:Claps alone I like thus even more than i did 5 years ago!
But Rupert is so stupid in all his seasons hanging on the the villains who everyone can see will take him out before the final 3 ... I definitely do not like seeing Rupert in Survivor as he's so stupid ... in real life however, I think I will like him as a person ...
no, gifted as in the jury voted for her purely to vote against Russel because of how dumb he made them all look. I'm all for people with great social games winning but in this season that was not the case. She literally did nothing and got dragged to the end by Russel. Probably one of if not the worst winner we've seen on survivor.
@@bigboygains137 I also would’ve much rather him (or maybe Parvati) take the win, but for Russ to play such a dominant game twice and not be able to get any wins really displays how unlikeable he probably is in person. And that’s no one else’s fault but his own. Sandra definitely got lucky to be sitting next to two people who had jury members with vendetta’s against them, but that’s just how the cards fell. She still won fair and square. Saying she was ‘gifted’ the win kinda suggests otherwise.
Sandra is a massive IRL troll to Russell lmao. She knows how much her comments in the beginning irritate Russell. He's literally seething when she said "my goal was to make it in the end. And I did. And I won. You can't beat that" lmao
@@ronaldm.6150 That's the thing about Survivor. You can be the worst strategic or physical player ever but when you win, the other contestants can complain, but technically, based on the concept of the show, you are the best player that season. Russell is the best strategic player but that's all he is.
@@chicagoblackhawks9840 best strategic player outside of reputation. Strategy as a whole involves not pushing everyone completely off. Sandra, definitely not physically gifted, not the most social, but she's clever and that cleverness made her a survivor. Despite all of Russell's attributes, Sandra wins alone by cleverness.
Ronald M. Russel tried his abusive wife beater tactics as a means to win. Guess what, Sandra isn't a victim. He was absolutely seething when she said that and it was again Sandra being a queen, something some more fragile egos can't handle. If her (or anyone) being "lippy" bothers you, I think its you who have some issues.
@@nickh4676 uh Sandra isn't clever, she was at mercy to others a lot of the time. What makes her good is she is weak and people think they can beat her and drag her along. Now people know she just floats and will never bring her close to a finals again
Actually, Sandra's attempts to oust Russell failed, but the heroes realized it was their fault and rewarded her with votes, she planned the successful ouster of Coach by manipulating Russell, and everyone knows she'll backstab anyone, but the fact that she so openly defied Russell was seen as brave, since anyone else who did it was voted out. Also, Parvati tried to convince Russell to not take Sandra to F3 because she knew Sandra would win, so that says a lot there.
Tony lied, manipulated and blindsided people in the jury, even his number 1 ally Trish. Yet he still won. The difference was Tony didn't treated the jury like shit. Russell has garbage personality, threatens anyone who is against him and calls people names like dumbass. And you expect them to reward you for that? The challenge in survivor is you have to outplay your opponents while making them think you are the good guy. Again, look at Tony's gameplay. He won twice for a reason. Tony took Russell's gameplay and perfected it.
And the most important part was his early boot in Game Changers, it showed him that he had to calm the hell down and build more trust whilst still being chaotic and wily.
If you watched the latest season of survivor how do you feel about Xander not even getting any votes from the jury? He didnt treat them like shit and played a good game yet he still received no votes
@@RigIsCakeDon’t really think the jury was bitter. A lot of his good plays occurred before the merge besides the fake idol play which wasnt even his plan. Besides that he didnt really do much. Erica was more involved in the voting and even got the tribe to split a vote between shan and lianna because her name was on the chopping block if shan played her idol. I honestly went into final tribal council thinking Erica would win with xander getting a couple of votes so I was surprised. If anything the Jury was more bitter towards Deshawn especially Shan and Lianna. He was also super close with Naseer, Evvie and heather and neither of them chose him which goes to show you they were voting for who they liked the most but who they thought was the most strategic and that was Erica in their eyes.
One other thing. Russell is the kind of player who can be effective when he is unknown. In Samoa, nobody knew who he was, so they didn't know him. In HvV, nobody knew who he was (Samoa aired during the taping of HvV, so none of cast members saw his play in Samoa). It's no shock that in his 3rd game (the first time the other players knew who he was and how he likes to play), he got voted off from his tribe first.
Beckett Newton And basically letting Sandra slide through, his ego thinking "oh, she is no threat", even though she told him to his face "yeah, I am against you", smirking while she said it. Russell's ego, lack of real intelligence and social skills, and wife-beater method of being a "leader" was the flaw in the game.
Jury management was made up by weak minded individuals as an excuse for the person they like, who they know doesn't deserve to win, to look like a worthy winner. Sandra played a DUD game.
@@commentingperson9554 No, jury management was made from the production crew from the merge of season 1. By your "logic" of the Survivor system. The production crew (as much as they love most of your favorite players) are those "weak minded individuals as an excuse for the person they like, who they know doesn't deserve to win, to look like a worthy winner" not the R. Hantz hating fans...............and YOU certainly have proven yourself a weak minded individual as an excuse for the person you like, who you THINK doesn't deserve to win, to make them look like a worthy winner. I saw in your Colby's jury speech video that you said you respected everyone's opinion...............yet you absolutely haven't to the people outside of your clique 😂😂😂😂😂. PS None of your opposing statements towards me, AllRequired, & ElectrikkPaperClipxx make any logical sense anyway.
@@pjmclaughlin844 Nope, jury management was created my weak minded individuals as an excuse for a juror to use to vote for a person they know don't deserve to win out of spite towards the deserving winner or their game. I use facts. All of my comments to Required and Clip, who don't understand anything about Survivor, just like you, use facts. They don't use any logic. They know they're wrong.
To put things into clearer perspective, Parvati told Russell that even she would have voted for Sandra over him. When you're main ally throughout the game doesn't even think you deserve to win, it may be a sign that the game isn't what's flawed.
@Volume Sandra tried to actually connect with the people who would be voting for the winner while Russell made no attempt unless it was him backstabbing them. Jerri, Parvati, and Sandra all said Russell was a terrible, arrogant, nasty, and paranoid person to live with for 39 days. He did the exact same thing previously in Samoa and lost twice in a row without learning his lesson. Trying to establish a good social game and connection isn't doing nothing, its one of the most important parts of the show.
@Volume If his social game was so great, he wouldn't have lost in two season finales and voted off early in two subsequent seasons. Even Sandra lasted longer in all 3 of her future seasons than Russell did, and she's a two time winner who's was acknowledged as a big threat compared to her first two seasons. Russell was a pretty good player strategically, but he didn't understand that you can't demand to be treated better than others without taking into account their own feelings and comfort. We get a snippet of that on TV, it's nowhere near the weeks people on the show went though. I also understand that it's best to take first hand accounts of people who've played and can confirm how it was to live and play with him. Watch and read interviews by past players. Sandra, Jerri, Parvati, and Colby responses on what they think of Russell are all on RUclips and they're all negative. His social same was terrible.
Rewatching the whole season I realized why Sandra won. She stayed with her alliance while giving the enemies a feel of hope. It was kind of perfect gameplay in a season with very emotional voters.
The more emotional consideration you grant a juror, the less emotional their final vote is going to be. Too bad Russell (and his legions of butthurt followers) didn't get that.
@@robtheservantof6257 Danielle and Parvati literally told Russell point blank that he was going to lose because of how awfully he treated everyone. He didn't lose because of a bitter jury, be lost because he was trapped in his own world and lacked full awareness of what was really going on. I can see the different arguments between why Parvati or Sandra could have won, but Russell was so delusional he 100% deserved to lose sitting next to almost everyone in the season.
@@AGJ117 Parvati and Daniele?? You mean the 3rd villian who started crying at tribal bc she was finna be voted out 😂😂 and the 2nd villian who also COULD NOT WIN. They're words don't matter. If Parv is such a great player like your glazing her to be then she should've done more to get away and win. Russell lost bc of bitter juries. It's that simple. He schooled them all & they mad
@@robtheservantof6257 If final 3 was Russell, Jeri and Parvati I think Parvati wins in. Russell played a shit social game in HvV. He def had a bitter jury in Samoa though
groyper jones he got to the end and didn’t win twice, because everyone on the jury hated him. He was cocky and annoying in this season. I like Russel but his social skills are whack
groyper jones I agree they were bitter, but Russel made amazing moves with bad social skills. He made everyone hate him and didn’t realise it till the very end
groyper jones I think we can all agree Russel deserved to win in Samoa, but this video is about HvV and in HvV I don’t think he deserved to win. Also, Tony from Cagayan AND winners at war plate d a great strategic game and a phenomenal social game aswell
Russell is saying Sandra has no social game but the jury still gave her all the votes. Social game isn't just how you socialize with people, it's how you build a reputation in their minds. Take Rupert for example, he backstabbed Sandra and now he realizes that Sandra actually had her back.
@@CptMonstar Sandra won because she gets juries to vote for her. You play to make it to the end and earn juries' votes and win. Unfortunately Russell still doesn't understand it and he plays it just to make it to the end. 🤣
@@TheAlan0509 I’m about to school you! Tell me how Sandra played a better game than Russell?!?! Russell is so good that JT really thought that the Villains had a female alliance and tried to get Russell to join the Heroes. We all know how powerful the female alliance could be, especially with Parvati on the villains and it was NEVER even mentioned. Then after the merge Sandra tried to join the Heroes saying that there wasn’t a female alliance...AND THEY STILL BELIEVED RUSSELL. Furthermore, Parvati had to save Sandra from getting voting out with the help of Russell because he gave Parvati the idol that JT gave him and she used it and the idol she already had to save both Sandra and I think Jerri. The ONLY reason she makes it to the end is because she SUCKS at challenges so why would you vote off an easy opponent. Do you remember the final challenge, she was the only one that was nowhere near the necklace. Also, tell me how Natalie outplayed Russell in the 1st season that he played.
After Willie Hantz was on Big Brother... I'm pretty sure Big Brother wont let another Hantz on their show! Just like how Brandon Hantz probably wont be back on Survivor again! Out of the 3, the only one likely to come back, would be Russell Hantz and it would be on Survivor for his 4th Time!
@@allmightyjeff9972 I highly doubt Russell was telling the truth. BB doesn't tolerate violence. They're not gonna let him on the show for any amount of money. Also, Boogie will never come back either.
+Andrew Ng that's assuming that everyone in America already watches survivor, AND know who Russell is. Russell is a glorified FairPlay now. He's yesterday's news. New villains, like Spencer and Abi, are formed. Your statistic is dumb.
In reality America voted Russel player of the season. But I too enjoy fantasy. LOTR is my favorite movie. So I can relate to you saying that one of your favorite things ever is something that isn't even real.
What honestly annoys me is that we're only made to like Russel because he was given the most screen time. But seeing beyond that edit, Sandra and Parv was right. Russel was the biggest goat on that season
I don't think it was intended to be that way initially. By all means, Samoa is ALL about Russell, but it's also meant to demonstrate why his approach, while effective, is not ideal. It backfired because the perception of Russell was largely positive, and viewers actually started rooting for him rather than against him, and I think that's largely due to the fact that everyone else is shafted by the edit, so there's not really anyone else to root for.
Parvati and Russell are very similar in terms of how they play. What makes Parvati better is her social game. She doesn't get much credit she deserves because people are too focused on Russell. She literally knows when to be exploitative, be receptive, be passive, and be manipulative. Survivor is not ONLY about strategies and how you play to get there at the end. Whether you like it or not, Survivor has a social and emotional aspect because it is, in a lot of ways, similar to real life and in real life, people don't like overly manipulative and exploitative people.
Agree to some extent. I still don't like pavarti for certain reasons. Her Advantage is she can talk to the jury like she talk throughout the game. Bulshit bat your eyes, lie and manipulate with a smile parepare about Russell, the guy, didn't give a s***.. He knew he did well, but then just was a idiot at Jerry
But she was gonna be voted out by The villains and she stuck with the villains the entire game while Russell was able to use both heroes and villains to sway votes his way.
I'm here watching these clips when winners at war is currently airing. Sandra is getting so much hate on season 40 but after seeing her on this season she has earned my respect. Anyone can say and believe what they want, but you can only be the winner at something if you WIN
@@secrets.295okay so she's a terrible Player😭😭like We all know she won bc of bitter juries. She Sucks Physically, horrible Strategist (passing by isn't strategy. She tried to get people out but couldn't. In a perfect world I'm sure Sandra wanted to vote out Russell even before the ftc but ofc couldn't, and social she really isn't even that good, she was just nice.
@@robtheservantof6257 You would be even worse at Survivor than Russell was. The whole point of Survivor is to not get voted out and then get the jury to vote for you. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to win. Sandra won both of her first two seasons, which no one else has ever done. Not only is she not a "terrible player," she's one of the two best players of all time, along with Tony.
Spencer William "So what if he was a jerk? Russell won 'player of the season' unlike Sandra and that blond girl, forgot her name. That proves he should have won and not them and that the bitter jury voted wrong."- said the deluded Hantz minion.
***** "Russell's a GREAT Survivor player and would have destroyed the old school players!" - not far off what a self-proclaimed Survivor expert (who's actually all hot air) actually did say.
+Spencer William That was nearly five years ago, on the companion board to The Jury Thrashes Russell Hantz Part 2 (it was the one with Sandra in the thumbnail). +Joel Sebastien Lefevre, cherry-picker in extremis, always about getting the last word. Electrikk remembers this guy all too well. If you want an idea of exactly what this asswipe is about, go to Who Would Russell Hantz Drink With.
Bro why you calling them pussies. That's rude and your mad cuz your husband Russle didn't win survivor he loses survivor himself he should own it if your an asshole to people that are voting for you to win your aren't going to win
The jury has been bitter, all the way back to season 1. Players should go into the final TC expecting fully that there will be members of the jury who will be bitter. It's the finalists' job to try to beat that bitterness and convince those people to look past it and vote for them to win. The jury react like normal people would, so should the finalists. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the game, or the jury system. It's been done the same way since the show began and should not change.
if Parvati didn't align herself with Russel and blindsided Sandra, she would've been this season's winner. but kudos to Sandra for her stellar social play.
people can be so contradicting in these arguments, once it is ''you have to lie and backstab an blablablah...'' and then it is: ''oh no Russel doesn't deserve to win, he lied and backstabbed so much''
Danielle said it best in her jury speech. "It's one thing to tell lies in this game. But you told DIRTY lies..lies that you did not need to tell" People hate Russell because he's a bitch.
dkdj12 yeah I totally agree, but you know, it's just impossible in this game to mak this general conclusion of what is right and what is wrong you know? So much depends on the cast members,
+dkdj12 Uh, that was Candice. Danielle's was: "Russell, it's clear that there's been a lack of skill in your jury management... But after hearing what all of these people had to say, you're not gonna get any votes, nobody respects the way that you played the game, Russell." And this by someone who had to make her own case to her own jury, and who was browbeaten into a tearful fit simply because she and Parv got a little too close for his liking.
Its the difference between Russell and Tony from Cagayan. They both went to great lengths to get their way but in the end, Tony wasn't nasty in the game like Russell was.
Nia Blue oh yes he was, but tony has Trisha to save the day for him and a jury that rewarded strategic gameplay over personal relationships. For example Laura saying Russell had a bad social game and citing him using the idol to save himself and vote off Kelly as reason. Like how dare he not just got home. The tony jury had more super fans, and that's he only reason he won and Russell didnt
What people don't understand is once the game is over, there is no such thing as "did they *deserve* to win?" or "who really *deserved* it?". That question doesn't even makes sense. Survivor is a game with one winner. Sure getting further in the game is impressive, but the only sure thing that really counts is "did you win or did you lose?". If you got to the end and the jury voted for you, you won. This isn't american idol or the presidential election, you either win the game or you don't. And if you win the game, you did better than someone who didn't. It doesn't matter if it was luck, or if it was strategy. It's a game. You can't sit at home and say "I would have voted for this person" because honey you watched the tv show survivor, you didn't get cast for this show, participate and live on the island, played the game of survivor, get voted out and end up in the jury. You are outside of the game. If the jury voted for someone, then that person wins. I personally wanted Parvati to win and loved her game, but if the jury voted for Sandra, then she's the winner and *therefore* she played better than Parvati, who lost and did not get the votes.
Thats silly. Whether you win or lose or how quick you are voted does not dispositively prove you are the best player. If that were true, will from worlds apart would be better than joe because he made it further. Thats silly. Your point implies the winmer selection process is the fairest it can be. If the winner was decided by who is taller, that too can be used to suggest that the player who is tallest and therefore wins deserves to win but in the nuanced idea of "deserved" we look to other factors beyond who won and who didnt. For example, the winner of the best actor oscar is not necessarily the best actor. The award itself cannot circularly be justified in someone getting it
@@NWOtion No, that's someone who actually understands Survivor. There is no such thing as a logical fallacy here. It is entirely about "the impressions you leave on the other players." It's how your fellows perceive you and whether or not you actually understand this (which Russell clearly did not). That makes Survivor an exercise in personality management and relationship dynamics. There are no factors beyond where the votes of the jury went. The award, being the million dollar cheque and title of Sole Survivor, can be perfectly justified in who got it.
I think sandra was really smart and read situation very well. because Russell was always voted out anyone who was against him but Sandra in season 19 and 20.
Perhaps, but there is also the flaw in that Parvati was at that point so stuck to Russell that the jury saw her in the same light as him (plus her mocking JT's letter in front of them), that and Sandra's open disregard for Russell was seen in a good way by the jury. Sandra's not a bad player either, she knew how to avert votes away from her while still being very vocal, that normally gets you voted out. She may not have been good at the physical game, but she was good at the social one.
The thing is, during HvV. Sandra didn't have a chance to shine as much. Her only hope after Boston Rob was voted out was just too stay until the merge which she brilliantly did by pitting Coach against Russell. Then once the merge, the heroes was so dumb that her plan failed. She doesn't have a choice but to align with dumb people. The plan backfires, her last option was to act dumb and not pose a threat. She really had no choice. But, come the final trouble council. You know damn well nobody can talk better than Sandra. She was just too good at that.
It's a 4-year-old comment but here I am again. Who deserves to win also includes how skillful you're in lying, backstabbing juries to get them out and then getting their vote. By the way, Russel being a jury goat is a big factor he can get to the end. If America has a percentage of the vote, he's less attractive to be brought to the end.
Stephen Chan well now it’s 5 years later but you could never have a fair American vote in a game like this. The editing could determine who would win. Also what makes the game great is that every year the game is different because the cast is different. The winner is a representation of how the cast felt each season. And this season it was emotional people and Sandra aided towards that by giving the heroes a bone early to gain their jury votes but still making it to the end with her alliance.
@@Zboy5z5 If America had a vote then when the Amazon ladies stripped for food that would get them millions of votes if it wasn't censored on TV cause alot of people will be that simple.
The jurors spend months on end with the finalists, and there are literally hundreds of hours worth of interactions that get compressed into one or two hours, which are then broadcast on TV. Yet the viewing audience, who see 1-2 hours of you every week, are better suited for the culminating decision of the entire 39 days than the jurors, who have spend 39 straight days interacting with, or at least observing you?? Gimme a break, Hantz.
Lol I love this because the way the game is set up is even MORE strategic... Because you have to slowly but surly eliminate people, effectively, while also making sure not to get them so mad that they will not vote for you in the end. So usually anyone too smart, cough Parvaiti cough, too good cough Colby cough, OR too manipulative cough RUSSELL cough can not really ever win... It's brilliant! Just a shame about Colby though!
Reading people, predicting how the jury is going to vote, empathising, being socially aware of people's behaviours and feelings are all crucial elements to winning the game of Survivor. In my opinion, Russell lacked every single one of these traits - he only ever saw things and took action from his own perspective and ego. Sandra was abrasive with her words but had a superior grasp on human behaviour. She masterfully utilised her traits to the best of her physical and social environment. Sure her game didn't make as good for television, but just because she didn't play the typical warrior/hero/goddess-like game does not make her game any less effective. Is she my favourite player ever? Probably not (though I do like her tremendously), but at the end of the day, the girl is the only two-time sole Survivor - which the ultimate aim of the game.
all sandra was was a vote nothing more u could replace her with a writing peanut and nothing would have changed, thats how little she did in the challenges and the whole game in general people like to pretend like shes something more than that, but its just bullshit because they are jealous of russel see how stupid u guys are saying a peanut is a master of utilising traits to the best of its physical and social environment its a peanut...
+geoff zetterberg I can see where you are coming from about Sandra (though I mightn't agree completely), and yes I am defending her in a way, but that does not mean I am jealous of Russell. To be so ignorant of human feelings and emotions and be so set in your ways - there is NOTHING I am jealous of there. I don't negate the fact that he was awesome at finding the idols, strategically manipulating certain players, winning challenges when it came down to the crunch - but that's pretty much it. The fact that he has played the game three times with three different groups of people, and failed all three times to win, speaks volumes about his social awareness. You can argue that the jury is bitter, but to me, Russell seems just as bitter (if not more) for not winning the title of Sole Survivor. To say that there is flaw in the game only reinforces to us his lack of understanding of the game itself. Lastly, peanuts are quite good for brain function actually, so I hope we all get our adequate intake on them.
yeah he should have atleast tried to hide what he was doing more, but by his comments in one of the last episodes of Hereos vs villians, he obviously didnt think they would reward coasters who did almost nothing in the entire game over him at the end of the day, it all doesnt matter, sandra won, but even people who really hate russel can see how he worked his way to the end and sandra didnt really do anything, and russel fans can understand why sandra won
geoff zetterberg I personally thought it was impressive hoe during her first game she realized that she didn't have anything on the table to offer physically, so she used her knowledge of the spanish language to get her tribe supplies and food. Also her biggest move is getting almost all the jury members in both seasons to like her. She knows exactly what to say when she pleads her case to the jury, and she offered that allegiance to the heroes to try to vote off Russell. That in my mind was strategic because rupert and others were grateful for it when it came down to voting for the winner.
Gervase in BvW when voting for Hayden: Don't hate the players, homie. Hate the game. This isn't Big Brother. It's Survivor. We do things different here. You're about to get a lesson in how to play the game. I guess Russel is too delusional to understand it.
what you said proved that how amazing Sandra is. because usually people who have sob family situation could easily voted out, because they could be a huge threat in the final. but Sandra was not voted out her two seasons both. how amazing her survivor skill is.
You don't even have to nice and kind, you just have to be respectful to other people, something Russell for some reason felt he couldn't do if it didn't involve him.
The reason why the jury is composed of the retired players is because they lived together 39 days and in a way they are active witnesses of all that happens, so they are the perfect as jurors
If the audience has a vote, then they should watch all of the videos and should not rely on the producer's edit. Remember, the edits just show what they want us to see.
if a jury "needed" to vote a certain way, the show would be rigged. and not everyone's definition of "best player" is the same. does cbs count the number of blindsides/idol uses that each finalist has before the final tribal council and say "ok jury, x played the best game because he/she performed x blindsides, so that's who you need to vote for" ?
I see both sides. I've watched Survivor seasons before (including the first season), but I've watched a lot more Big Brother seasons and the problem is the same. I'm a big believer in making sure you don't slight those on your way up, because you're going to have to see them on your way down. This is what people call "jury management." On the flip side of that, better players have lost seasons in both Survivor and Big Brother to more inferior players who weren't as deserving of their wins. Maybe a balance of the two would be good.
i love parvati's comment where she basically says yeah sandra won twice, but im still a better player. That is the absolute truth. Parvati is the queen of survivor hands down. The only reason Parvati did not win heroes vs villains is because the heroes hated russell so much they couldnt see that parvati played the most brilliant game of survivor ever. All the heroes have giant egos that couldn't suffer Parvati rightfully winning the game since she aligned with russell and actively defeated them unlike Sandra. For god's sake she was up against an all-star lineup, was targeted the entire game, had the most brilliant idol play ever, and actually managed to use Russell Hantz (arguably the most manipulative and uncontrollable player of all time) to make it to the end. She is a survivor genius, and no player has reached her level. Sandra did not orchestrate a single play the entire game and basically made it to the end because she is useless. WTF heroes? you were supposed to be the good guys, but you ruined the ending to what could have been the best season of survivor ever. PARVATI IS THE BEST SURVIVOR PLAYER EVER.
MrBosif95 Yeah, the Queen *Bee* of Survivor. Did you know that J.T.'s letter was read within earshot of the Heroes and Pooperti giggled about it the entire time? Real brilliant there, kid. You just gave his allies all the reason they needed to scalp you.
+MrBosif95 U may not respect Sandra's game but the jury did, and thats all that mattered. Parvati's fatal game flaw was her being too involved with Russell which made her guilty by association. U were privy to her gameplay as a viewer but the jury was going off on her word alone, and after them seeing her wrapped in Russell's arms at night and always around Russell they wouldn't believe her saying she wasn't that involved with him. Russell is to blame for himself and Parvati losing.
Parvati knew she would lose to Sandra in a jury vote though. She admits so herself. Yet she didnt even try to vote her (someone she admits herself she knew she would lose to) out until the F4. Ooops. Some best ever.
MrBosif95 don't listen to these simple minded fools, they are the same dumbasses that think Jenna was a better player than Rob C and Natalie over Russell, and that's just a couple off the top of my head
Some of us werent raised to think that you win for trying something and failing at it which is what youre saying happened. The "oh i should have listened to You but a better player conviced Me otherwise because i suck at the game so ill ultimately vote for You to win" line of reasoning is self evidently flawed
@@NWOtion ok buddy I gotchu on 3 reasons why Sandra deserved her win in HvV 1. She did that brilliant move by getting rid of Coach with no idols or anything just social manipulation towards Russell and that guaranteed her a spot further and saved her closest ally Courtney in the process. 2. She played a really good utr game that yeah really got her to the end and only had her name written down 3 times the entire time (and 2 of the times were negated cuz of an idol). 3. Yes the Heroes did give their votes partly out of compensation, but really out of the Final 3 Sandra was the only one that gave them any ounce of dignity and respect and actually wanted to work with them. It mattered more that she wanted to work with them to begin with and not pagong them, not that it was a requirement that they had to vote for her. To conclude, Sandra won HvV fair and square. Bye
Russell's line about Sandra being "lippy" tells me he didn't understand what a strong social player really is. It's not about being a nice person who tells people what they want to hear. That can be part of it, but it's really about how good you are at reading people's intentions, how good you are at understanding what they value, and how to present yourself in a way that makes them want to keep you around and vote for you to win.
Russell just doesn't get it. You can outwit better than the rest of them. You can outplay better than the rest of them. But you will never be able to outlast if the rest of them despise you.
If the jury likes player A and not player B, it's safe to say player A outwitted player B. And no matter how the fans of player B spin or cherry-pick it or how much they bitch years afterward, that's all that matters.
***** I remembered Alicia Calaway's jury speech on All Stars: "Now you may have outwitted us, outplayed us, and outlasted us, but you have NOT, OUTCLASSED us...
The truth is he dominated, he owned them so completely that they are bitter, just like the last time. People cannot get over their egos. If you understood anything about Buddhism and philosophy you would realise that is the real problem. Not just here in this game, but in life aswell. This game is a mirror on life. The juries are a part of it. Russel was never mean. He was just superior. He tricked them. he controled them. AND THEY HATE HIM FOR IT! For showing them how gullible and dumb they are. Tyson is a prime example. Russel completely owned him. Said no mean word to him. Just ended his game. But still or rather because of it Russel cannot get his vote. The one responsible for ending people's games has virtualy no chance to get their vote. Look at it. Sandra won. Twice.
I hate reality shows in which the winner is determined by audience voting. If America got to vote, it would be completely based on who was the most entertaining to watch. That's why they have Player of the Season. Russell thinks he's the best player because he's one Player of the Season twice. He won because he hogs up so much damn screen time. Rupert got the second highest amount of votes (very close percentage to Russell) but Russell thinks Rupert is a terrible player. Russell's logic is flawed, not the game.
I do not hate him because he hogs up screen time. The producers/editors are completely at fault for that. I can't stand how delusional he is. I never said I hated him. His social game is one of the worst I have ever seen, and yet he wonders why he never gets any jury votes. He thinks he is the best player because he wins Player of the Season, which is literally fans voting for their favorite, not the best.
+Noah Lindquist I agree because we only get to see 1 hr of their "3 days" in camp. So the jury who has been w/ them 24/7 are the best judges as to who deserves the title of sole survivor. Sometimes we don't agree w/ them because we don't see everything. But for Russell to say that Rupert is a terrible player, is quite logical for me.
Exactly. Guys like Russhole and Boston Rob are such hypocrites. Rob gushes how he won the stupid CBS poll for best survivor, when Russell who finished 2nd he claims is an awful player (I sort of agree Russell is an awful player but atleast be consistent in what you are arguing). Russell claims America Fan Favorite votes prove your worth, and calls someone like Rupert who easily won that in All Stars and nearly beat Russell for it on HvV despite a far worse edit and less screen time, as a really bad player. No consistency, no logic.
It is fine to say Rupert isnt a good player (I dont even think Rupert is a good player) but then you cant turn around and say huge Fan Favorite votes prove you are the best ever. You have already given up that right when you call Rupert a bad player. Of course to process that would require a brain, something Russell doesnt possess.
I'll regard her as one of the because she's won twice, but not because she's proven herself to be that great of a player. When you go down the list of memorable and strong players, almost all of them win challenges, lead alliances and have strong social and strategic games. Boston Rob has only won once, but he is consistently placed in the top 3 of any best player list. Do you think Sandra is a better player than BR?
Russell has the poorest empathy of a human being! That's his flaw! It is very clear that the 'jury' has the POWER in the end! So when you vote them out at least give them a little bit of sympathy because they are human beings, what Russel is doing is 'over kill' and that kind of game play in survivor will NEVER win!
I think in Samoa he could have won, but heroes vs villains he was a maniac. He was just arrogant and mean to everyone. His social game was so bad. If parvarti had won i would be ok with that though.
haha Sandra is funny xD lol like when she said that even if America would have to vote for the winner Russell still wouldn't win lol gotta love Sandra :D :P
It's 2015 and some people are still stuck in 2010 thinking Russell deserved to win and is the best ever. Since then we've had winners who were cutthroat such as Kim and tony but had a reasonable social game and finished their seasons with victories. Let it go.
Exactly, Russell is a horrible player, not even top 300 all time. His heroes vs villians game is one of the worst games in Survivor history. Anyone arguing he should have won should be shot in the head and killed for sheer stuipdity. It also detracts from the only real argument that should matter for this season, Parvati vs Sandra.
If he was the best, he should've figured out how to win. Maybe he should apply for the Amazing Race or another show that doesn't require social skills. That's a component of the game of Survivor, it's been that way since Borneo. Brian Heidik was arguably worse than Russell in an era of Survivor where backstabbing was extremely taboo and he still won. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure Clay could beat Russell in a jury vote. Finally, Russell's style of game only worked once. Once Russell got to the merge it was Parvati who made the move that gave the villains the advantage and after that, every villain didn't mind taking Russell to the end because they knew he would be easy to beat. And in Redemption Island, he couldn't even get his tribe of new players to follow him. Boston Rob did. If Russell is the greatest, he should've been able to win that season instead of Rob.
vaporterra with those clowns in his tribe plz, that season was garbage. i erased it from my memory. And no, Russell was always in control during HEROES vs Villains, he got a hidden immunity from the ENEMY tribe lol and dont even get me started on Samoa, his bold moves are legendary. A bitter tribe does not change the fact of the matter and that would be his utter Brilliance in Survivor. He completely changed the dynamics of the game, those who failed to get on board got destroyed. No one could handle the Neo-Survivor moves Russel pulled. And it was Epic. #Survivor
1.Why are you using hashtags on RUclips? They have no effect. 2.That season was garbage, but so was Russell's gameplay that season. He played the same game for a 3rd time. That's like showing everyone your whole hand in Poker twice. 3.That was more of a dumb move by JT than a good move for Russell. If Russell voted out Randy, Tyson, Rob, and Coach with the intention of pretending to be dominated by an all female alliance, then that would've been a good move. He got lucky there. Russell complains about other people benefitting from luck but everyone benefits from luck including him. 4.Those who failed to get on board were destroyed? Brett was one immunity challenge away from beating him either at final 4 or final 3 in Samoa, Sandra won Heroes vs Villains, and after Russell left, his allies Krista and Stephanie went out the door next. He is one of the top 5-10 players to never win the game along with Cirie, Rob C., Fairplay, Yau-Man, Lex, Aubry, etc., but he deservedly lost.
If I was Russell I would be upset too. He played incredible in Samoa. And equally great in HvV. His idol moves and making people target each other was phenomenal to watch. How he flew under the radar in some of those council meetings is still mind boggling , especially since everyone knew he was a big threat. Hantz got the short end of the stick 2 times. I would have been okay with Parvati winning HvV too. She didn't bow down to Hantz. She had her own game. But Sandra? Everything she planned failed... heck, she planned for weeks to get Russell out and she couldn't do it. Sorry, just my point of view.
Adnan Asghar No, he dug his own grave by treating people like shit and burning unnecessary personal bridges. The object of the game has never been to have everything go in your favor for all 39 days. You just need to make it to the end and convince the jury to vote for you. It was also hilarious when Russell felt so entitled to know about Parvati's second idol and Sandra's idol that he threw a ninny. I bet the troll couldn't admit to even himself that you can't pull every string.
I'm sorry but if the judges werent mature enough to handle defeat and see he played an awesome game then it makes them look like soar loosers. I get the social element of the game is important, but he didn't act like a jerk to the contenstants (not to their face), plus the game element and showmanship was awesome. The moves he made are some of Survivors best. For him to loose to Natalie and Sandra makes Survivor seem like a sorority (spelling), not ...Survivor.
not catering to an entitled egomaniac doesn't make you immature/unable to handle defeat. People didn't deny Russell a vote because they "couldn't handle defeat". They denied Russell a vote because he got himself on their bad sides and failed to repair bridges he burned. Winners like Mike and Tony know how to do this. Russell refused to. Survivor is a game, but a social one. Sounds like you don't understand the importance of the social element since you're saying "but big moves tho!" Oh, Russell didn't act like a jerk to their faces? *makes the condescending wonka face* Were you there? You didn't even need to be there to see him rub people the wrong way, and even to their faces. I'll be happy to provide examples of when he was a jerk to people's faces, as would the entire HVV jury. Survivor is not about flash and showmanship. That's not the object of the game. Showmanship CAN earn you brownie points, but holding on to those brownie points is a must. Russell did anything but hold onto any brownie points he got from Dave Ball and JT when he continued to repulse them beyond the game.
He is an egomaniac, he is a villain, he has always fully embraced that title and has been if not the best villain, one of the best villains. People love to hate him, and yet he made alliances, made people flip on their own alliances (manipulated them beautifully), betrayed others, was loyal to his alliance as long as he could be, did phenomenal idol tricks, was a physical competitor, and you can tell he loved the game with a passion. By no mean was he socially not a strong player. I thoroughly believe he should have won atleast Samoa, if not both seasons. I do believe the jury voted for who they liked best (Sandra and Natalie are both very likable people) and that was a big shame. Neither did amazing, mind blowing game moves, nothing memorable about them.
Survivor is not only a social game but also a physical competition, win those competitions and you gain power and you get the chance to knock down your competition. So physical and strategic moves also hold weight in survivor, not only who you like which is a very mind numbing way to vote. It is a competition, not a sorority. As you said, AT THE END, Natalie stood up for herself but again did nothing throughout. I don't think she should have been rewarded for it. People don't like him, fine, but to rob him of the title best survivor player of that season is again childish on behalf of the jury. Strategy should be equally important as should be physical prowess.
Unfortunately this particular season was one full of big egos, and they all clashed, so of course the jury gave Russell the finger in the end. I don't think Russell should've won because yes, jury management is part of the game, BUT to not get ANY votes + Sandra winning over Parvati was just tragic.
Umm yup. Parvati was killer in challenges and her game play was more cutthroat than Sandra's. She played Russell like a fiddle and aligned with him knowing it would put a target on her back, and her double immunity move was awesome.
Sandra should have said something along the lines of "If America cane out here to play and had to smell your rank stench for 39 days they'd give me and Parvati 'player of the season' too."
I'm watching this season for the 4th time now, and the only thing that makes me smile so big is knowing that the pompous little ass who still couldn't win still didn't win. The only flaw is having him playing again. He couldn't even appear happy for Sandra. As everyone else is clapping and smiling, he is stone faced pouting, and not clapping. Not only is he a very little excuse of a "man", he is disgusting at how he talks about the other players, no respect for anyone. It's all about him, his game, and he's in charge. Rob Mariano could teach him a LOT about being a man.
there is not a "right" way to win. the "but there was no strategy except" card doesn't work when said exception turns out to work like a charm. whether you have come to accept it or not, coattail riding is a strategy, depending on whose coattail it is. a great one at that.
Russell is the best player the game has ever seen, the way he thought, found ideals,blindsided. Everything he did was with purpose for something down the line. The game is first about out lasting with he did in the first 2 games. Second "out wit" and he was brilliant at that too. He out played everyone and he did it the best. He did everything right according to the game. People are salty because of the way he played but he played the game how it was supposed to be played. So in my opinion Russell should have won his first 2 games
However, you must remember that jury management is also a very crucial part in the game. Yeah I will agree that he is one of the best strategic players, but he absolutely failed in jury management. You can’t be a nasty person to literally everyone you’re voting out, or else they won’t vote for you in the end because you rubbed them the wrong way. Sure, they might be bitter because he voted them out, but it’s more likely they didn’t vote for him because he treated them like crap. They’re not gonna vote for an utterly nasty person to win. Sandra serves as a great example as great jury management. I will say that she had the weakest strategic game of the three, but she identified that the jury was majority Heroes. So by ingratiating herself with them by offering them an opportunity to advance them in the game, which they then turned down, they feel absolutely guilty about not working with her. These aspects of Russel and Sandra were perfectly described in Rupert’s jury speech. Parvati, on the other hand, I would say also played a very impressive strategic game, but the Heroes chose to vote for Sandra because she was connected to Russel and Sandra had given them opportunity which they were indebted to. That’s how hated Russel was. They’re hatred for him was so large that it took a little respect away from Parvati’s game. So to summarize, jury management is super super important. Russel can never win in any season unless he stops treating everyone like crap and if he learns how to properly and gently handle the jury.
@@chichinitz Agreed, Sandra always took into account that the people she was voting out would eventually be on the jury and would decide if she won. When Sandra voted Rupert out, she says in her confession that she can vote him out and he’ll still vote for her, and she was right. Russell understands the game, but Sandra understands the players. While Russell is arguably the best strategic player the game has ever had, his lack of social game will always cost him the win.
@@chichinitz How do you want to manage a jury full of salty players like Heroes or Samoa? It is impossible. Not even Parvati could do it with a far superior game to Sandra's, but Heroes were salty so they voted for the least "evil" out of the three. Thankfully the game changed a lot since then and now bitter jurors are rare. (last time seen in KR and HvHvH kinda).
Russell should go on Survivor Turkey where the audience actually does get a percentage of the votes. That's the only way he'll ever make it past his tribes 1st tribal council now that everyone has seen his game.
Yet here we are, and the format of final tribal has changed to more align with what russell was saying. The jury was always supposed to choose who most deserved to win, not the person they hated least. Fuck off sandra fans!
Ken Keller anyone who says survivor has no flaw is a fool. Every experiment mankind has ever created has a flaw in it. There is no such thing as a perfect experiment. And yes the producers have been working hard to fix the game to make ir work better. You noticed ever since Sandra won the second time we have not had a lame winner expect maybe season 32.
How can people say that Sandra is bad at this game? She has won twice, played twice, and never been voted out. Other players have been playing more times and only won once. All logic says that Sandra is the best player to ever play.
because hantz nation doesnt want to admit that russell dug his own grave. it's always the mean old jury's fault. they can't accept that she (and natalie white) slayed their fave.
If there is a percentage from America’s vote: Nicaragua: Chase Redemption Island: Rob South Pacific: Sophie One World: Kim Philippines: Lisa Caramoan: Cochran Blood vs. Water: Tyson Cagayan: Tony San Juan Del Sur: Natalie World’s Apart: Mike/Carolyn (can’t decide) Cambodia: Jeremy Kaoh Rong: Aubry MvsG: Adam Gamechangers: Sarah HHH: Chrissy Ghost Island: Domenick DvsG: Mike EoE: Gavin IoI: Noura
Compared to people like Parvati and Brett from his 2 final seasons, Russell sucks at challenges too, so your point is what exactly? Oh yeah fucking nothing.
ElectrikkPaperClipxx she didn't manage any jury, she went up against a woman who wasn't that well liked and not to mention she got a flukey "2nd chance" at the game and then she went up against a bitter jury who couldn't handle the fact that Russ & Parvati ran that game
i think her strategy was not having a strategy and to be a floater and aligned with the right people at the right time. PArvati and Russel did the dirty work. They had blood on their hands. Of course she would win. She didnt do anything
Tony from 28 is the best player that I have ever seen. I have only watched season 1,28,20,13,7,32,34(because of calendar from big brother) and soon gonna watch 31
Dude watch season 19!!! No matter WHAT anybody says, or feels about Russell, his original season on Samoa was AMAZING! Not even just Russell himself, but the season as a whole was outstanding. The comeback of all comebacks happens that season. It’s wonderful. Highly recommended my friend.
@@nathanbl7961 if only he won f4 IC then we would not hear the bitching from that, and the FMC twist, which is kind of bs the way they did it, would not be called rigged.
Damn, this was so good and so honest but there was so much to say. Jeff should have just let the conversation continue. Russell doesn't babble. Jeff wanted to intercept and say something and I wanna know what he was gonna say. The reunion shows could be longer. We want a bit more talk of what happened etc
Russell's problem was that he saw the game as just make it to the end, by any means necessary, to this day I don't think he gets the whole concept of the show other than the 39 days part.
Russel:"America needs to have a percentage of the votes!"
Rupert,winner of America's tribal council:Claps alone
I like thus even more than i did 5 years ago!
I Liek Mudkipz yep
But Rupert is so stupid in all his seasons hanging on the the villains who everyone can see will take him out before the final 3 ... I definitely do not like seeing Rupert in Survivor as he's so stupid ... in real life however, I think I will like him as a person ...
M8 Russell has one fan favourite twice , Rupert has only won once
@@poison6084 Rupert would've won it, if it appeared in PI too
Russell critiquing Sandra’s social game is peak comedy.
Russell had a terrible social game but are we really gonna sit here and act like Sandra wasn't just gifted the win here
@@bigboygains137 ‘gifted’ as in fairly winning the majority jury vote? I mean sure
no, gifted as in the jury voted for her purely to vote against Russel because of how dumb he made them all look. I'm all for people with great social games winning but in this season that was not the case. She literally did nothing and got dragged to the end by Russel. Probably one of if not the worst winner we've seen on survivor.
@@bigboygains137 I also would’ve much rather him (or maybe Parvati) take the win, but for Russ to play such a dominant game twice and not be able to get any wins really displays how unlikeable he probably is in person. And that’s no one else’s fault but his own.
Sandra definitely got lucky to be sitting next to two people who had jury members with vendetta’s against them, but that’s just how the cards fell. She still won fair and square. Saying she was ‘gifted’ the win kinda suggests otherwise.
The weak go first, then the strong get taken out, then the weak that didn’t get voted out earlier make it to the end and we see who wins.
I love how at the end Tyson says "otherwise I would win" and no one heard it
Such a wannabe comedian, dude is never funny
+apalo1111 Why must you lie?
TheKyleDavid
Never got a chuckle out of me
+apalo1111 He tries so hard but sucks.
Tyson won Survivor in different season so he doesn't really suck dude :)
Parvati's like the mom separating two bickering siblings
Jason, Alexis, Erik... must have doubled over in uproarious laughter at that.
@@AllRequired Why?
Sandra is a massive IRL troll to Russell lmao. She knows how much her comments in the beginning irritate Russell. He's literally seething when she said "my goal was to make it in the end. And I did. And I won. You can't beat that" lmao
Watch your language, and Russell is BY FAR better than Sandra was. She was only dragged along by default and got the vote by sympathy bias.
@@ronaldm.6150 That's the thing about Survivor. You can be the worst strategic or physical player ever but when you win, the other contestants can complain, but technically, based on the concept of the show, you are the best player that season. Russell is the best strategic player but that's all he is.
@@chicagoblackhawks9840 best strategic player outside of reputation. Strategy as a whole involves not pushing everyone completely off. Sandra, definitely not physically gifted, not the most social, but she's clever and that cleverness made her a survivor.
Despite all of Russell's attributes, Sandra wins alone by cleverness.
Ronald M. Russel tried his abusive wife beater tactics as a means to win. Guess what, Sandra isn't a victim. He was absolutely seething when she said that and it was again Sandra being a queen, something some more fragile egos can't handle. If her (or anyone) being "lippy" bothers you, I think its you who have some issues.
@@nickh4676 uh Sandra isn't clever, she was at mercy to others a lot of the time. What makes her good is she is weak and people think they can beat her and drag her along. Now people know she just floats and will never bring her close to a finals again
Actually, Sandra's attempts to oust Russell failed, but the heroes realized it was their fault and rewarded her with votes, she planned the successful ouster of Coach by manipulating Russell, and everyone knows she'll backstab anyone, but the fact that she so openly defied Russell was seen as brave, since anyone else who did it was voted out. Also, Parvati tried to convince Russell to not take Sandra to F3 because she knew Sandra would win, so that says a lot there.
He never saw it like it was or heard it like it was.
Tony lied, manipulated and blindsided people in the jury, even his number 1 ally Trish. Yet he still won. The difference was Tony didn't treated the jury like shit. Russell has garbage personality, threatens anyone who is against him and calls people names like dumbass. And you expect them to reward you for that? The challenge in survivor is you have to outplay your opponents while making them think you are the good guy. Again, look at Tony's gameplay. He won twice for a reason. Tony took Russell's gameplay and perfected it.
Tony’s the perfect example, same strategic gameplay but he’s a genuinely likeable person
And the most important part was his early boot in Game Changers, it showed him that he had to calm the hell down and build more trust whilst still being chaotic and wily.
If you watched the latest season of survivor how do you feel about Xander not even getting any votes from the jury? He didnt treat them like shit and played a good game yet he still received no votes
@@RigIsCakeDon’t really think the jury was bitter. A lot of his good plays occurred before the merge besides the fake idol play which wasnt even his plan. Besides that he didnt really do much. Erica was more involved in the voting and even got the tribe to split a vote between shan and lianna because her name was on the chopping block if shan played her idol. I honestly went into final tribal council thinking Erica would win with xander getting a couple of votes so I was surprised. If anything the Jury was more bitter towards Deshawn especially Shan and Lianna. He was also super close with Naseer, Evvie and heather and neither of them chose him which goes to show you they were voting for who they liked the most but who they thought was the most strategic and that was Erica in their eyes.
@@RigIsCake because the jury doesn't wanted a straight white male to win.
One other thing. Russell is the kind of player who can be effective when he is unknown. In Samoa, nobody knew who he was, so they didn't know him. In HvV, nobody knew who he was (Samoa aired during the taping of HvV, so none of cast members saw his play in Samoa). It's no shock that in his 3rd game (the first time the other players knew who he was and how he likes to play), he got voted off from his tribe first.
There's a flaw in Russell's game. It's his jury management.
Beckett Newton And basically letting Sandra slide through, his ego thinking "oh, she is no threat", even though she told him to his face "yeah, I am against you", smirking while she said it. Russell's ego, lack of real intelligence and social skills, and wife-beater method of being a "leader" was the flaw in the game.
@@mdiddio "Do you want me to explain it to you?"
Jury management was made up by weak minded individuals as an excuse for the person they like, who they know doesn't deserve to win, to look like a worthy winner. Sandra played a DUD game.
@@commentingperson9554 No, jury management was made from the production crew from the merge of season 1. By your "logic" of the Survivor system. The production crew (as much as they love most of your favorite players) are those "weak minded individuals as an excuse for the person they like, who they know doesn't deserve to win, to look like a worthy winner" not the R. Hantz hating fans...............and YOU certainly have proven yourself a weak minded individual as an excuse for the person you like, who you THINK doesn't deserve to win, to make them look like a worthy winner. I saw in your Colby's jury speech video that you said you respected everyone's opinion...............yet you absolutely haven't to the people outside of your clique 😂😂😂😂😂. PS None of your opposing statements towards me, AllRequired, & ElectrikkPaperClipxx
make any logical sense anyway.
@@pjmclaughlin844 Nope, jury management was created my weak minded individuals as an excuse for a juror to use to vote for a person they know don't deserve to win out of spite towards the deserving winner or their game. I use facts. All of my comments to Required and Clip, who don't understand anything about Survivor, just like you, use facts. They don't use any logic. They know they're wrong.
To put things into clearer perspective, Parvati told Russell that even she would have voted for Sandra over him. When you're main ally throughout the game doesn't even think you deserve to win, it may be a sign that the game isn't what's flawed.
Well parvati voted for Natalie instead of Tony in WaW so not sure I rlly trust her voting choices anyway…
@@roybalproductions4125 thats actually a good point
@Volume
Sandra tried to actually connect with the people who would be voting for the winner while Russell made no attempt unless it was him backstabbing them. Jerri, Parvati, and Sandra all said Russell was a terrible, arrogant, nasty, and paranoid person to live with for 39 days. He did the exact same thing previously in Samoa and lost twice in a row without learning his lesson. Trying to establish a good social game and connection isn't doing nothing, its one of the most important parts of the show.
Because "feelings"
@Volume
If his social game was so great, he wouldn't have lost in two season finales and voted off early in two subsequent seasons. Even Sandra lasted longer in all 3 of her future seasons than Russell did, and she's a two time winner who's was acknowledged as a big threat compared to her first two seasons. Russell was a pretty good player strategically, but he didn't understand that you can't demand to be treated better than others without taking into account their own feelings and comfort. We get a snippet of that on TV, it's nowhere near the weeks people on the show went though. I also understand that it's best to take first hand accounts of people who've played and can confirm how it was to live and play with him. Watch and read interviews by past players. Sandra, Jerri, Parvati, and Colby responses on what they think of Russell are all on RUclips and they're all negative. His social same was terrible.
Rewatching the whole season I realized why Sandra won. She stayed with her alliance while giving the enemies a feel of hope. It was kind of perfect gameplay in a season with very emotional voters.
The more emotional consideration you grant a juror, the less emotional their final vote is going to be. Too bad Russell (and his legions of butthurt followers) didn't get that.
Sooooo Bitter juries..... understood.
@@robtheservantof6257
Danielle and Parvati literally told Russell point blank that he was going to lose because of how awfully he treated everyone. He didn't lose because of a bitter jury, be lost because he was trapped in his own world and lacked full awareness of what was really going on. I can see the different arguments between why Parvati or Sandra could have won, but Russell was so delusional he 100% deserved to lose sitting next to almost everyone in the season.
@@AGJ117 Parvati and Daniele?? You mean the 3rd villian who started crying at tribal bc she was finna be voted out 😂😂 and the 2nd villian who also COULD NOT WIN. They're words don't matter. If Parv is such a great player like your glazing her to be then she should've done more to get away and win. Russell lost bc of bitter juries. It's that simple. He schooled them all & they mad
@@robtheservantof6257 If final 3 was Russell, Jeri and Parvati I think Parvati wins in. Russell played a shit social game in HvV. He def had a bitter jury in Samoa though
Russell claiming another player has no social game is ironic to say the least.
groyper jones he got to the end and didn’t win twice, because everyone on the jury hated him. He was cocky and annoying in this season. I like Russel but his social skills are whack
groyper jones I agree they were bitter, but Russel made amazing moves with bad social skills. He made everyone hate him and didn’t realise it till the very end
groyper jones I think we can all agree Russel deserved to win in Samoa, but this video is about HvV and in HvV I don’t think he deserved to win. Also, Tony from Cagayan AND winners at war plate d a great strategic game and a phenomenal social game aswell
groyper jones bitter? Nah. Sandra just had really good jury management
MadlyAwesomeismyname exactly!!!
Tyson: "Otherwise I would've won!"
😂😂😂😂😂
Ya, in a longest nose contest
Over russel? Easily
Russell is saying Sandra has no social game but the jury still gave her all the votes. Social game isn't just how you socialize with people, it's how you build a reputation in their minds. Take Rupert for example, he backstabbed Sandra and now he realizes that Sandra actually had her back.
Uh, six jurors voted for Sandra. Still good enough on a jury of nine, but doesn't quite qualify as all the votes.
AllRequired yah sorry that was just an exaggeration. What I was trying to say was that she got the votes that russell failed to receive.
Sandra only won because everyone was salty that they got outplayed by Russell.
@@CptMonstar Sandra won because she gets juries to vote for her. You play to make it to the end and earn juries' votes and win. Unfortunately Russell still doesn't understand it and he plays it just to make it to the end. 🤣
@@TheAlan0509 I’m about to school you! Tell me how Sandra played a better game than Russell?!?! Russell is so good that JT really thought that the Villains had a female alliance and tried to get Russell to join the Heroes. We all know how powerful the female alliance could be, especially with Parvati on the villains and it was NEVER even mentioned. Then after the merge Sandra tried to join the Heroes saying that there wasn’t a female alliance...AND THEY STILL BELIEVED RUSSELL. Furthermore, Parvati had to save Sandra from getting voting out with the help of Russell because he gave Parvati the idol that JT gave him and she used it and the idol she already had to save both Sandra and I think Jerri. The ONLY reason she makes it to the end is because she SUCKS at challenges so why would you vote off an easy opponent. Do you remember the final challenge, she was the only one that was nowhere near the necklace. Also, tell me how Natalie outplayed Russell in the 1st season that he played.
Russell wants America to vote?....Russell for Big Brother: Over The Top 2???
He might as well. America voted for fucking Morgan lol
After Willie Hantz was on Big Brother... I'm pretty sure Big Brother wont let another Hantz on their show! Just like how Brandon Hantz probably wont be back on Survivor again! Out of the 3, the only one likely to come back, would be Russell Hantz and it would be on Survivor for his 4th Time!
The only decent hantz is his brother Shawn
@@Flamecalvin In Russel hantz YT vid He said that BB wants willie back but he says only if he gets money but BB dosnt want to pay money for that
@@allmightyjeff9972 I highly doubt Russell was telling the truth. BB doesn't tolerate violence. They're not gonna let him on the show for any amount of money. Also, Boogie will never come back either.
Has anybody noticed Sandra said Parvati won twice?
Yes. Sandra thought that Parvati only lost the game this time.
"The only people here that like you are right there. That's it. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5" is one of my favorite things ever
***** The other half hates him.
+Andrew Ng that's assuming that everyone in America already watches survivor, AND know who Russell is. Russell is a glorified FairPlay now. He's yesterday's news. New villains, like Spencer and Abi, are formed.
Your statistic is dumb.
In reality America voted Russel player of the season. But I too enjoy fantasy. LOTR is my favorite movie. So I can relate to you saying that one of your favorite things ever is something that isn't even real.
he has a point. Sandra is just a shadow, nothing more
dddddd This comment didn’t age well at all lmao
"Nobody here would vote for you"
Win Fan favourite award (both times)
👋👋👋👋👋👋👋
They weren't affected by his dirty conduct.
Keyword: FAN FAVOURITE! He’s the Valentina of Survivor.
@@harryhealey4298 cause the fans arent bitter about losing to him
He can thank the editors for that for giving him the most screentime (both times).
2:35
OF COURSE RUPERT CLAPS!
What honestly annoys me is that we're only made to like Russel because he was given the most screen time. But seeing beyond that edit, Sandra and Parv was right. Russel was the biggest goat on that season
I don't think it was intended to be that way initially. By all means, Samoa is ALL about Russell, but it's also meant to demonstrate why his approach, while effective, is not ideal. It backfired because the perception of Russell was largely positive, and viewers actually started rooting for him rather than against him, and I think that's largely due to the fact that everyone else is shafted by the edit, so there's not really anyone else to root for.
Biggest goat😂😂 you can say you dont like him but thats just straight wrong
Parvati and Russell are very similar in terms of how they play. What makes Parvati better is her social game. She doesn't get much credit she deserves because people are too focused on Russell. She literally knows when to be exploitative, be receptive, be passive, and be manipulative. Survivor is not ONLY about strategies and how you play to get there at the end. Whether you like it or not, Survivor has a social and emotional aspect because it is, in a lot of ways, similar to real life and in real life, people don't like overly manipulative and exploitative people.
Agree to some extent. I still don't like pavarti for certain reasons. Her Advantage is she can talk to the jury like she talk throughout the game. Bulshit bat your eyes, lie and manipulate with a smile parepare about Russell, the guy, didn't give a s***.. He knew he did well, but then just was a idiot at Jerry
But she was gonna be voted out by The villains and she stuck with the villains the entire game while Russell was able to use both heroes and villains to sway votes his way.
I'm here watching these clips when winners at war is currently airing. Sandra is getting so much hate on season 40 but after seeing her on this season she has earned my respect. Anyone can say and believe what they want, but you can only be the winner at something if you WIN
LOL annnnnnd shes a quitter
@@NightmareSWGOH There is no point of her staying at exile island because she will lose all the challenges
@@secrets.295okay so she's a terrible Player😭😭like We all know she won bc of bitter juries. She Sucks Physically, horrible Strategist (passing by isn't strategy. She tried to get people out but couldn't. In a perfect world I'm sure Sandra wanted to vote out Russell even before the ftc but ofc couldn't, and social she really isn't even that good, she was just nice.
@@robtheservantof6257 You would be even worse at Survivor than Russell was. The whole point of Survivor is to not get voted out and then get the jury to vote for you. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to win. Sandra won both of her first two seasons, which no one else has ever done. Not only is she not a "terrible player," she's one of the two best players of all time, along with Tony.
@@bigbuffguy9589 your a Joke
Parvarti... i love you
I love seeing JT being cute and all just sit there and laugh lol
"I know who should've won more than the jury because they were actually there and I just watched a 42 minute edited episode each week." - casual fans
Spencer William "So what if he was a jerk? Russell won 'player of the season' unlike Sandra and that blond girl, forgot her name. That proves he should have won and not them and that the bitter jury voted wrong."- said the deluded Hantz minion.
***** "Russell's a GREAT Survivor player and would have destroyed the old school players!" - not far off what a self-proclaimed Survivor expert (who's actually all hot air) actually did say.
Which 'Survivor expert' was that?
+Spencer William That was nearly five years ago, on the companion board to The Jury Thrashes Russell Hantz Part 2 (it was the one with Sandra in the thumbnail). +Joel Sebastien Lefevre, cherry-picker in extremis, always about getting the last word. Electrikk remembers this guy all too well. If you want an idea of exactly what this asswipe is about, go to Who Would Russell Hantz Drink With.
But he played with old school players.
Russell must have drunk too much saltwater, he salty af
He also needs desitin, cause he still butthurt.
He’s right tho
He has a good reason to be salty when he keeps losing the votes to a bunch of pussies
Bro why you calling them pussies. That's rude and your mad cuz your husband Russle didn't win survivor he loses survivor himself he should own it if your an asshole to people that are voting for you to win your aren't going to win
@@lukesmith9153 you're right 👍 my apologies
The jury has been bitter, all the way back to season 1. Players should go into the final TC expecting fully that there will be members of the jury who will be bitter. It's the finalists' job to try to beat that bitterness and convince those people to look past it and vote for them to win. The jury react like normal people would, so should the finalists. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the game, or the jury system. It's been done the same way since the show began and should not change.
if Parvati didn't align herself with Russel and blindsided Sandra, she would've been this season's winner. but kudos to Sandra for her stellar social play.
1:20
That look Sandra and Parvati give each other. They've spend 39 days with him and are used to his nonsense.
people can be so contradicting in these arguments, once it is ''you have to lie and backstab an blablablah...'' and then it is: ''oh no Russel doesn't deserve to win, he lied and backstabbed so much''
Danielle said it best in her jury speech. "It's one thing to tell lies in this game. But you told DIRTY lies..lies that you did not need to tell"
People hate Russell because he's a bitch.
dkdj12 yeah I totally agree, but you know, it's just impossible in this game to mak this general conclusion of what is right and what is wrong you know? So much depends on the cast members,
+dkdj12 Uh, that was Candice. Danielle's was: "Russell, it's clear that there's been a lack of skill in your jury management... But after hearing what all of these people had to say, you're not gonna get any votes, nobody respects the way that you played the game, Russell." And this by someone who had to make her own case to her own jury, and who was browbeaten into a tearful fit simply because she and Parv got a little too close for his liking.
Its the difference between Russell and Tony from Cagayan. They both went to great lengths to get their way but in the end, Tony wasn't nasty in the game like Russell was.
Nia Blue oh yes he was, but tony has Trisha to save the day for him and a jury that rewarded strategic gameplay over personal relationships. For example Laura saying Russell had a bad social game and citing him using the idol to save himself and vote off Kelly as reason. Like how dare he not just got home. The tony jury had more super fans, and that's he only reason he won and Russell didnt
I think Russell did deserve to win his first season. But not heroes vs villains. That one I thought Parvati deserved the win.
Yeah he wasn't that evil in Samoa he played like tony did in WAW and tony won but he was batshit crazy in hero's vs villians
@@kylemcmahon7651 Russell's arrogant unlike Tony.
Parv barely did shit tho
@@kylemcmahon7651 apparently he *was* pretty deeply unlikeable in Samoa too, we just didn't get to see as much of it.
@@CP-ll6qg not as bad as he was in heroes vs villians he was insane in hero's and villans haha
What people don't understand is once the game is over, there is no such thing as "did they *deserve* to win?" or "who really *deserved* it?". That question doesn't even makes sense. Survivor is a game with one winner. Sure getting further in the game is impressive, but the only sure thing that really counts is "did you win or did you lose?". If you got to the end and the jury voted for you, you won. This isn't american idol or the presidential election, you either win the game or you don't. And if you win the game, you did better than someone who didn't. It doesn't matter if it was luck, or if it was strategy. It's a game.
You can't sit at home and say "I would have voted for this person" because honey you watched the tv show survivor, you didn't get cast for this show, participate and live on the island, played the game of survivor, get voted out and end up in the jury. You are outside of the game. If the jury voted for someone, then that person wins. I personally wanted Parvati to win and loved her game, but if the jury voted for Sandra, then she's the winner and *therefore* she played better than Parvati, who lost and did not get the votes.
Thats silly. Whether you win or lose or how quick you are voted does not dispositively prove you are the best player. If that were true, will from worlds apart would be better than joe because he made it further. Thats silly. Your point implies the winmer selection process is the fairest it can be. If the winner was decided by who is taller, that too can be used to suggest that the player who is tallest and therefore wins deserves to win but in the nuanced idea of "deserved" we look to other factors beyond who won and who didnt. For example, the winner of the best actor oscar is not necessarily the best actor. The award itself cannot circularly be justified in someone getting it
@@NWOtion No, that's someone who actually understands Survivor. There is no such thing as a logical fallacy here. It is entirely about "the impressions you leave on the other players." It's how your fellows perceive you and whether or not you actually understand this (which Russell clearly did not). That makes Survivor an exercise in personality management and relationship dynamics. There are no factors beyond where the votes of the jury went. The award, being the million dollar cheque and title of Sole Survivor, can be perfectly justified in who got it.
I love Jerri's look at 2:16. Like, "Oh, he did NOT just say that!"
I think sandra was really smart and read situation very well.
because
Russell was always voted out anyone who was against him but Sandra in season 19 and 20.
Perhaps, but there is also the flaw in that Parvati was at that point so stuck to Russell that the jury saw her in the same light as him (plus her mocking JT's letter in front of them), that and Sandra's open disregard for Russell was seen in a good way by the jury. Sandra's not a bad player either, she knew how to avert votes away from her while still being very vocal, that normally gets you voted out. She may not have been good at the physical game, but she was good at the social one.
The thing is, during HvV. Sandra didn't have a chance to shine as much. Her only hope after Boston Rob was voted out was just too stay until the merge which she brilliantly did by pitting Coach against Russell. Then once the merge, the heroes was so dumb that her plan failed. She doesn't have a choice but to align with dumb people. The plan backfires, her last option was to act dumb and not pose a threat. She really had no choice. But, come the final trouble council. You know damn well nobody can talk better than Sandra. She was just too good at that.
If the audience can get a vote, everyone's strategy will change and so does Sandra. It doesn't mean Russel will win that game.
The jury is supposed to decide who most deserves to win, not who it is the least that they hate.
@@kenkeller6072 there is no criteria for how the jury should vote though
It's a 4-year-old comment but here I am again. Who deserves to win also includes how skillful you're in lying, backstabbing juries to get them out and then getting their vote. By the way, Russel being a jury goat is a big factor he can get to the end. If America has a percentage of the vote, he's less attractive to be brought to the end.
Stephen Chan well now it’s 5 years later but you could never have a fair American vote in a game like this. The editing could determine who would win. Also what makes the game great is that every year the game is different because the cast is different. The winner is a representation of how the cast felt each season. And this season it was emotional people and Sandra aided towards that by giving the heroes a bone early to gain their jury votes but still making it to the end with her alliance.
@@Zboy5z5 If America had a vote then when the Amazon ladies stripped for food that would get them millions of votes if it wasn't censored on TV cause alot of people will be that simple.
The jurors spend months on end with the finalists, and there are literally hundreds of hours worth of interactions that get compressed into one or two hours, which are then broadcast on TV. Yet the viewing audience, who see 1-2 hours of you every week, are better suited for the culminating decision of the entire 39 days than the jurors, who have spend 39 straight days interacting with, or at least observing you?? Gimme a break, Hantz.
Someone named +brandon is in need of your wisdom.
exactly.
Lol I love this because the way the game is set up is even MORE strategic... Because you have to slowly but surly eliminate people, effectively, while also making sure not to get them so mad that they will not vote for you in the end. So usually anyone too smart, cough Parvaiti cough, too good cough Colby cough, OR too manipulative cough RUSSELL cough can not really ever win... It's brilliant! Just a shame about Colby though!
But Parvati won
Reading people, predicting how the jury is going to vote, empathising, being socially aware of people's behaviours and feelings are all crucial elements to winning the game of Survivor. In my opinion, Russell lacked every single one of these traits - he only ever saw things and took action from his own perspective and ego. Sandra was abrasive with her words but had a superior grasp on human behaviour. She masterfully utilised her traits to the best of her physical and social environment. Sure her game didn't make as good for television, but just because she didn't play the typical warrior/hero/goddess-like game does not make her game any less effective. Is she my favourite player ever? Probably not (though I do like her tremendously), but at the end of the day, the girl is the only two-time sole Survivor - which the ultimate aim of the game.
all sandra was was a vote
nothing more
u could replace her with a writing peanut and nothing would have changed, thats how little she did in the challenges and the whole game in general
people like to pretend like shes something more than that, but its just bullshit because they are jealous of russel
see how stupid u guys are saying a peanut is a master of utilising traits to the best of its physical and social environment
its a peanut...
+geoff zetterberg I can see where you are coming from about Sandra (though I mightn't agree completely), and yes I am defending her in a way, but that does not mean I am jealous of Russell. To be so ignorant of human feelings and emotions and be so set in your ways - there is NOTHING I am jealous of there. I don't negate the fact that he was awesome at finding the idols, strategically manipulating certain players, winning challenges when it came down to the crunch - but that's pretty much it.
The fact that he has played the game three times with three different groups of people, and failed all three times to win, speaks volumes about his social awareness. You can argue that the jury is bitter, but to me, Russell seems just as bitter (if not more) for not winning the title of Sole Survivor. To say that there is flaw in the game only reinforces to us his lack of understanding of the game itself.
Lastly, peanuts are quite good for brain function actually, so I hope we all get our adequate intake on them.
yeah he should have atleast tried to hide what he was doing more, but by his comments in one of the last episodes of Hereos vs villians, he obviously didnt think they would reward coasters who did almost nothing in the entire game over him
at the end of the day, it all doesnt matter, sandra won, but even people who really hate russel can see how he worked his way to the end and sandra didnt really do anything, and russel fans can understand why sandra won
geoff zetterberg Peanuts aren't perceptive social players. And what, exactly, is there to envy about that bandy legged little troll?
geoff zetterberg
I personally thought it was impressive hoe during her first game she realized that she didn't have anything on the table to offer physically, so she used her knowledge of the spanish language to get her tribe supplies and food. Also her biggest move is getting almost all the jury members in both seasons to like her. She knows exactly what to say when she pleads her case to the jury, and she offered that allegiance to the heroes to try to vote off Russell. That in my mind was strategic because rupert and others were grateful for it when it came down to voting for the winner.
I’d be salty if I was Russell too
Yeah. It's a difficult game to only end up losing twice.
Yup he did all the work, and the salty people he outsmarted can just vote him off. The fans got it right 💰
Gervase in BvW when voting for Hayden: Don't hate the players, homie. Hate the game. This isn't Big Brother. It's Survivor. We do things different here. You're about to get a lesson in how to play the game.
I guess Russel is too delusional to understand it.
thecarelesseagle
Gervase was an absolute moron though.
Well that was misleading as there was no flaw explained. He just wants to play American Idol.
And... Russell won fan favourite. xD
what you said proved that how amazing Sandra is.
because usually people who have sob family situation could easily voted out, because they could be a huge threat in the final. but Sandra was not voted out her two seasons both. how amazing her survivor skill is.
Sandra just got lucky people didn’t like russell
It's hilarious that he makes his embarrassing plea, only to be shut down because he got beat by Sandra.
What he said was true your so called queen is a quitter
@@Crow-nc1oo Quitter? Quitters don't win and winners don't quit. Russell is a crybaby.
Russell will never learn - it pays to be nice and kind. You can make it to the end but not win if you are hated.
Cultivating relationships. Jury management. Kindness is a bonus. The secret formula for getting the votes... and deserving them.
You don't even have to nice and kind, you just have to be respectful to other people, something Russell for some reason felt he couldn't do if it didn't involve him.
:Sandra: America still wouldn’t vote for you.
:America: we vote for Russell to be fan favorite
Parvati would have won if It was for he América vote lol
@@david.895
?
If it was televote russel would have won twice.
But it’s not.
The reason why the jury is composed of the retired players is because they lived together 39 days and in a way they are active witnesses of all that happens, so they are the perfect as jurors
"Sandra waaw" -Jeff Probst 03:24
If the audience has a vote, then they should watch all of the videos and should not rely on the producer's edit. Remember, the edits just show what they want us to see.
if a jury "needed" to vote a certain way, the show would be rigged. and not everyone's definition of "best player" is the same.
does cbs count the number of blindsides/idol uses that each finalist has before the final tribal council and say "ok jury, x played the best game because he/she performed x blindsides, so that's who you need to vote for" ?
a g r e e d
"Only your family likes you Russell"
Meanwhile everyone at 2:36 cheering for Russell: ......
There is a flaw... in Russel's game that is.
I see both sides. I've watched Survivor seasons before (including the first season), but I've watched a lot more Big Brother seasons and the problem is the same. I'm a big believer in making sure you don't slight those on your way up, because you're going to have to see them on your way down. This is what people call "jury management." On the flip side of that, better players have lost seasons in both Survivor and Big Brother to more inferior players who weren't as deserving of their wins. Maybe a balance of the two would be good.
i love parvati's comment where she basically says yeah sandra won twice, but im still a better player. That is the absolute truth. Parvati is the queen of survivor hands down. The only reason Parvati did not win heroes vs villains is because the heroes hated russell so much they couldnt see that parvati played the most brilliant game of survivor ever. All the heroes have giant egos that couldn't suffer Parvati rightfully winning the game since she aligned with russell and actively defeated them unlike Sandra. For god's sake she was up against an all-star lineup, was targeted the entire game, had the most brilliant idol play ever, and actually managed to use Russell Hantz (arguably the most manipulative and uncontrollable player of all time) to make it to the end. She is a survivor genius, and no player has reached her level. Sandra did not orchestrate a single play the entire game and basically made it to the end because she is useless. WTF heroes? you were supposed to be the good guys, but you ruined the ending to what could have been the best season of survivor ever. PARVATI IS THE BEST SURVIVOR PLAYER EVER.
You've given me aids.
MrBosif95 Yeah, the Queen *Bee* of Survivor. Did you know that J.T.'s letter was read within earshot of the Heroes and Pooperti giggled about it the entire time? Real brilliant there, kid. You just gave his allies all the reason they needed to scalp you.
+MrBosif95 U may not respect Sandra's game but the jury did, and thats all that mattered. Parvati's fatal game flaw was her being too involved with Russell which made her guilty by association. U were privy to her gameplay as a viewer but the jury was going off on her word alone, and after them seeing her wrapped in Russell's arms at night and always around Russell they wouldn't believe her saying she wasn't that involved with him. Russell is to blame for himself and Parvati losing.
Parvati knew she would lose to Sandra in a jury vote though. She admits so herself. Yet she didnt even try to vote her (someone she admits herself she knew she would lose to) out until the F4. Ooops. Some best ever.
MrBosif95 don't listen to these simple minded fools, they are the same dumbasses that think Jenna was a better player than Rob C and Natalie over Russell, and that's just a couple off the top of my head
Russel had an advantage because the cast didn't get a chance to see how he played in season 19. They all knew the other people's tactics but not his
How Is It A "Bitter Jury" When Sandra Tried WORKING With All 5 Of The Heroes Until No One Listened. She Deserved Her Win AGAIN. SHABYE! #Choices
Some of us werent raised to think that you win for trying something and failing at it which is what youre saying happened. The "oh i should have listened to
You but a better player conviced Me otherwise because i suck at the game so ill ultimately vote for
You to win" line of reasoning is self evidently flawed
@@NWOtion ok buddy I gotchu on 3 reasons why Sandra deserved her win in HvV
1. She did that brilliant move by getting rid of Coach with no idols or anything just social manipulation towards Russell and that guaranteed her a spot further and saved her closest ally Courtney in the process.
2. She played a really good utr game that yeah really got her to the end and only had her name written down 3 times the entire time (and 2 of the times were negated cuz of an idol).
3. Yes the Heroes did give their votes partly out of compensation, but really out of the Final 3 Sandra was the only one that gave them any ounce of dignity and respect and actually wanted to work with them. It mattered more that she wanted to work with them to begin with and not pagong them, not that it was a requirement that they had to vote for her.
To conclude, Sandra won HvV fair and square. Bye
Russell's line about Sandra being "lippy" tells me he didn't understand what a strong social player really is. It's not about being a nice person who tells people what they want to hear. That can be part of it, but it's really about how good you are at reading people's intentions, how good you are at understanding what they value, and how to present yourself in a way that makes them want to keep you around and vote for you to win.
I'm confused on the final tribal council. Does the jury vote for who played the game the best or who they most liked?
Up to the jury
Most liked first option makes no sense
Parvarti 😢😢😢
Russell had a social game
A terrible one
Russell just doesn't get it. You can outwit better than the rest of them. You can outplay better than the rest of them. But you will never be able to outlast if the rest of them despise you.
If the jury likes player A and not player B, it's safe to say player A outwitted player B. And no matter how the fans of player B spin or cherry-pick it or how much they bitch years afterward, that's all that matters.
***** I remembered Alicia Calaway's jury speech on All Stars: "Now you may have outwitted us, outplayed us, and outlasted us, but you have NOT, OUTCLASSED us...
92Reset
Ergo, he simply doesn't get it.
Sure you can, put a jury full of people that are fans of dark humor and he'd win. Those heroes just happened to be sucking on a baby bottle
The truth is he dominated, he owned them so completely that they are bitter, just like the last time. People cannot get over their egos. If you understood anything about Buddhism and philosophy you would realise that is the real problem. Not just here in this game, but in life aswell. This game is a mirror on life. The juries are a part of it. Russel was never mean. He was just superior. He tricked them. he controled them. AND THEY HATE HIM FOR IT! For showing them how gullible and dumb they are. Tyson is a prime example. Russel completely owned him. Said no mean word to him. Just ended his game. But still or rather because of it Russel cannot get his vote.
The one responsible for ending people's games has virtualy no chance to get their vote.
Look at it. Sandra won. Twice.
Link to full reunion?
drive.google.com/file/d/15MvJ0T9gxb9jcP9Z9ncynxv_TSIe--Oz/view?usp=sharing
I hate reality shows in which the winner is determined by audience voting. If America got to vote, it would be completely based on who was the most entertaining to watch. That's why they have Player of the Season. Russell thinks he's the best player because he's one Player of the Season twice. He won because he hogs up so much damn screen time. Rupert got the second highest amount of votes (very close percentage to Russell) but Russell thinks Rupert is a terrible player. Russell's logic is flawed, not the game.
I do not hate him because he hogs up screen time. The producers/editors are completely at fault for that. I can't stand how delusional he is. I never said I hated him. His social game is one of the worst I have ever seen, and yet he wonders why he never gets any jury votes. He thinks he is the best player because he wins Player of the Season, which is literally fans voting for their favorite, not the best.
+Noah Lindquist I agree because we only get to see 1 hr of their "3 days" in camp. So the jury who has been w/ them 24/7 are the best judges as to who deserves the title of sole survivor. Sometimes we don't agree w/ them because we don't see everything. But for Russell to say that Rupert is a terrible player, is quite logical for me.
Exactly. Guys like Russhole and Boston Rob are such hypocrites. Rob gushes how he won the stupid CBS poll for best survivor, when Russell who finished 2nd he claims is an awful player (I sort of agree Russell is an awful player but atleast be consistent in what you are arguing). Russell claims America Fan Favorite votes prove your worth, and calls someone like Rupert who easily won that in All Stars and nearly beat Russell for it on HvV despite a far worse edit and less screen time, as a really bad player. No consistency, no logic.
It is fine to say Rupert isnt a good player (I dont even think Rupert is a good player) but then you cant turn around and say huge Fan Favorite votes prove you are the best ever. You have already given up that right when you call Rupert a bad player. Of course to process that would require a brain, something Russell doesnt possess.
That is why the jury votes.
I agree with Jeff
3:04 "I'M ABOUT TO FIRE" -Audience Member 2010
I'll regard her as one of the because she's won twice, but not because she's proven herself to be that great of a player. When you go down the list of memorable and strong players, almost all of them win challenges, lead alliances and have strong social and strategic games. Boston Rob has only won once, but he is consistently placed in the top 3 of any best player list. Do you think Sandra is a better player than BR?
Russell respects the game so much that he wants to change it.
Russell has the poorest empathy of a human being! That's his flaw! It is very clear that the 'jury' has the POWER in the end! So when you vote them out at least give them a little bit of sympathy because they are human beings, what Russel is doing is 'over kill' and that kind of game play in survivor will NEVER win!
I think in Samoa he could have won, but heroes vs villains he was a maniac. He was just arrogant and mean to everyone. His social game was so bad. If parvarti had won i would be ok with that though.
I'd love to see a Russell Vs Rupert Survivor.
haha Sandra is funny xD lol like when she said that even if America would have to vote for the winner Russell still wouldn't win lol gotta love Sandra :D :P
It's 2015 and some people are still stuck in 2010 thinking Russell deserved to win and is the best ever. Since then we've had winners who were cutthroat such as Kim and tony but had a reasonable social game and finished their seasons with victories. Let it go.
Exactly, Russell is a horrible player, not even top 300 all time. His heroes vs villians game is one of the worst games in Survivor history. Anyone arguing he should have won should be shot in the head and killed for sheer stuipdity. It also detracts from the only real argument that should matter for this season, Parvati vs Sandra.
it's 2017 biatch and Russel is still the Greatest Survivor to play the Game. #Survivor
If he was the best, he should've figured out how to win. Maybe he should apply for the Amazing Race or another show that doesn't require social skills. That's a component of the game of Survivor, it's been that way since Borneo. Brian Heidik was arguably worse than Russell in an era of Survivor where backstabbing was extremely taboo and he still won. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure Clay could beat Russell in a jury vote. Finally, Russell's style of game only worked once. Once Russell got to the merge it was Parvati who made the move that gave the villains the advantage and after that, every villain didn't mind taking Russell to the end because they knew he would be easy to beat. And in Redemption Island, he couldn't even get his tribe of new players to follow him. Boston Rob did. If Russell is the greatest, he should've been able to win that season instead of Rob.
vaporterra with those clowns in his tribe plz, that season was garbage. i erased it from my memory. And no, Russell was always in control during HEROES vs Villains, he got a hidden immunity from the ENEMY tribe lol and dont even get me started on Samoa, his bold moves are legendary. A bitter tribe does not change the fact of the matter and that would be his utter Brilliance in Survivor. He completely changed the dynamics of the game, those who failed to get on board got destroyed. No one could handle the Neo-Survivor moves Russel pulled. And it was Epic. #Survivor
1.Why are you using hashtags on RUclips? They have no effect. 2.That season was garbage, but so was Russell's gameplay that season. He played the same game for a 3rd time. That's like showing everyone your whole hand in Poker twice. 3.That was more of a dumb move by JT than a good move for Russell. If Russell voted out Randy, Tyson, Rob, and Coach with the intention of pretending to be dominated by an all female alliance, then that would've been a good move. He got lucky there. Russell complains about other people benefitting from luck but everyone benefits from luck including him. 4.Those who failed to get on board were destroyed? Brett was one immunity challenge away from beating him either at final 4 or final 3 in Samoa, Sandra won Heroes vs Villains, and after Russell left, his allies Krista and Stephanie went out the door next. He is one of the top 5-10 players to never win the game along with Cirie, Rob C., Fairplay, Yau-Man, Lex, Aubry, etc., but he deservedly lost.
A game that involves America, huh Russell? Try playing Big Brother and see if you get America's Favorite Houseguest. Won't happen.
+Noah Thorn yeah! and even if america was allowed to vote maybe parvati would win!
+Noah Thorn His brother played. Guess what happened.
If I was Russell I would be upset too. He played incredible in Samoa. And equally great in HvV. His idol moves and making people target each other was phenomenal to watch. How he flew under the radar in some of those council meetings is still mind boggling , especially since everyone knew he was a big threat. Hantz got the short end of the stick 2 times. I would have been okay with Parvati winning HvV too. She didn't bow down to Hantz. She had her own game. But Sandra? Everything she planned failed... heck, she planned for weeks to get Russell out and she couldn't do it. Sorry, just my point of view.
Adnan Asghar No, he dug his own grave by treating people like shit and burning unnecessary personal bridges.
The object of the game has never been to have everything go in your favor for all 39 days. You just need to make it to the end and convince the jury to vote for you.
It was also hilarious when Russell felt so entitled to know about Parvati's second idol and Sandra's idol that he threw a ninny. I bet the troll couldn't admit to even himself that you can't pull every string.
I'm sorry but if the judges werent mature enough to handle defeat and see he played an awesome game then it makes them look like soar loosers. I get the social element of the game is important, but he didn't act like a jerk to the contenstants (not to their face), plus the game element and showmanship was awesome. The moves he made are some of Survivors best. For him to loose to Natalie and Sandra makes Survivor seem like a sorority (spelling), not ...Survivor.
not catering to an entitled egomaniac doesn't make you immature/unable to handle defeat. People didn't deny Russell a vote because they "couldn't handle defeat". They denied Russell a vote because he got himself on their bad sides and failed to repair bridges he burned. Winners like Mike and Tony know how to do this. Russell refused to. Survivor is a game, but a social one.
Sounds like you don't understand the importance of the social element since you're saying "but big moves tho!"
Oh, Russell didn't act like a jerk to their faces? *makes the condescending wonka face*
Were you there?
You didn't even need to be there to see him rub people the wrong way, and even to their faces. I'll be happy to provide examples of when he was a jerk to people's faces, as would the entire HVV jury.
Survivor is not about flash and showmanship. That's not the object of the game. Showmanship CAN earn you brownie points, but holding on to those brownie points is a must. Russell did anything but hold onto any brownie points he got from Dave Ball and JT when he continued to repulse them beyond the game.
He is an egomaniac, he is a villain, he has always fully embraced that title and has been if not the best villain, one of the best villains. People love to hate him, and yet he made alliances, made people flip on their own alliances (manipulated them beautifully), betrayed others, was loyal to his alliance as long as he could be, did phenomenal idol tricks, was a physical competitor, and you can tell he loved the game with a passion. By no mean was he socially not a strong player. I thoroughly believe he should have won atleast Samoa, if not both seasons. I do believe the jury voted for who they liked best (Sandra and Natalie are both very likable people) and that was a big shame. Neither did amazing, mind blowing game moves, nothing memorable about them.
Survivor is not only a social game but also a physical competition, win those competitions and you gain power and you get the chance to knock down your competition. So physical and strategic moves also hold weight in survivor, not only who you like which is a very mind numbing way to vote. It is a competition, not a sorority. As you said, AT THE END, Natalie stood up for herself but again did nothing throughout. I don't think she should have been rewarded for it. People don't like him, fine, but to rob him of the title best survivor player of that season is again childish on behalf of the jury. Strategy should be equally important as should be physical prowess.
Did Sandra said Parvati played three times and won twice? Correct me if i'm wrong, but Parv (i love her) only won Micronesia, right?
Yes it was a mistake on Sandra's end
Unfortunately this particular season was one full of big egos, and they all clashed, so of course the jury gave Russell the finger in the end. I don't think Russell should've won because yes, jury management is part of the game, BUT to not get ANY votes + Sandra winning over Parvati was just tragic.
Umm yup. Parvati was killer in challenges and her game play was more cutthroat than Sandra's. She played Russell like a fiddle and aligned with him knowing it would put a target on her back, and her double immunity move was awesome.
I agree, Russell shouldn't have gotten zero votes, but unfortunately you can't get negative votes in Survivor... that's only an Internet thing.
Carl T We'll agree to disagree then! I think it's nice to reward risk at the end. Safe games don't really appeal to me.
Carl T I know and that's exactly what I'm being critical of. It would be nice if the jury appreciated big moves
I also don't know how people can say that jury management is only "a PART" of the game when it single-handedly decides the winner every season.
Russel wouldn’t win if there was an American vote 😂😂
Parvati would have won and Sandra would get 2nd.
He won player of the season in seasons 19 and 20 lmao. And that’s America’s vote idiot
Noah Katsimpalis that was just between him and Rupert lmO
@@jackm1335 no it's between all the players, russell and rupert got the highest votes and ultimately russell won. He was america's favourite player
@@kiwidestroyer69 that reflects why you have Trump as president hahaha
@@kiwidestroyer69 that's for who's the most entertaining, not best.
Sandra should have said something along the lines of "If America cane out here to play and had to smell your rank stench for 39 days they'd give me and Parvati 'player of the season' too."
This show stupid as shit russel should’ve won. Why are the losing players voting for who wins they losers for a fucking reason
I love Russell!
Maybe learn how to get jury votes
I'm watching this season for the 4th time now, and the only thing that makes me smile so big is knowing that the pompous little ass who still couldn't win still didn't win. The only flaw is having him playing again. He couldn't even appear happy for Sandra. As everyone else is clapping and smiling, he is stone faced pouting, and not clapping. Not only is he a very little excuse of a "man", he is disgusting at how he talks about the other players, no respect for anyone. It's all about him, his game, and he's in charge. Rob Mariano could teach him a LOT about being a man.
"He's a stupid ass"
That we can agree on
there is not a "right" way to win. the "but there was no strategy except" card doesn't work when said exception turns out to work like a charm. whether you have come to accept it or not, coattail riding is a strategy, depending on whose coattail it is. a great one at that.
Russell is the best player the game has ever seen, the way he thought, found ideals,blindsided. Everything he did was with purpose for something down the line. The game is first about out lasting with he did in the first 2 games. Second "out wit" and he was brilliant at that too. He out played everyone and he did it the best. He did everything right according to the game. People are salty because of the way he played but he played the game how it was supposed to be played. So in my opinion Russell should have won his first 2 games
However, you must remember that jury management is also a very crucial part in the game. Yeah I will agree that he is one of the best strategic players, but he absolutely failed in jury management. You can’t be a nasty person to literally everyone you’re voting out, or else they won’t vote for you in the end because you rubbed them the wrong way. Sure, they might be bitter because he voted them out, but it’s more likely they didn’t vote for him because he treated them like crap. They’re not gonna vote for an utterly nasty person to win. Sandra serves as a great example as great jury management. I will say that she had the weakest strategic game of the three, but she identified that the jury was majority Heroes. So by ingratiating herself with them by offering them an opportunity to advance them in the game, which they then turned down, they feel absolutely guilty about not working with her. These aspects of Russel and Sandra were perfectly described in Rupert’s jury speech. Parvati, on the other hand, I would say also played a very impressive strategic game, but the Heroes chose to vote for Sandra because she was connected to Russel and Sandra had given them opportunity which they were indebted to. That’s how hated Russel was. They’re hatred for him was so large that it took a little respect away from Parvati’s game. So to summarize, jury management is super super important. Russel can never win in any season unless he stops treating everyone like crap and if he learns how to properly and gently handle the jury.
@@chichinitz Agreed, Sandra always took into account that the people she was voting out would eventually be on the jury and would decide if she won. When Sandra voted Rupert out, she says in her confession that she can vote him out and he’ll still vote for her, and she was right. Russell understands the game, but Sandra understands the players. While Russell is arguably the best strategic player the game has ever had, his lack of social game will always cost him the win.
@@chichinitz How do you want to manage a jury full of salty players like Heroes or Samoa? It is impossible. Not even Parvati could do it with a far superior game to Sandra's, but Heroes were salty so they voted for the least "evil" out of the three. Thankfully the game changed a lot since then and now bitter jurors are rare. (last time seen in KR and HvHvH kinda).
SANDRA ❤️
Russell should go on Survivor Turkey where the audience actually does get a percentage of the votes. That's the only way he'll ever make it past his tribes 1st tribal council now that everyone has seen his game.
this is the mentality of 5 year olds, "if I cant win, then this game is flawed and I want to change the rules so I can win"
Yet here we are, and the format of final tribal has changed to more align with what russell was saying. The jury was always supposed to choose who most deserved to win, not the person they hated least.
Fuck off sandra fans!
Ken Keller anyone who says survivor has no flaw is a fool.
Every experiment mankind has ever created has a flaw in it. There is no such thing as a perfect experiment.
And yes the producers have been working hard to fix the game to make ir work better. You noticed ever since Sandra won the second time we have not had a lame winner expect maybe season 32.
Ken Keller not really, Russell is saying to give America a percentage of the votes, that’s not what happened at all
Excpet...... He's right.
@@kenkeller6072 Sorry man it's the jury's choice and actually they decide who played "this social experiment" the best
How can people say that Sandra is bad at this game? She has won twice, played twice, and never been voted out. Other players have been playing more times and only won once. All logic says that Sandra is the best player to ever play.
because hantz nation doesnt want to admit that russell dug his own grave. it's always the mean old jury's fault. they can't accept that she (and natalie white) slayed their fave.
No one can say shes bad. Shes onv very good. Russell is just better is all
The key to winning is jury management.
Work with me here, deluded russtards.
Fuck yeah Probst tell him, at the end it's great.
If there is a percentage from America’s vote:
Nicaragua: Chase
Redemption Island: Rob
South Pacific: Sophie
One World: Kim
Philippines: Lisa
Caramoan: Cochran
Blood vs. Water: Tyson
Cagayan: Tony
San Juan Del Sur: Natalie
World’s Apart: Mike/Carolyn (can’t decide)
Cambodia: Jeremy
Kaoh Rong: Aubry
MvsG: Adam
Gamechangers: Sarah
HHH: Chrissy
Ghost Island: Domenick
DvsG: Mike
EoE: Gavin
IoI: Noura
Lmao it's NOT strategy that she sucks at challenges
+apalo1111 some people do suck at challenges. being good at challenges is a bonus, not a requirement. what is a requirement? managing the jury.
Compared to people like Parvati and Brett from his 2 final seasons, Russell sucks at challenges too, so your point is what exactly? Oh yeah fucking nothing.
Phillip Phillips : not as bad as Sandra though
ElectrikkPaperClipxx she didn't manage any jury, she went up against a woman who wasn't that well liked and not to mention she got a flukey "2nd chance" at the game and then she went up against a bitter jury who couldn't handle the fact that Russ & Parvati ran that game
Phillip phillps you must be a democrat since you're clearly flat out hating on Russell...Russell has won immunity multiple times
I have no idea why is Boston Rob so popular, he is not good at all ... my opinion don´t kill me for that.
i think her strategy was not having a strategy and to be a floater and aligned with the right people at the right time. PArvati and Russel did the dirty work. They had blood on their hands. Of course she would win. She didnt do anything
Tony from 28 is the best player that I have ever seen. I have only watched season 1,28,20,13,7,32,34(because of calendar from big brother) and soon gonna watch 31
Watch 15and 18. Those are all really good
Dude watch season 19!!! No matter WHAT anybody says, or feels about Russell, his original season on Samoa was AMAZING! Not even just Russell himself, but the season as a whole was outstanding. The comeback of all comebacks happens that season. It’s wonderful. Highly recommended my friend.
Oh, Sandra!! What an amazing player she is!! She is definitely the Queen of Survivor!! ... She also holds another title... The Bad Loser Slayer!!!
If America’s percentage counted, Chrissy would’ve won HHH
That's 100% true. Ben is arguably the least liked winner ever
@@nathanbl7961 if only he won f4 IC then we would not hear the bitching from that, and the FMC twist, which is kind of bs the way they did it, would not be called rigged.
Damn, this was so good and so honest but there was so much to say. Jeff should have just let the conversation continue. Russell doesn't babble. Jeff wanted to intercept and say something and I wanna know what he was gonna say. The reunion shows could be longer. We want a bit more talk of what happened etc
Jeff was just getting offended that Russell pointed out that his precious game has a flaw.
Russell's problem was that he saw the game as just make it to the end, by any means necessary, to this day I don't think he gets the whole concept of the show other than the 39 days part.
Russell Hantz after Heroes vs. Villains
Redemption Island: 17th Place
Champions vs. Contenders: 23rd Place
Yeah there is a flaw in the game😂😂😂
katamimoshi 2495 people started to realize he was a threat and got him out early
And that was his first tribal!