Simple answer: She got the most votes at the final Tribal Council.
The rules of* Survivor *say that’s how you win, which is what Russell refused to accept. Saying that somebody didn’t “deserve” to win because they didn’t win immunity challenges or didn’t have a strong alliance or whatever is like saying the Yankees deserved to win because they got more hits, even if the Red Sox scored more runs. Hits are helpful, but scoring runs is the ultimate goal.
Fireman Tom was right on with his comment. Every winner deserved it simply because of the fact that they did win. It’s self-defined.
Agreed. I really hope this puts an end to the “Russell is one of the greatest Survivors ever” rallying cry too. As his shutout shows, he was an also-ran that the true power players (namely Parvati and Sandra [although not for lack of trying]) didn’t take out because they want to be sitting next to him at the end.
Russell’s only hope would have been to play against Rupert and Colby at the end. Then he can give Danielle and Parvati some smoke about how he eliminated them because they’re threats. The same might work on JT and Courtney. But Russell’s too dumb to recognize why the jury would think that way.
Also, does anyone else just love that Courtney calls Probst “Jeffrey”? I don’t know why, but that just amuses me.
I think the problem that people have with their perception of Sandra is very similar to the problem that Russell has with the game in general: they define “strategy” very narrowly as “switching allegiances back and forth like a crazed ferret, and making sure that you determine, at least partly, which people who are eliminated on a day to day basis.”
But that’s not really strategy. Take away his bravado and dickishness, and Russell is the same player as Rob Cesternino, from all those many seasons ago: too enamored of his own cleverness to think enough about how that cleverness is being applied, and too convinced that his way is the best way to ever realize that it’s a problem.
The first guy who ever won this game is regarded as one of the better strategists to have ever played, and he has a reputation as devious and untrustworthy. But Richard Hatch was no Russell, lying and switching allegiances at every turn. Richard made a single, four-person alliance basically at the outset of the game, and then stuck to that alliance for 39 days. He made a second, two-person alliance, as well - and stuck to that, as well, right to the end (and threw an immunity challenge in order to be sure he wouldn’t have to betray his very honor-oriented ally and thus lose the ally’s vote). Good strategy is about getting to and setting yourself up for the endgame - nothing else. Winning challenges is absolutely irrelevant when you’re in no danger; what difference did it make if Sandra never won individual immunity? She never needed it!
Here’s what she did do, in this season. She began the season by never really committing whole-hog to any single alliance. This is actually a great early-game approach. Being part of a recognized alliance is a great idea… if your alliance happens to gain the upper hand. On the other hand, if you join an alliance early game, and that alliance finds itself in trouble, you are screwed. Ask Tom Westman. As a free agent - unless you’re absolutely loathsome or weird or annoying, which Sandra is not - you are simply never a target until one recognized alliance eliminates all the others. Your vote is viewed as a tool, and if you’re willing to use it as such, they’ll keep you around.
But following the merge, Sandra executed a long-term strategy that is being ignored. She gave you the clue herself - asked what she did to win, she emphasized her strategy: she tried to get rid of Russell. And Russell stayed, right? So Sandra’s big long-term strategy failed. Right? Except look closer: Sandra never said that her strategy was to get rid of Russell; her strategy was to try to get rid of Russell. The success of this approach had nothing to do with whether or not Russell actually went anywhere. Russell was no threat to Sandra. He believed her to be weak and incapable of winning, and told her so directly. He wanted to keep her around. Getting rid of her would have meant taking a dangerous risk with someone like Colby - vote Sandra out at F5, for example, and you take the not-so-crazy risk that Colby wins F4 immunity (and Colby, if he’d made F3, would have won the game).
So Russell sticking around meant nothing to Sandra, in a game sense. But she relentlessly pursued his ouster. Why? Because by doing that, she set herself up as the anti-Russell. Each Hero that trudged down the path toward the jury box knew, as they went, that Sandra was a straight-shooter, that Sandra had been right all along, that, hell, Sandra was basically an honorary Hero. Five Heroes went to that jury - as Sandra knew they eventually would - and every one went thinking of Sandra as “on their side.”
Take a look at the final vote. Five Heroes on the jury - every one voted for Sandra. You think that was a mistake, or an accident of the game? I don’t. It was a direct result of Sandra ensuring that she was the clear anti-Russell candidate (in comparison to Parvati, who was viewed as connected to Russell, and Russell, who was viewed as Russell). Rupert knew Sandra was opposed to Russell. JT knew. They ALL knew - and if they didn’t, Sandra made sure to remind them of it over and over and over at final Tribal Council.
This was strategy - brilliant strategy, on a level way above the aimless, meandering wandering from allegiance to allegiance that characterized Russell’s game.
Too stubborn and blinded to see that it was HIS game that was flawed. I was one of the “Russell shoulda won” people last season, but not this season. He was played bigtime by Parvati and Sandra both. I’m even kind of disappointed he got the consolation prize…I think they should’ve sent him home with nothing but a new hat, if that.
While Russell makes for good entertainment, I truly loathe him. I was happy with Sandra winning, I would have been happy with Parvati winning as well.
The difference to me at this tribal council versus the final TC in season 19, is that Russell was clearly out of his element with Parvati and Sandra. Parvati and Sandra know how to talk to a jury and swayed all votes away from Russell, if there were any to begin with. When Russell went up against Mick and Natalie, Russell could have (if he was truly a great player) talked his way into the million. Instead, he swayed the jury against himself by telling everyone how inept they were because he was able to beat them. Parvati and Sandra made great arguments to the jury, Parvati calling Russell out on the having Jerri’s vote was key, IMHO.
I loved that Coach didn’t ask any questions, just pontificated on his greatness.
I must respectfully differ. Russell the sexist sociopath with the awful accent and bloated ego is not my idea of good TV. If he had any brains or self awareness he would get psychological help for his obvious narcissism and complete lack of empathy.
It was a great line, but that line of thinking is ultimately why Sandra beat her. Nobody wants to vote for the mean snarling pitbull, but nobody wants to vote for their owner either.
Parvati probably had no other choice, especially pre-merge, but in hindsight she probably had a better chance with Jerri and Sandra in the final (especially if she could have portrayed herself as the Russell-slayer). Sadly, Russell winning that final immunity made it impossible.
There is a difference between tactics and strategy. Russell has great tactics - he’s very good at engineering specific votes to go the way he wants. His downfall is that he feels like every vote must be a result of his machinations. This is simply unnecessary. And he doesn’t seem to ever seem to acknowledge that people will not vote for you just because you outlasted or outplayed them - you have to give them more than that (which Sandra did brilliantly).
Russell also got very, very lucky this season (as did Parvati). If Tyson doesn’t make a horrifyingly stupid move Russell is gone, and Parvati soon behind.
In one sense, Probst and Fireman Tom are right: the winner is the winner, for whatever reason. However…
Parvati was better physically, strategically and socially than Sandra. She was better than Russell socially and physically…ergo, it should’ve been Parvati. And Sandra’s presence in the Final 3 was solely the result of Russell’s whim. If he was better at reading the jury (boneheadedy thinking that Sandra would get zero votes) Sandra would’ve been on the jury instead of Jerri. So Sandra benefited from a huge dollop of luck, whereas Russell and Parvati were more or less masters of their own fate.
There were a few Reunion remarks that would have benefitted from follow-up, and this was one. Maybe they were in a national park or something similar, and were not allowed to disturb the wildlife. (What exactly did they eat, anyway? We saw very little food gathering. Did they live on coconuts?)
The other comment was Stephenie’s – insinuating that she doesn’t hang out with the other Survivor alumni, and this put her at a disadvantage. Were there possibly pre-built alliances, just based on off-screen personal relationships?
Parvati should’ve made a bigger and better case for herself. I think she could’ve beaten Sandra, as she really did play a more well rounded game. Her double II giveaway was a brilliant tactic-- maybe one of the best I’ve seen. She undersold herself. Not that Snadra didn’t play a good game, too. Burning Russell’s hat was a great karma thing, too, and although I haven’t watched the whole reunion show yet, it seems they didn’t make much of an issue of all the mean shit Russell did to people to fuck with their heads.
Sandra’s dollop of luck was what exactly? Being weak at challenges? That’s just who she is - it’s not like she didn’t try to be stronger.
I think a key conversation (in a series of small, insightful ones from her) was when she and Russell were talking in the woods and she said something like “I’m happy with the $100k, I know I can’t win”. This is exactly what an egotist like Russell wants to hear, and from that moment it was between Jerri and Parvati for him.
I still think the “luckiest” moment of the game was either JT handing over an idol (which ended up saving Jerri, IIRC) or Tyson’s moment of stupidity (which saved Russell).
Sandra’s luck was getting picked by Russell to go to the Final 3. After losing the final IC, the makeup of the Final 3 was completely out of her hands, and therefore it was only luck that got her there. And maybe the conversation you quoted above.
And a follow up to that key conversation- she said to the jury “Russell said I’d get no votes, so here I am”. So out come the rush of Hero votes just to prove Russell wrong. As someone else said upthread, Sandra set herself up perfectly as the anti-Russell.
I really wish the finalists were allowed to respond to non-questions at the Final Council. There needs to be a bigger opportunity to make your case aside from your alloted speech. Particularly, I’d like to see how each responded to Coach’s diatribe as well as Rupert’s. I understood where each was coming from and they made good points (if enormously heavy-handed and one-sided). Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut, but certainly Parvati and Russell needed more time to make their points.
