One of my favorite things from post season SoPa, is that there was a street interview where the reporter kept referring to it as an interview with just Cochran while Cochran just kept pointing to Sophie who was right there next to him saying "Ask her, she's the one who won"
Thank you for having a nuanced take on the All Stars jury. I'm so sick of people writing them off as bitter losers without recognising it was a bit more complex considering the pre existing relationships.
Shi Ann correctly assessed Rob's alliance when she called them "stupid people". They KNEW the pecking order and they accepted it rather than using Shi Ann when they had the chance. They never made any moves. They voluntarily left. It was silly when they acted like they'd ben "betrayed"
This video is a good example of why you're the best commentator on Survivor. You have the perfect mix of appreciation, perception, inventiveness, dry humor and charm. Looking forward to part two.
You know it’s not Natalie white or Erika or Sophie’s fault if producers gave them a poor edit. Fans should understand that survivor is a heavily edited show. Just because someone’s moves weren’t shown much, didnt mean they didn’t do anything to “deserve” the win
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS how do you know they didn’t do anything of value? There’s tones of podcasts, post games interviews and stuff that shed light on strategic moves not shown in the edit
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS for example the edit ignored Erika and Heather’s relationship and instead gave 30 scenes to Ricard and Shan. Yes Ricard and Shan are more entertaining and interesting but Erika’s relationships and strategies were largely sidelined
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS guess you don’t understand how reality tv works. When producers film like a thousand hour of footage and has to cram a 40 minute episode. Also I hope you realize there’s different definitions of “value”. Theres strategic value and there’s entertainment value. Philip Shepard barely did anything strategic but he got air time for being entertaining
oh yeah. i forgot about that person actually winning after they got voted out. i even forgot their name. it's like some traumatic thing happened. i do remember he beat devin in fire.
Between this video and the last few seasons, I'm realizing that when I complain about the wrong person winning I should also be mad at the Winners edit which they have no control of
This past season is a great example of that. They completely left out the context of the Ride or Die alliance which would have been a massive help to explain why Gabler won. If we knew he, Cody, and Jesse were closely allied, then him winning as the last surviving member and someone that was much more involved in the game than we knew, makes so much more sense.
@@kyletucker3811 yeah I thought Gabler's win just came out of out of the blue, I had thought Gabler was nothing but a goat. It sucks that they made it seem like Gabler who was almost completely invisible and had one of the most Purple edits I can recall goes ahead and wins.
I feel like it's not fair for fans to say a winner doesn't deserve it because they're not shown as much. The editors and producers determine that and they are there and living on Survivor the entire time
Partially true and partially not, if they aren’t a relevant player and lead quite a boring game by riding the votes and do nothing at camp, there’s not gonna be a lot to show of them, if they are involved in the game throughout they’ll be shown throughout the season
I was waiting for this list and Part 1 did not disappoint! One thing I loved about your series covering each and every winner was that you could pinpoint how each and every player earned their win. For Sandra, she was not the dominant force of the season, but she did make moves that had the jury on her side at the end. And she was smart enough to stay aligned with Parvati and Russell knowing how they would be perceived compared to her should they all make FTC! For Amber, she aligned with someone who she knew would protect her while also being someone she could beat because of how the jury perceived his game! For Ben, who I am certain is in Part 2, the firemaking twist saved him sure, but it’s also important to note that he won the most jury votes because of the game he played to put him in such a position at the end! Frankly I wish he won that final immunity challenge he was so close to winning, just because his win would not be controversial and the firemaking twist would be far less disliked imo, plus Chrissy would stop complaining after doing so even 6 years after the fact 🙄
Preach to the quior, I have always said that if fire was introduced in second chances and Wentworth won cause of it people would have loved the twist, the idol nullifier proves me right on this.
But Ben still got lucked out that a twist he couldnt account for helped him get to the end, even if he did do things well he still should have gone home as far as the players in the game thougtht.
@@Minecraftlover73 honestly I love wentworth but I think Jeremy was the best player in Cambodia so I am fine with how that played out, but I also agree the backlash would not have been as bad had it been brought out then as opposed to during HvHvH! Ultimately that was a great season regardless but the idea of an FTC with Jeremy and Wentworth would have been exciting knowing it would not have been a blowout for either player imo
@@jacobgoldman5780 but why should a twist like that be held against him considering it became a mainstay of survivor from that point onward? If this was some random one off twist I would get the backlash but in this case it was something the show implemented permanently and the twist had its merits, so even if you wish it had not been implemented, why hold it against Ben?
@@JRJuggernaut1 because he got to the end from something he couldn't have factored into his game and wasnt able to manage his threat level/perception from others to stay if it had been the expected final 4 round. It doesnt mean his game is total trash, just that him getting to the end isnt deserved imo since he got an extra life he had no way of expecting.
A lot of the issues I have with the most controversial winners comes down to the editing of the season. Just show us more of each player and there will be more for us to look back on and analyze the road map to their victory rather than be pissed off that they won. No fan wants that. And Jeff, especially in recent seasons, assumes that by promoting the “play fast, take risks, & be cutthroat” strategy makes some people think thats how you play, but I would say most people go the other way and try to find a nuanced, subtle way to build their résumé. And thats really always been the way winners get to the end. It’s rare to be an obvious threat and still get the votes at the end.
You should do a video about all the survivor couples. Couples that are married or dating and how they met, their survivor journey, etc. There are plenty of couples to work with Tyson, Rachel; Jeremy, Val; Rob, Amber; Parvati, John. I'm sure there's plenty more. I think this would be a great video
Excellent video Peridiam! Top 5 has got to be: 1. Natalie W (deserves the win but Russell-mania was insane at this time) 2. Michele F (also deserving, but underedited and people loved Aubrey; in repeat performances Michele has shown a better game than Aubrey imo) 3. Ben (too many idols... although Chrissy and Ryan were both fairly weak) 4. Chris U (whole Extinction twist, but what, Gavin should have won?) 5. Danni (probably the OG underedited winner, esp. against fan fav Steph) I feel Yul was a competitive win and wasn't too controversial at the time. Also Gabler, Bob and Fabio had they won against more able competition, perhaps, but they played able games against weak F3 competition. Come on, in what world are Cassidy, Susie or Chase really Survivor winner material. Low key Nick should be more controversial. Mike White played a really good game.
Funny you showed that clip at the end, considering the people who spent years echoing Natalie’s words started to act like Russell immediately following the end of 43
he's not exactly a controversial winner, none of them really deserved to win and didn't really do much. It is what happens when the only really worthy just barely misses out
Erika played the cleanest strategic/gamebot (not necessarily best overall) game we have seen in all 43 seasons. It's not her fault the editors wanted to push flashy gameplay for the NeW eRa and barely showed her UTR control and why she won which confused everybody lmao
I had been watching Erika and thought she'd be a very strong contender to win the game but they never showed her, I was only semi-surprised that she won. It only took me a few moments to step back and like yeah she deserved to win.
@@Brakiros This. I wasn't at all surprised that Erika won, but I was surprised that it was such a landslide. Xander played very well socially but Erika had more control over what would happen than he did
6:30 AGREED! Sandra's win in Pearl Islands was deserved, but after watching Heroes vs. Villains again her win was definitely questionnable given how she was nearly invisible during the pre-merge phase and that she kept stating that Russell was her target. Russell definitely deserved to lose since he only had a strategic game, but Parvati dominated in all sectors of social, physical and strategic even in her third season.
Sandra won based off the spite vote, the jury was bitter over Parvati and didn't feel like she deserved it. No matter that I felt that she certainly deserved the win especially since Sandra had already won. I never thought that would have happened.
Russell played a better game than Parvati. He saved Her multiple times and one of them got Tyson voted out. He Made bigger moves and is obviously more strategic, physical is about the same both won immunies and Russell won the fanale when it matters most, and socially You can't even really say Parv is better bc She had the same Enemies and allies as Russell😂 she stayed with the villains the whole time and no one wanted to work with her since the villians tribe. Russell was able to use both the heroes and villians to sway the votes however he wanted whenever he wanted. I mean Was Russell a bit of a dickhead in HvV yes ofc. But gameplay wise He blew everyone in that season out.
Me and my friends were some of the people on team “Xander was robbed”. When Jeff read the votes and announced Erica winner, we literally stared at the screen, silent, mouth agape for a solid 3 minutes. After watching back through the season, I’ve concluded that Erica must’ve been playing much harder socially and strategically than we were shown and she just got screwed by the edit. Even though we weren’t shown much of her game, throughout the season, other players kept throwing her name out there and saying she was a big threat and she was praised by the other players a final trial. Xander was given much more screen time and he was just really charismatic to watch so there was some bias towards him to win. In my humble opinion haha
She definitely got screwed by the edit. She’s actually pretty good if you examine her game closely. Also, if examine his game closely, you realize how bad of a player Xander is. He’s a likable guy, but he isn’t a good player.
duddeee i wanna see more australian survivor reviews! king george, queen hayley, the blind sides... its masterful and im certain youre watching the aussie seasons too....
I agree with most of the strategic moves that Boston Rob did in All-Stars. I even understand the need to take out a physical threat like Lex at the merge. The one move I seriously questioned was why he decided to make a side deal with Alicia. He literally had an alliance with everyone else in the tribe. what utility did that alliance serve him?
I very clearly remember being happy to see Rich beat Kelly, and thought it was the second best outcome. I don’t remember being aware that there was a significant backlash against Rich’s “dirty” style of play; granted, it was a very long time ago, but as I flog my brain, I’m pretty sure everyone I talked to about Survivor that summer found his strategy fascinating to watch without the slightest whiff of any wrongdoing. During the reunion I was kind of baffled by the public opinion narrative that Bryant Gumbel was pushing. And I think that 68% figure in the live poll was mostly people who’d gone into the episode on Team Rudy. That I can understand; I actually cried out in pain when he was eliminated.
I thought Jeff was going to throw up when he revealed Hatch as the winner. I often wonder what CBS execs were expecting as far as game play during the first season.
I love how Jeff wanted this new era to have winners who play the game hard and aggressive but we got a chill, lowkey, but social and calculated winner. Then a strategic but still more lowkey winner. And finally a laid back winner who lowkey wasn’t very good but whatever I guess
He gotta be #1. Extinction Island was such a terrible idea, though I’ll give Chris props for knowing exactly what he needed to do to win over the jury.
@@erakfishfishfish Extinction Island you mean lol. Chris deserved to win for sure, he used all of what the season threw at him to his advantage. But his winning was by far controversial but then again the final four was two goats who did literally nothing to deserve winning the game and then two people who had been voted out.
I wasn't really happy that Erica won, mostly because of how Zander was portrayed, but I also wasn't super surprised. The way I saw it, there was absolutely no way a straight white man would win in a season with as diverse of a cast as that one.
Jeff was wrong for saying Rob dominated strategically. Yes, he made many moves that secured his place on the final council, but part of strategy is understanding that the people you play with will be deciding if you win or not. Ignoring that essential aspect of the game if poor strategy
Remember that the deciding vote was based on the number they chose. If only Kelly had been bolder and chosen 8 or 9... things would have been so different.
I will never understand season 41 editing, it's like the producers wanted to tick off the audience. Why make us want Xander to win, and then having him get no votes. The editing does not make logical sense in giving the viewers an enjoyable experience. They seriously needed to decrease Xanders edit and increase Erika's. Just mild changes to the edit would have helped the season so much. Why didnt we see all the screen time with Heather and Erika building their bond, they were very close. The whole season was a joke. Might be my least favorite season honestly.
In the next video, I hope and expect to see Natalie White, Sarah Lacina, Chris Underwood, and Danni Boatwright to name a few. For a future video idea, I would love to see a video on Jeff Probst's favorite and least favorite winners.
Natalie White has to be #1 for me. Admittedly I'm an old school viewer, and I thoroughly enjoyed Russel's gameplay and edit... but c'mon man. He had a goal, and he accomplished that goal.
Everyone says Natalie White as the worst winner, but at least she played the game that was offered to everyone in her season. That Dude that won Edge of Extinction playd a game not everyone had the chance to play. This is not fair and was bullshit.
There are so many I wish would have won. But as you said, Tina (Season 2) played a great game. It took me a couple of seasons to realize this, Colby couldn't outplay Tina. The game was too cutthroat for him. I still think he'd take Tina today, even with him knowing he'd lose. Cody C on Big Brother took Derek the first time he played. I think he understood he wouldn't win with this decision. But he was too in his feelings and his character to choose Vernonica. After a few years, his philosophy on life and the game changed (it's a game that everyone agreed to play and knew the rules). The second time he took Enzo because Nicole might have enough votes to beat him. I wish Culpepper would have beat Sarah (but I'm a Gator and Buc fan). But I believed Sarah had the case for being a winner. Most of the players that won, I feel the same way.
I didn't think this was a 2 parter until the end lol I'm not sure what the cutoff point of this was but surely Gabler has to be top 5 easily. Joining him should definetly he Michelle and Natalie White. I'm not certain what other 2 you have though Bob, Fabio and Ben are all possible And I only just now thought of Chris Underwood who most definetly has to be in the top 5 lol
It'll be Ben, Michelle, Natalie White, Chris Underwood and probably Gabler (maybe? I feel like people were more surprised than upset at his win, his game is very solid in retrospect). I think Bob isn't all that controversial since the final 3 of Gabon is such a hodge podge of players so you could kinda just draw a random name out of a hat there and it'd make just about the same amount of sense, and Nicaragua's edit makes a decent case against Chase and Sash so I don't think Fabio was especially controversial, just not very respected.
Here's who I believe should also be included (in no particular order): Michelle (32), Ben (35), Chris (38), Natalie (19), Brian (5). I feel like there should be others but, if there could only be five others, that's where I'd go
I’m honestly surprised Erika’s was so low. I expected her to get some votes, but the fact that Xander got NONE really blew me away. He played an amazing season, but i guess he had more of a traditional winners game and it was a whole different vibe that season.
I feel like Xander actually had quite a weak game. He was part of the knowledge is power thing but didn't come up with the idea. Then for the rest of the season he was pretty much a non-factor who never came up with any strategy or played a key role in any vote - he was just a number. Everyone knew of his idol but wasn't phased by it. Not to mention his cockiness and underestimating other players like Erika and Heather and lack of a strong social game.
@@whosthatpanda7935 i feel like his game really started post-merge maybe around 8 or 9 because he was an underdog that whole time. I didn’t really like him during the beginning but he played very strategically to stay in because EVERYONE wanted him out and he kept surviving vote after vote. I knew as soon as he took Erika he was done though. I didn’t notice how bad his social game was but the votes are obviously a testament to that. I just thought he would get at least one vote.
I think that parv definitely played a better game during Heroes versus Villains but I think that Sandra deserved the win because the objective of the game is to convince your jury that you deserve to win and that's what Sandra did she convinced her jury that she deserved to win it doesn't matter what America thinks it doesn't matter what the pre-jury thinks it ain't sure the f*** doesn't matter what Russell thinks all that matters is that your jury thinks you deserve to win and if you can convince your jury that you deserve to win then you deserve to win it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks and Boston Rob said a version of this during winters at War and I totally agree with him and the reason he was so passionate about it is because I guarantee he's had to make that same speech he made to Michelle to Amber a million times
@@anthonymort5202 The Jurry was Bitter. You just don't know to read People. Several of them have actually come out post HvV & state they should've voted For Russ🙂
@@robtheservantof6257 None of them have come out and said that. They said that they wish to be voted for parv None of them wanted russell to win because he doesn't know how to play the game, right
My guesses for your list: 1. Natalie W 2. Michele 3. Chris 4. Ben 5. Bob Although I personally think Gabler should be on that list somewhere, based on the way you talked about Erika, it's unlikely. Actually, Maryanne could fit on this list, too. Other honorable mentions would be Jenna, Yul, Wendall, and Adam.
I think that this list is pretty much going to be part 2. The only thing I would say is that it's gonna be so close between Natalie W and Michelle. Especially because both were not only controversial for their laid back riding the coat tails approach to the game, but more importantly because they were sitting next to someone in the final that not only played a much better game then anyone else ever could have, but more importantly that other individual deserved the win a million times more.
@@t.i.m.theincrediblemusicia3954 disagree that they were sitting next to someone that deserved it more than them. Especially Michele. She played a much more well-rounded game than Aubry and didn’t ride coattails cause they were literally trying to get her out. And Russell I mean you can’t win with a bad social game lol
In all fair honesty, Aubrey did have a much better gameplay than Michelle. Heck, even Jeff Probst thought that Aubrey should have won the game along with the fan base. Not to mention Tai was also a close equal competitor of choice to win over Michelle. As with Natalie, she pretty much (road the coattails) stuck to the majority alliance and voted exactly how Russell was not only voting, but Russel also plotted just about every single vote. Not to mention, Russell Hantz not only won individual immunity challenges, but made the most insane idol finds and plays that Natalie never dared go for (except for killing a rat). And even though she did to a certain degree play smart with building a better social game than Russell. The legacy that Russell has set up holds very well to this day unlike Natalie. Thus, his 2nd place finished proved that the days of survivor winners Tina, Sandra's 2nd win, and Natalie's win of playing nice and fair are Dang near impossible today as they would have been in the early years of survivor.
@@t.i.m.theincrediblemusicia3954 Russell is just proof that it doesn’t matter how good of a strategic game you play if you have no social skills. The social game is a crucial aspect of the game and you can’t just ignore it like Russell has both times he played. Plus, if it wasn’t for Natalie convincing people to vote out Erik, her and Russel would’ve went out way before final 3. Russell doesn’t understand how to win the game. I still disagree about Aubry having better gameplay than Michele. Aubry was shown to be wishy washy and Tai just had a terrible end game. He was basically just a flipper. Both Tai and Aubry started better than Michele, but her end game was much stronger than theirs
@t.i.m.theincrediblemusicia3954 gabler just won the game by riding coattails and on the back of a very strong social game. Russell's game does not hold up. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. At the time, it was an incredibly popular take that Russell was the greatest player ever. Now, that sort of thinking is by far a minority take. Most fans of Survivor agree that Russell is actually not a good player because he fundamentally misunderstood how to win the game.
It's hard to give credit to much of Sandra's game when she actively was against her own interests: Constantly trying to get Russell out and flipping to the Heroes was a death sentence to her game but because she disliked Russell she kept going for it. Made her win feel more a consequence of Russell burning every bridge he possibly could without realizing it and Parviti being "guilt by association" than anything else.
Sandra disliking Russell, being under-the-radar compared to Parvati and Russ (who were making legendary plays in an All-Star season all season long) made her onto this list, easily. Not to mention the fact that Russell got beat on the previous season before HvV by probably what will end up being #1 on this list, Natalie White-- then proceeds to go into HvV not even knowing whether he won or lost only for Sandra to undermine his and Parv's FAR MORE entertaining gameplay all season because she was either jealous or threatened by his gameplay-- and lets face facts she TRIED and FAILED to eliminate him all game long but still won the $1M? Seems like a flawed and bitter jury to me.
So wait, you criticize Sandra for going against her own interests, which was to get Russell out, but you also criticize her for actively going against him...?
The reason most of these winners are "controversial" is because they're under-edited. And yeah, majority of them (5 out of 6 here) are women. So yeah, 44 seasons in, women (winners) continue to be under-edited. Sad, really.
Russell is the ultimate goat. No one on the jury is voting for his ass. It’s a great strategy to just let him drag you to the finals and watch everyone refuse to vote for him. I’m front of a jury, almost anyone can beat him in a vote.
😮😮I believe that most players have come to understand that this game is about strategy, luck , and manipulation and NOT about friendship, truth and honor.
I never understood the problem with "contraversal" winners like Natalie or Michelle. It doesn't matter what we see on TV the winners are decided by the people who were actually there and playing the game. These people won fair & square, and they should respected just like any other winners. If somebody has a problem with their edits then should take it up with producers.
I mean I’ll never say you don’t serve the win. If you win you deserve it. However their are players who game I have little respect for despite their win because sometimes as season 43 clearly shown you get 3 duds at the end. Everyone knew Jesse was best player and the final 3 didn’t even deny they didn’t do much.
Not everyone Is a fan of bitter juries deciding the game because their ego couldn’t handle getting outplayed. Not everything falls within the scope of jury management, such as Parv on HvV
@@dbliss741 Some people buy into Russel's view that the person who played the "best" game should win. But the fact is, jury members aren't judges on a talent show. They're real people, who spent weeks getting to know each other. And ultimately, that means that sometimes the "best" person is left scratching their heads over how they only got one or two votes when the messy but likeable person swept up all the rest.
I honestly don't think it's as many people as you're making out. Because for every person that was pissed, there were two to three people like me that didn't understand how people thought she would win based on the edit. Like, Gabler winning was not clear from the edit at all, but in the moment I felt very strongly that the edit was showing that Cassidy wasn't the winner. There weren't any moments in the second half where she really was shown having agency or options, and all her achievements often were shown to us through the lense of what it meant for an entirely different player. The same for plans to get her out or drive a wedge between her and Karla, it was more about Karla. Now contrast that with all the times we see Gabler mentioning options, and people from all sides coming to him. In hindsight he had a shocking amount of agency on his place in the game and his one immunity win was turned into a big deal in the moment. As I said, being shocked Gabler won, I can get that. It was only in hindsight everything clicked for me. But I was basically 95% sure Cassidy wasn't winning. It felt more like people put stock in the supposed spoilers and tried to fit everything that happened into that box when it just didn't fit.
After spending a bit of time pissed that Gabler won from nowhere you have to stand back and see it, Cassidy's achievements were all firmly attached to Karla. That clearly bore her no respect from the jury, everyone could see Karla was just using Cassidy as her minion.
Still want the Erika winner edit version, I feel it's a disservice to both the viewers who had no idea how it happened, and for Erika that she never ever gets airtime for a month or in any major move
I know how long it can take to write, record and edit together a video but your "Sandra Vs Parvati isn't as controversial as it used to be" aged like milk before this even came out
I thought it was pretty clear Erika had a shot in 41. I think some Survivor viewers just need to be more open and stop thinking quantity of confessionals equates to winning. Also keep in mind how people talked about the player can affect the edit.
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS did you watch the season? smashing the hourglass is just the point where her personal story emerges, but she did way more than that both before and and after it?
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS Luvu never went to tribal pre-merge- but Erika was a huge focal point in that tribe dynamic in terms of what the editing showed (i.e she has to go she is a gamer). That carried on into the merge. The house-glass definitely overshadowed a lot, but she won key immunities when she was targetted, played a pivotal role in the Shan blindside, pushed for Danny to go over Deshawn (as that was seen), and had stellar tribal council performances throughout. She wasn't invisible, underedited yes, but not invisible and was shown doing much more than Xander.
@@anonymous-ii2jr i 100% watched the season and listened to hours of commentary after each episode. Erika literally did nothing but smash an hourglass.
@@funkycrawler619 i never said that xander deserved to win, other than saying Erika did nothing. Having actually watched the season, she had very little to do with anyone being voted out.
Right before the FTC vote reveal, I honestly thought Deshawn is winning. I never thought Xander could win because he didn’t appear to do anything. Somehow, the Facebook moms thought Xander should win.
@@olivermensinger6022 Yah, but i thought it was like a Trish/Tony moment. I thought the jury grilled him but ended up still voting for him anyway because he was working with many people.
It’s funny how this is coming out immediately after the Parv/Sandra Facebook beef. Either edited together extremely quickly or just impeccable timing.
I haven’t heard, can you explain?
Honestly in my opinion Sandra Is overrated
@@Cody-to9kn smh
They are great "Survivor" legends who used different methods to win their respective "Survivor" seasons.
@@Cody-to9kn you aren’t wrong. She beat the almighty Lil, and won with a bitter jury toward parv and russell.
One of my favorite things from post season SoPa, is that there was a street interview where the reporter kept referring to it as an interview with just Cochran while Cochran just kept pointing to Sophie who was right there next to him saying "Ask her, she's the one who won"
Thank you for having a nuanced take on the All Stars jury. I'm so sick of people writing them off as bitter losers without recognising it was a bit more complex considering the pre existing relationships.
The bitterness added to their disposition towards Rob. But yes, certainly more complex than simply bitterness. Plus I think Rob is overrated.
@@k.jacksonethier9958 same with parvati....
Shi Ann correctly assessed Rob's alliance when she called them "stupid people". They KNEW the pecking order and they accepted it rather than using Shi Ann when they had the chance. They never made any moves. They voluntarily left. It was silly when they acted like they'd ben "betrayed"
@@vlo4829 somehow every member of chapera thought they’re going to final 2 or 4 with Rob. He was that good at manipulation and cutting deals
Love that you included that Tom Westman quote, it's an important one
This video is a good example of why you're the best commentator on Survivor. You have the perfect mix of appreciation, perception, inventiveness, dry humor and charm. Looking forward to part two.
You know it’s not Natalie white or Erika or Sophie’s fault if producers gave them a poor edit. Fans should understand that survivor is a heavily edited show. Just because someone’s moves weren’t shown much, didnt mean they didn’t do anything to “deserve” the win
How can you give someone a good edit if they didn’t do anything of value?
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS how do you know they didn’t do anything of value? There’s tones of podcasts, post games interviews and stuff that shed light on strategic moves not shown in the edit
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS for example the edit ignored Erika and Heather’s relationship and instead gave 30 scenes to Ricard and Shan. Yes Ricard and Shan are more entertaining and interesting but Erika’s relationships and strategies were largely sidelined
@@freddytang2128 if they did anything of value they would show it.
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS guess you don’t understand how reality tv works. When producers film like a thousand hour of footage and has to cram a 40 minute episode. Also I hope you realize there’s different definitions of “value”. Theres strategic value and there’s entertainment value. Philip Shepard barely did anything strategic but he got air time for being entertaining
When you said “who would vote for someone who got voted out.” I said to myself “that’s called foreshadowing.”
Same.
oh yeah. i forgot about that person actually winning after they got voted out. i even forgot their name. it's like some traumatic thing happened. i do remember he beat devin in fire.
@@DocKobryn Australian Survivor shares your pain, we had someone who had been voted out win the game
@@Brakiros ...wait, who?
@@Mentally_Will Hayley
Between this video and the last few seasons, I'm realizing that when I complain about the wrong person winning I should also be mad at the Winners edit which they have no control of
This past season is a great example of that. They completely left out the context of the Ride or Die alliance which would have been a massive help to explain why Gabler won. If we knew he, Cody, and Jesse were closely allied, then him winning as the last surviving member and someone that was much more involved in the game than we knew, makes so much more sense.
@@kyletucker3811 yeah I thought Gabler's win just came out of out of the blue, I had thought Gabler was nothing but a goat. It sucks that they made it seem like Gabler who was almost completely invisible and had one of the most Purple edits I can recall goes ahead and wins.
People seem to forget it's not just outplay. It's also outlast. You don't have to be the best player to make it to the end and win.
Love the timing of this video with the Sandra vs Parvati drama on social media rn
I feel like it's not fair for fans to say a winner doesn't deserve it because they're not shown as much. The editors and producers determine that and they are there and living on Survivor the entire time
The editors etc being trash at telling the stories of female players/winners should be a video itself
It's not the player's fault that their edits are shit.
Partially true and partially not, if they aren’t a relevant player and lead quite a boring game by riding the votes and do nothing at camp, there’s not gonna be a lot to show of them, if they are involved in the game throughout they’ll be shown throughout the season
I was waiting for this list and Part 1 did not disappoint! One thing I loved about your series covering each and every winner was that you could pinpoint how each and every player earned their win. For Sandra, she was not the dominant force of the season, but she did make moves that had the jury on her side at the end. And she was smart enough to stay aligned with Parvati and Russell knowing how they would be perceived compared to her should they all make FTC! For Amber, she aligned with someone who she knew would protect her while also being someone she could beat because of how the jury perceived his game! For Ben, who I am certain is in Part 2, the firemaking twist saved him sure, but it’s also important to note that he won the most jury votes because of the game he played to put him in such a position at the end! Frankly I wish he won that final immunity challenge he was so close to winning, just because his win would not be controversial and the firemaking twist would be far less disliked imo, plus Chrissy would stop complaining after doing so even 6 years after the fact 🙄
Preach to the quior, I have always said that if fire was introduced in second chances and Wentworth won cause of it people would have loved the twist, the idol nullifier proves me right on this.
But Ben still got lucked out that a twist he couldnt account for helped him get to the end, even if he did do things well he still should have gone home as far as the players in the game thougtht.
@@Minecraftlover73 honestly I love wentworth but I think Jeremy was the best player in Cambodia so I am fine with how that played out, but I also agree the backlash would not have been as bad had it been brought out then as opposed to during HvHvH!
Ultimately that was a great season regardless but the idea of an FTC with Jeremy and Wentworth would have been exciting knowing it would not have been a blowout for either player imo
@@jacobgoldman5780 but why should a twist like that be held against him considering it became a mainstay of survivor from that point onward? If this was some random one off twist I would get the backlash but in this case it was something the show implemented permanently and the twist had its merits, so even if you wish it had not been implemented, why hold it against Ben?
@@JRJuggernaut1 because he got to the end from something he couldn't have factored into his game and wasnt able to manage his threat level/perception from others to stay if it had been the expected final 4 round. It doesnt mean his game is total trash, just that him getting to the end isnt deserved imo since he got an extra life he had no way of expecting.
A lot of the issues I have with the most controversial winners comes down to the editing of the season. Just show us more of each player and there will be more for us to look back on and analyze the road map to their victory rather than be pissed off that they won. No fan wants that.
And Jeff, especially in recent seasons, assumes that by promoting the “play fast, take risks, & be cutthroat” strategy makes some people think thats how you play, but I would say most people go the other way and try to find a nuanced, subtle way to build their résumé. And thats really always been the way winners get to the end. It’s rare to be an obvious threat and still get the votes at the end.
It's rare that we get something like Tony's game in Cagayan.
@@olivermensinger The more I revisit that season, the more appreciation I have for Tony’s game. Totally agree with how specific it is.
Just here to say that I love this channel and keep up the hard work!
Accidentally really early for this vid! Shows like Survivor occasionally thrive on controversy, so I'm sure this video is gonna be great
You should do a video about all the survivor couples. Couples that are married or dating and how they met, their survivor journey, etc. There are plenty of couples to work with Tyson, Rachel; Jeremy, Val; Rob, Amber; Parvati, John. I'm sure there's plenty more. I think this would be a great video
Excellent video Peridiam! Top 5 has got to be:
1. Natalie W (deserves the win but Russell-mania was insane at this time)
2. Michele F (also deserving, but underedited and people loved Aubrey; in repeat performances Michele has shown a better game than Aubrey imo)
3. Ben (too many idols... although Chrissy and Ryan were both fairly weak)
4. Chris U (whole Extinction twist, but what, Gavin should have won?)
5. Danni (probably the OG underedited winner, esp. against fan fav Steph)
I feel Yul was a competitive win and wasn't too controversial at the time. Also Gabler, Bob and Fabio had they won against more able competition, perhaps, but they played able games against weak F3 competition. Come on, in what world are Cassidy, Susie or Chase really Survivor winner material.
Low key Nick should be more controversial. Mike White played a really good game.
I'm saying Gabler for 5th here I think.
Replace Danni with Gabler, and that would be a sure fire guess
I picked your first four plus Gabler for the top five.
Mike played an amazing game. I think he just didn’t want to win because he knew nick needed it more than him
You beating ozzy
Thank you! Great list! :)
Funny you showed that clip at the end, considering the people who spent years echoing Natalie’s words started to act like Russell immediately following the end of 43
Gonna guess Natalie W, Chris U, Gabler, Michele & Ben as the top 5 (Mike maybe?)
How high will Gabler rank?
he's not exactly a controversial winner, none of them really deserved to win and didn't really do much. It is what happens when the only really worthy just barely misses out
Erika played the cleanest strategic/gamebot (not necessarily best overall) game we have seen in all 43 seasons. It's not her fault the editors wanted to push flashy gameplay for the NeW eRa and barely showed her UTR control and why she won which confused everybody lmao
I'm a Xander guy but yeah she was probably underedited
I had been watching Erika and thought she'd be a very strong contender to win the game but they never showed her, I was only semi-surprised that she won. It only took me a few moments to step back and like yeah she deserved to win.
@@Brakiros This. I wasn't at all surprised that Erika won, but I was surprised that it was such a landslide. Xander played very well socially but Erika had more control over what would happen than he did
6:30 AGREED! Sandra's win in Pearl Islands was deserved, but after watching Heroes vs. Villains again her win was definitely questionnable given how she was nearly invisible during the pre-merge phase and that she kept stating that Russell was her target. Russell definitely deserved to lose since he only had a strategic game, but Parvati dominated in all sectors of social, physical and strategic even in her third season.
Sandra won based off the spite vote, the jury was bitter over Parvati and didn't feel like she deserved it. No matter that I felt that she certainly deserved the win especially since Sandra had already won. I never thought that would have happened.
Parvati definitely deserved to in HvH imo
Russell played a better game than Parvati. He saved Her multiple times and one of them got Tyson voted out.
He Made bigger moves and is obviously more strategic, physical is about the same both won immunies and Russell won the fanale when it matters most, and socially You can't even really say Parv is better bc She had the same Enemies and allies as Russell😂 she stayed with the villains the whole time and no one wanted to work with her since the villians tribe. Russell was able to use both the heroes and villians to sway the votes however he wanted whenever he wanted.
I mean Was Russell a bit of a dickhead in HvV yes ofc. But gameplay wise He blew everyone in that season out.
Great episode!
Sandra? Absolutely not. I’ve watched every season in real time, Sandra 100% earned her win in H vs V.
Me and my friends were some of the people on team “Xander was robbed”. When Jeff read the votes and announced Erica winner, we literally stared at the screen, silent, mouth agape for a solid 3 minutes. After watching back through the season, I’ve concluded that Erica must’ve been playing much harder socially and strategically than we were shown and she just got screwed by the edit. Even though we weren’t shown much of her game, throughout the season, other players kept throwing her name out there and saying she was a big threat and she was praised by the other players a final trial. Xander was given much more screen time and he was just really charismatic to watch so there was some bias towards him to win. In my humble opinion haha
She definitely got screwed by the edit. She’s actually pretty good if you examine her game closely.
Also, if examine his game closely, you realize how bad of a player Xander is. He’s a likable guy, but he isn’t a good player.
duddeee i wanna see more australian survivor reviews! king george, queen hayley, the blind sides... its masterful and im certain youre watching the aussie seasons too....
excellent video as usual!! i’ve always been a fan of these controversial winners, especially sophie & michelle :)
Great video! Quick question - did you research for this video have anything to do with the Sandra/Parvati fight that’s been going on?
On my rewatch of All-Stars, the biggest shocker to me wasn't that Amber won, it's that Boston Rob even got 3 votes; Rob was so unnecessarily cruel.
did you film this before social media blew up about part and Sandra this week? lmao
I agree with most of the strategic moves that Boston Rob did in All-Stars. I even understand the need to take out a physical threat like Lex at the merge. The one move I seriously questioned was why he decided to make a side deal with Alicia. He literally had an alliance with everyone else in the tribe. what utility did that alliance serve him?
Tina making a backgammon analogy at final tribal gotta be one of those "things from early survivor that date the show" things
Russell was legit about to cry at HvV reunion
I think he was more upset at the S19 reunion because he knew he wasn't gonna win HvV and thought it was his best shot.
I very clearly remember being happy to see Rich beat Kelly, and thought it was the second best outcome. I don’t remember being aware that there was a significant backlash against Rich’s “dirty” style of play; granted, it was a very long time ago, but as I flog my brain, I’m pretty sure everyone I talked to about Survivor that summer found his strategy fascinating to watch without the slightest whiff of any wrongdoing. During the reunion I was kind of baffled by the public opinion narrative that Bryant Gumbel was pushing. And I think that 68% figure in the live poll was mostly people who’d gone into the episode on Team Rudy. That I can understand; I actually cried out in pain when he was eliminated.
I thought Jeff was going to throw up when he revealed Hatch as the winner. I often wonder what CBS execs were expecting as far as game play during the first season.
I love how Jeff wanted this new era to have winners who play the game hard and aggressive but we got a chill, lowkey, but social and calculated winner. Then a strategic but still more lowkey winner. And finally a laid back winner who lowkey wasn’t very good but whatever I guess
To this day I’m pi’s see that Xander didn’t win, I hated Ricard, lol
I definitely think Chris was a controversial winner
He’ll be in the top 5 for sure
He next vid prob lol
He gotta be #1. Extinction Island was such a terrible idea, though I’ll give Chris props for knowing exactly what he needed to do to win over the jury.
@@erakfishfishfish Extinction Island you mean lol. Chris deserved to win for sure, he used all of what the season threw at him to his advantage. But his winning was by far controversial but then again the final four was two goats who did literally nothing to deserve winning the game and then two people who had been voted out.
@@Brakiros ah yes, my bad. I edited my post.
Angelina, Domenic, Spencer, Lisa, Stephanie, Twila, Dawn, Chrissy, Gavin, Cassidy, Natalie Tenerelli and Hannah were all robbed.
Also Xander and Kathy
@@michaelwalston2438 no
I wasn't really happy that Erica won, mostly because of how Zander was portrayed, but I also wasn't super surprised. The way I saw it, there was absolutely no way a straight white man would win in a season with as diverse of a cast as that one.
Gabler literally proved with his social game your race and gender doesn’t matter winning seven votes.
Exactly. He really should have won, but that jury was never going to vote for a straight white male.
Jeff was wrong for saying Rob dominated strategically. Yes, he made many moves that secured his place on the final council, but part of strategy is understanding that the people you play with will be deciding if you win or not. Ignoring that essential aspect of the game if poor strategy
Poor Sophie. I always had her high tier and glad she finally gets love
my predictions for top 5:
5. Chris Underwood
4. Mike Gabler
3. Ben Driebergen
2. Michele Fitzgerald
1. Natalie White
Im guessing (in no ranked order) Chris underwood, Ben, Michelle, Natalie white and gabler
Completely agree.
I think that Partvi in HvV was the biggest sub I wish that Jerri won that final immunity challenge and win the game tho.
1. Ben
2. Natalie
3. Gabler
4. Michelle
5. Chris Underwood
I feel like Survivor wouldn't have lasted so long if Kelly won. Rich winning was exciting and unexpected, at least back in 2000
Remember that the deciding vote was based on the number they chose. If only Kelly had been bolder and chosen 8 or 9... things would have been so different.
@@DocKobryn I think the guy who asked the question said that he was voting for Richard anyways
I will never understand season 41 editing, it's like the producers wanted to tick off the audience. Why make us want Xander to win, and then having him get no votes. The editing does not make logical sense in giving the viewers an enjoyable experience. They seriously needed to decrease Xanders edit and increase Erika's. Just mild changes to the edit would have helped the season so much. Why didnt we see all the screen time with Heather and Erika building their bond, they were very close. The whole season was a joke. Might be my least favorite season honestly.
The agony and reveal of #8 made me laugh out loud.
In the next video, I hope and expect to see Natalie White, Sarah Lacina, Chris Underwood, and Danni Boatwright to name a few. For a future video idea, I would love to see a video on Jeff Probst's favorite and least favorite winners.
I’m expecting Michele, Gabler, Christ Underwood, Maryanne, and Natalie White (not in that order). I could also see Tommy or Ben in there to tho
Natalie White has to be #1 for me. Admittedly I'm an old school viewer, and I thoroughly enjoyed Russel's gameplay and edit... but c'mon man. He had a goal, and he accomplished that goal.
Everyone says Natalie White as the worst winner, but at least she played the game that was offered to everyone in her season. That Dude that won Edge of Extinction playd a game not everyone had the chance to play. This is not fair and was bullshit.
9:13 Tom is a legend
There are so many I wish would have won. But as you said, Tina (Season 2) played a great game. It took me a couple of seasons to realize this, Colby couldn't outplay Tina. The game was too cutthroat for him. I still think he'd take Tina today, even with him knowing he'd lose. Cody C on Big Brother took Derek the first time he played. I think he understood he wouldn't win with this decision. But he was too in his feelings and his character to choose Vernonica. After a few years, his philosophy on life and the game changed (it's a game that everyone agreed to play and knew the rules). The second time he took Enzo because Nicole might have enough votes to beat him. I wish Culpepper would have beat Sarah (but I'm a Gator and Buc fan). But I believed Sarah had the case for being a winner. Most of the players that won, I feel the same way.
You mean Victoria...
Reminder that Kathy’s jury speech is the third best jury speech in the history of the show
I didn't think this was a 2 parter until the end lol
I'm not sure what the cutoff point of this was but surely Gabler has to be top 5 easily.
Joining him should definetly he Michelle and Natalie White. I'm not certain what other 2 you have though Bob, Fabio and Ben are all possible
And I only just now thought of Chris Underwood who most definetly has to be in the top 5 lol
It'll be Ben, Michelle, Natalie White, Chris Underwood and probably Gabler (maybe? I feel like people were more surprised than upset at his win, his game is very solid in retrospect). I think Bob isn't all that controversial since the final 3 of Gabon is such a hodge podge of players so you could kinda just draw a random name out of a hat there and it'd make just about the same amount of sense, and Nicaragua's edit makes a decent case against Chase and Sash so I don't think Fabio was especially controversial, just not very respected.
My guesses for the top 5
5. Gabler
4. Michele
3. Natalie White
2. Ben
1. Chris Underwood
I don't care what anyone says, Erika did not deserve the win
This is part 1/2 I assume. I expect Gabler to be on this list. Twitter (myself included) was in tears and ready to stop watching over him winning.
I didn’t even watch the finale when I heard he won 😡
Here's who I believe should also be included (in no particular order): Michelle (32), Ben (35), Chris (38), Natalie (19), Brian (5). I feel like there should be others but, if there could only be five others, that's where I'd go
Brian sucks but he won’t be there. Think yui would be
Top 5 Imo: No particular order
- Michelle ( Koah Rong)
- Chris (Edge Of Extinction)
- Natalie W. (Samoa)
- Ben (HvHvH)
- Gabler (Survivor 43)
I’m honestly surprised Erika’s was so low. I expected her to get some votes, but the fact that Xander got NONE really blew me away. He played an amazing season, but i guess he had more of a traditional winners game and it was a whole different vibe that season.
I feel like Xander actually had quite a weak game. He was part of the knowledge is power thing but didn't come up with the idea. Then for the rest of the season he was pretty much a non-factor who never came up with any strategy or played a key role in any vote - he was just a number. Everyone knew of his idol but wasn't phased by it. Not to mention his cockiness and underestimating other players like Erika and Heather and lack of a strong social game.
@@whosthatpanda7935 i feel like his game really started post-merge maybe around 8 or 9 because he was an underdog that whole time. I didn’t really like him during the beginning but he played very strategically to stay in because EVERYONE wanted him out and he kept surviving vote after vote. I knew as soon as he took Erika he was done though. I didn’t notice how bad his social game was but the votes are obviously a testament to that. I just thought he would get at least one vote.
My guess for top 5:
5: Michele
4: Gabler
3: Ben
2: Natalie White
1: Chris Underwood
I think that parv definitely played a better game during Heroes versus Villains but I think that Sandra deserved the win because the objective of the game is to convince your jury that you deserve to win and that's what Sandra did she convinced her jury that she deserved to win it doesn't matter what America thinks it doesn't matter what the pre-jury thinks it ain't sure the f*** doesn't matter what Russell thinks all that matters is that your jury thinks you deserve to win and if you can convince your jury that you deserve to win then you deserve to win it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks and Boston Rob said a version of this during winters at War and I totally agree with him and the reason he was so passionate about it is because I guarantee he's had to make that same speech he made to Michelle to Amber a million times
Nah She didnt do anything and that's not Worthy. Gameplay > socially Liked because the jurry was bitter
@@robtheservantof6257 the jury wasn't bitter Russell just doesn't know how to play this game to win
@@anthonymort5202 The Jurry was Bitter. You just don't know to read People.
Several of them have actually come out post HvV & state they should've voted For Russ🙂
@@robtheservantof6257 None of them have come out and said that. They said that they wish to be voted for parv None of them wanted russell to win because he doesn't know how to play the game, right
@@anthonymort5202 Jerri & Jt literally Said they should've voted for Russ. Try again
My guesses for 5-1;
5. The aliGabler
4. Ben Driebergen
3. Michele Fitzgerald
2. Natalie White
1. Chris Underwood
See how I do!
So far I called all of these except Tina. I’d say the next five have to be:
5. Fabio
4. Gabler
3. Natalie
2. Chris Underwood
1. Ben
Coach should have won. He played the same game as Rob when he won but for some reason everyone was mad at coach when he did it
My guess for the top 5:
5. Mike Gabler
4. Michele Fitzgerald
3. Ben Driebergen
2. Natalie White
1. Chris Underwood
My guesses for your list:
1. Natalie W
2. Michele
3. Chris
4. Ben
5. Bob
Although I personally think Gabler should be on that list somewhere, based on the way you talked about Erika, it's unlikely. Actually, Maryanne could fit on this list, too.
Other honorable mentions would be Jenna, Yul, Wendall, and Adam.
I think that this list is pretty much going to be part 2. The only thing I would say is that it's gonna be so close between Natalie W and Michelle. Especially because both were not only controversial for their laid back riding the coat tails approach to the game, but more importantly because they were sitting next to someone in the final that not only played a much better game then anyone else ever could have, but more importantly that other individual deserved the win a million times more.
@@t.i.m.theincrediblemusicia3954 disagree that they were sitting next to someone that deserved it more than them. Especially Michele. She played a much more well-rounded game than Aubry and didn’t ride coattails cause they were literally trying to get her out. And Russell I mean you can’t win with a bad social game lol
In all fair honesty, Aubrey did have a much better gameplay than Michelle. Heck, even Jeff Probst thought that Aubrey should have won the game along with the fan base. Not to mention Tai was also a close equal competitor of choice to win over Michelle. As with Natalie, she pretty much (road the coattails) stuck to the majority alliance and voted exactly how Russell was not only voting, but Russel also plotted just about every single vote. Not to mention, Russell Hantz not only won individual immunity challenges, but made the most insane idol finds and plays that Natalie never dared go for (except for killing a rat). And even though she did to a certain degree play smart with building a better social game than Russell. The legacy that Russell has set up holds very well to this day unlike Natalie. Thus, his 2nd place finished proved that the days of survivor winners Tina, Sandra's 2nd win, and Natalie's win of playing nice and fair are Dang near impossible today as they would have been in the early years of survivor.
@@t.i.m.theincrediblemusicia3954 Russell is just proof that it doesn’t matter how good of a strategic game you play if you have no social skills. The social game is a crucial aspect of the game and you can’t just ignore it like Russell has both times he played. Plus, if it wasn’t for Natalie convincing people to vote out Erik, her and Russel would’ve went out way before final 3. Russell doesn’t understand how to win the game. I still disagree about Aubry having better gameplay than Michele. Aubry was shown to be wishy washy and Tai just had a terrible end game. He was basically just a flipper. Both Tai and Aubry started better than Michele, but her end game was much stronger than theirs
@t.i.m.theincrediblemusicia3954 gabler just won the game by riding coattails and on the back of a very strong social game.
Russell's game does not hold up. In fact, the exact opposite has happened. At the time, it was an incredibly popular take that Russell was the greatest player ever. Now, that sort of thinking is by far a minority take. Most fans of Survivor agree that Russell is actually not a good player because he fundamentally misunderstood how to win the game.
Is part of this a reaction to the online beef between Parvati and Sandra?
Natalie White, Michelle Fitz, Chris Underwood, Vecepia, Gabler. Those are my guesses. The 1st three are locks.
It's hard to give credit to much of Sandra's game when she actively was against her own interests: Constantly trying to get Russell out and flipping to the Heroes was a death sentence to her game but because she disliked Russell she kept going for it.
Made her win feel more a consequence of Russell burning every bridge he possibly could without realizing it and Parviti being "guilt by association" than anything else.
Sandra disliking Russell, being under-the-radar compared to Parvati and Russ (who were making legendary plays in an All-Star season all season long) made her onto this list, easily. Not to mention the fact that Russell got beat on the previous season before HvV by probably what will end up being #1 on this list, Natalie White-- then proceeds to go into HvV not even knowing whether he won or lost only for Sandra to undermine his and Parv's FAR MORE entertaining gameplay all season because she was either jealous or threatened by his gameplay-- and lets face facts she TRIED and FAILED to eliminate him all game long but still won the $1M? Seems like a flawed and bitter jury to me.
So wait, you criticize Sandra for going against her own interests, which was to get Russell out, but you also criticize her for actively going against him...?
I’m surprised that Michelle didn’t end up on this list. I remember people still saying she didn’t deserve it leading up WaW
There is still the top 5
Michelle will 100% be in the top five. I’m also expecting Chris underwood and the woman from season 19 who beat russel
@@michaelnolan9416 "The woman from season 19" put some respect on Natalie White's name
@@handsoaphandsoap lol, fair. I genuinely haven’t seen that season yet so I couldn’t think of it.
If Gabler isn't in that top 5...
10th! Nailed it!
I’d say the contenders for top 5 are: Vecepia, Jenna, Natalie W., Michele, Ben, Chris U., Gabler.
The reason most of these winners are "controversial" is because they're under-edited. And yeah, majority of them (5 out of 6 here) are women. So yeah, 44 seasons in, women (winners) continue to be under-edited. Sad, really.
My guesses for top 5 (in no particular order): Chris Underwood, Natalie White, Michele Fitzgerald, Ben Driebergen, Danni Boatwright
I'm gonna guess the top 5 are Fabio Birza, Natalie White, Mike Gabler, Michele Fitzgerald and Chris Underwood, but I couldn't even guess the order.
Russell is the ultimate goat. No one on the jury is voting for his ass. It’s a great strategy to just let him drag you to the finals and watch everyone refuse to vote for him. I’m front of a jury, almost anyone can beat him in a vote.
well... let's see... two names come to mind immediately... Gabler / Fabio
😮😮I believe that most players have come to understand that this game is about strategy, luck , and manipulation and NOT about friendship, truth and honor.
I never understood the problem with "contraversal" winners like Natalie or Michelle. It doesn't matter what we see on TV the winners are decided by the people who were actually there and playing the game.
These people won fair & square, and they should respected just like any other winners. If somebody has a problem with their edits then should take it up with producers.
I mean I’ll never say you don’t serve the win. If you win you deserve it. However their are players who game I have little respect for despite their win because sometimes as season 43 clearly shown you get 3 duds at the end. Everyone knew Jesse was best player and the final 3 didn’t even deny they didn’t do much.
Not everyone Is a fan of bitter juries deciding the game because their ego couldn’t handle getting outplayed.
Not everything falls within the scope of jury management, such as Parv on HvV
@@dbliss741 Some people buy into Russel's view that the person who played the "best" game should win. But the fact is, jury members aren't judges on a talent show. They're real people, who spent weeks getting to know each other. And ultimately, that means that sometimes the "best" person is left scratching their heads over how they only got one or two votes when the messy but likeable person swept up all the rest.
@@darriusbethea2373 Season 43 had one of the most disappointing F3s I can remember in many years, so disappointing that Jesse didn't make it
@@rokeYouuer I don't think any jury of American Idol, X-Factor or The Voice care about the best singer at all, but I understand your point still!
Survivor is terrible at editing female winners. Not sure how or why but they are not good
Prediction for part 2: Ben, Chris underwood, Gabler, Michelle, Natalie white. Probably in that order from 5 to 1
The thing I don't like about the game is that you can literally get immunity the entire game and still not win because people don't like you.
After the first season what did Jeff say? "COMPETITION", not popularity contest!
Top 5 is 100% going to be Gabler, Michele, Natalie White, Ben, and Chris Underwood. I will be surprised if it is otherwise.
Gabler better be top five, call it recency bias but a lot of people, including myself, were pissed that Cassidy didn’t win.
I honestly don't think it's as many people as you're making out. Because for every person that was pissed, there were two to three people like me that didn't understand how people thought she would win based on the edit. Like, Gabler winning was not clear from the edit at all, but in the moment I felt very strongly that the edit was showing that Cassidy wasn't the winner. There weren't any moments in the second half where she really was shown having agency or options, and all her achievements often were shown to us through the lense of what it meant for an entirely different player. The same for plans to get her out or drive a wedge between her and Karla, it was more about Karla. Now contrast that with all the times we see Gabler mentioning options, and people from all sides coming to him. In hindsight he had a shocking amount of agency on his place in the game and his one immunity win was turned into a big deal in the moment.
As I said, being shocked Gabler won, I can get that. It was only in hindsight everything clicked for me. But I was basically 95% sure Cassidy wasn't winning. It felt more like people put stock in the supposed spoilers and tried to fit everything that happened into that box when it just didn't fit.
After spending a bit of time pissed that Gabler won from nowhere you have to stand back and see it, Cassidy's achievements were all firmly attached to Karla. That clearly bore her no respect from the jury, everyone could see Karla was just using Cassidy as her minion.
Maybe my opinion is more based on not relating to gabler as a person and not necessarily wanting him to represent the season.
6:50 this did not age well LOL
Still want the Erika winner edit version, I feel it's a disservice to both the viewers who had no idea how it happened, and for Erika that she never ever gets airtime for a month or in any major move
Man. If 41 had 90 minute episodes…
I know how long it can take to write, record and edit together a video but your "Sandra Vs Parvati isn't as controversial as it used to be" aged like milk before this even came out
Top 5 - Natalie Ben Cunderwood Gabler Michelle
Top5:
1. Chris
2. Natalie
3. Michele
4. Ben
5. Wendell
Xander should’ve one his season lol
Where’s Gabler?
I thought it was pretty clear Erika had a shot in 41. I think some Survivor viewers just need to be more open and stop thinking quantity of confessionals equates to winning. Also keep in mind how people talked about the player can affect the edit.
I guess not getting picked for an immunity challenge and then hitting an hour glass and thats it means you have a shot.
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS did you watch the season? smashing the hourglass is just the point where her personal story emerges, but she did way more than that both before and and after it?
@@TEGRIDY_FARMS Luvu never went to tribal pre-merge- but Erika was a huge focal point in that tribe dynamic in terms of what the editing showed (i.e she has to go she is a gamer). That carried on into the merge. The house-glass definitely overshadowed a lot, but she won key immunities when she was targetted, played a pivotal role in the Shan blindside, pushed for Danny to go over Deshawn (as that was seen), and had stellar tribal council performances throughout. She wasn't invisible, underedited yes, but not invisible and was shown doing much more than Xander.
@@anonymous-ii2jr i 100% watched the season and listened to hours of commentary after each episode. Erika literally did nothing but smash an hourglass.
@@funkycrawler619 i never said that xander deserved to win, other than saying Erika did nothing. Having actually watched the season, she had very little to do with anyone being voted out.
Erika was the deserving winner, but people think the edit tells everything and Xander was robbed. Xander wasn’t robbed at all.
Right before the FTC vote reveal, I honestly thought Deshawn is winning. I never thought Xander could win because he didn’t appear to do anything. Somehow, the Facebook moms thought Xander should win.
@@maggie198333 I liked Deshawn, and thought he was good up until the truth bomb.
@@olivermensinger6022 Yah, but i thought it was like a Trish/Tony moment. I thought the jury grilled him but ended up still voting for him anyway because he was working with many people.
41, 42, and 43 are showing that even the person who seems like a goat you bring to the end can win Survivor.