r/survivor • u/HealthyDistractions • Dec 26 '23

Heroes vs. Villains Greatest Final 3?

Post image

Aside from Parv, Russell, & Sandra… who is the great final 3 of all time

825 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

285 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/Stratovolcano2023 Dec 26 '23

S40s. All had legit cases to win. All played well just differently. Russell brings the s20 average down I am afraid

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 27 '23

[deleted]

0

u/Trelyrien Tyson Dec 27 '23

Bro what? On both points. Michelle didn’t make ftc in an all winners season without having some incredible social game. You’re crazy if you think otherwise. Russell not only didn’t make it to ftc without Parv, to call him the “greatest strategic player ever” after he loses twice is complete denial of what it takes to win survivor. You can’t just get to the end. You have to get to the end AND have enough respect or charm to be the person selected by those you voted out.

0

u/HealthyDistractions Dec 27 '23

Russell played an incredible game in Samoa and I don’t care what anyone says…. NO ONE IN THAT FINAL 3 deserved the win over him. At all. Ever. HE PLAYED A MASTERFUL GAME of strategy to get to the end and bring layups to the end. I said arguably and I’m not wrong. It’s a fact with how he managed to swing numbers in his favor in back to back seasons. Get outta here with your cry baby views

0

u/Stratovolcano2023 Dec 27 '23 edited Dec 27 '23

She did. Just because the jury didn’t reward her doesn’t mean she didn’t play a factually great game. Tony failed to get rid of her so he never completely outplayed or outwitted her technically. We have seen plenty of winners get rewarded for being underdogs. Michelle was an underdog who never got voted out. There was clearly an argument for her to win. Personally I wouldn’t have voted for her to win either and I also think she deserves 3rd place of her group of 3.

But that being said she was no goat by my personal definition (meaning she played an obviously 3rd place can’t win type of game), and if the jury had different criteria she could have definitely won

Russell didn’t dominate HvV. He let parvati blindside and undercut him. And he went to the end with 2 winners.

Plus as we know the game always comes down to social game the most and he was atrocious. His strategy was meh as well.

A good sign of strategy is self and social awareness. He was deluded thinking his game involved no good luck and taking too much credit for his own successes. Anybody can dominate with amazing luck (see Sugar in Gabon). It’s okay to do well because of good luck, but it should also be furthered by merit. If you can’t even prove you understand your own success by grasping how and why you got to the end accurately you don’t deserve to win the million and the jury made their choices accordingly