The internet has been crazy with all the talk of how Russell was robbed and I will be the first to admit that I am in that camp. I have watched Survivor since the beginning (well actually started with the second season but have seen season 1 on DVD) and I think I have a pretty good Survivor mind. I tried out for the show 3 times, but unfortunately never made it on.
Anyway, enough about me and back to Russell. Russell in my mind was one of, if not the best player to ever play the game, but let's take a look at some of the aspect of Russell's game, starting why he should NOT have won:
Why Russell didn't deserve to win
I honestly feel that the one of the biggest reasons why Russell didn't win was he voted Jaison out over Mick. Did you see Erik's response when that happened? Russell didn't know it ahead of time, but since Mick didn't help win the final immunity challenge, Jaison would have been just as good. I'll admit, while watching the show, I said that was a great move, because it did give the best chance of beating Brett, but in hind sight, I don't think it was the correct move. Jaison, Natalie and Russell were clearly the solid 3 and Mick was the 4th man, and voting Jaison out was the ultimate betrayal. That alone is one reason why the Jury didn't vote for him.
Another reason why Russell didn't win was because while he played the game, he was arrogant beyond belief and arrogant by itself is not the problem, but to do it in front of everyone is the problem. While this game fosters lying, cheating, etc. sportsmanship still needs to take place. If Russell would have toned that back and only was that arrogant to the camera in the interviews, he may be the winner.
Why Russell should have won
Russell should have won this season because he has one of the best Survivor minds to ever play this game. Russell was always thinking of the possibilities and how to stay in control in this game, by making the others irritated, uncomfortable or by fueling the fire between other castaways. Russell was also smart to identify his toughest competitors and eliminate them early. While I think Russell's tactics ultimately hurt his tribe in the challenges, it did force the remaining 4 to fully trust each other going into the merge and Russell knew that Shambo was going to come over to their side. Russell also coached Natalie and Jaison and had them do some of his dirty work. Natalie was a key player in getting Erik voted out, which ultimately turned the game, but it was Russell working with her that got her to that point. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Natalie is stupid, but I also don't think she would have made that move if she wasn't aligned with Russell.
Russell also is the first person in Survivor history to find a hidden immunity idol without a clue, and he did it twice. The first time he found it with everyone around him and he even said what he was doing. Because he had looked so much for it, it made it easy for him to find the 3rd one, when he did have a clue and knew that he had to take Dave on a wild goose chase.
The bottom line is that Russell really did control this game, most of the way.
Why Natalie should not have won
Natalie was the second best player in the game, really with Shambo being pretty close to her, and the way that she help orchestrate Erik's departure was very good. She definitely deserved to get some votes. She was better socially than Russell, but really I didn't see her have a tight relationship with anyone from Galu, other than Brett. She played a more ethical game, but she wasn't miss goodie two shoes either. I'm not upset that Natalie won, I am just upset that Russell didn't win. The move that would have cemented my vote for Natalie to win this game would have been to get rid of Russell instead of Jaison, but then according to the jury she wouldn't have won, because Brett would have been in the finals since I really can't see Jaison beating Brett in the final immunity challenge and the jury said they would have voted for Brett.
Why Brett should NOT have won
If Brett would have won the final immunity and been sitting in the final 3, the jury already has said he would be the winner. Why? Because he is Galu and that is it. Plain and simple. Tribal lines really shouldn't have an affect on the final vote, but who played the game the best. Yes Brett was good socially and he did win some immunities, but the only way Brett would win in my mind is if he was so good socially that he was sitting in the final 3 without winning any immunities because the bond he formed with the Foa Foa tribe members was strong enough to get him there. That is the way that would have secured the game for him, in my mind.
Mick and Jaison
Neither one of these guys deserved to win, because they didn't do anything in the game. Well Jaison at the end did make one move, so he is more deserving than Mick, which is also why Russell should have taken him to the finals. He was aligned with Russell from the beginning and when he was betrayed, that cost Russell at least one vote. Jaison really wasn't a threat to win the whole thing, but I do think he voted on emotion and not sound survivor logic.
Jaison's analogy that he gave at the reunion show about rewarding Russell's behavior in the game that you wouldn't in real life is weak. I mean I see where he is coming from and do agree with it to some degree, but we have to remember this is a game and the only rules are that you outwit, outlast and outplay the competition and it doesn't have to be ethically done.
Ethics and Survivor
Following up what I just said about Jaison leads into a good point about the ethics of behavior in the game versus out of the game and how ethically one plays is their choice. The game does not require you play ethically and in many ways encourages you not to play ethically. I think you can still control the game and play it ethically, but that didn't happen by anybody this season. I know personally I would be fighting the inner demons if I were in the game, because my Survivor mind would be telling me one thing but my heart would be telling me something else. With that said, I know that I could not play the way that Russell did, because I couldn't live with myself afterwards, but if I was on that jury, Russell would have gotten my vote.
In my mind the jury's job is to award the million dollars to the person who has played the best game and that criteria really should be based on how well they controlled the game and was it done because they won immunities or not and how they manipulated the situations they were in to work for their advantage. That is the name of the game in Survivor, do what you have to do to win the money. In real life, that is not how most of us live, but Survivor is a game and manipulating is not against the rules and therefore is not cheating or playing the game unethically, it is just the outplay portion of the game.
Winning immunities, in challenges is really one of the lowest determining factors to me and really it is almost a negative in my mind. With Russell, winning that last one really was a benefit, because it was needed. But the fact that Brett won 3 in a row and almost 4, doesn't qualify him to be the winner any more than being on the original tribe that most of the jury members were on. Winning immunity does qualify some for the outplay part of the game though, so it is important to look at.
Finding hidden immunity idols also isn't a major factor. It depends on how you use the idols that helps or hurts you, but the fact that Russell found 2 of them, without any clues, does help him out a lot. That is the outwit part of the game.
For the outlast part of the game, that really is a factor of the other two and the fact that the final 3, in this case, made it to the end qualifies them all for this part of the game.
The final part of outwitting is the jury questions and once again I thought Russell did the best of any of them. The jury really was full of a bunch of sore losers and while most of the questions were good (except for Dave's) they did not use the above criteria to vote.
The classic version of when the jury did vote correctly was in Survivor Thailand when they gave Brian the money. He played the best game and I actually think he was more evil than Russell, but I think Russell played a better overall game.
So with all that said, Russell was robbed and should have been holding the check, but America got it right and atleast gave him the $100,000. The only way Russell shouldn't have won was if he got voted out before the final. While I know Russell was visibly upset that he didn't win, I think he does need to change his post show behavior and be supportive of Natalie, whether she deserves to win or not, because according to the Jury, she did.
Feel free to post your comments, as I'd love to see other's point of view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that Russell was robbed. He should have won. He controlled the game masterfully and miscalculated in one aspect. He thought the jury would reward his "thuggish" behavior.
ReplyDeleteIMO, actions such emptying the water bottles, burning the socks, albeit brilliant, eventually angered the jury, and lost him the vote.
His keeping the four members of his group together and getting Shambo to vote with them until they controlled the tribes after the merge was brilliant. So too, was how he engineered the voting-off of those who opposed him; a practice he did even in his own tribe.
His use of the immunity idols was also brilliant. More brilliant than finding them was the episode where he wore it around his neck at the tribal council when there were talks about voting him off (I forget the episode #). That pre-empted any plans or strategy they came in with the vote him off because they knew then that those votes did not count. To vote him off after that would require a complete blindside, which his alliance was too loyal, scared or lacked the imagination to do.
However well he played the game, he did miscalculated by anticipating that the jury would reward his game. I think they were resentful of how they were manipulated and denied him the victory. Such resentment was evident with Jaison, his ally until he was voted off. This miscalculation cost Russell the prize.
Natalie should not have won, but the jury had no other viable candidate, so they gave it to the "nice" person.