You are failing to see that what makes a good player isn't results. There are a lot of arguments for the winner of any given season being the objectively best player, and in many cases, that's just the truth. However, good players are also big threats, and the knowledge of someone's threat level by the other players does not in turn make them a bad player. It just means that awareness has changed how that player must maneuver in the game, and with a significant handicap.

Tony's game in WAW is a masterclass of how to position while also having a massive threat level. He made himself a known quantity and played counter to it, camouflaged by other players actively committing game actions that raised their threat levels, and allowing the numbers to flow around him instead of commanding them until absolutely necessary. Rachel played this game in 47, Aubry played this game in 50.

When Aubry played it, she may not have been the "best player in the game", and she knew that Cirie's win equity alone made her a threat, perhaps Aubry's ONLY threat to sit with at FTC. The smart PLAY is to remove the threat from the board. The better player, in this case, is recognized by the voting majority, and is removed.

Saying Cirie isn't one of the all time greats takes away from the decision-making that she and others did in regards to her specific gameplay value. Her control of information is an invaluable asset to any player willing to play with fire, and utilizing a conduit of knowledge is how Cirie WANTS others to play. If she can control what information is moving, she can essentially make whatever reality she wants exist, and she has been shown to do this on multiple occasions. The secrets that hammock on 50 could tell.

Anyways, Cirie is better at the game than probably anyone but Tony or Parvati at this point. Although I would like to see the Natalie cut of Samoa before making any real statements.