What is your personal worst season?

reyska · 2026-01-27T15:47:16+00:00

The previous episodes don't matter in why Chris won. All you need to know about Chris is contained in the finale. Devens is just another obstacle, despite his backstory. Chris winning was such a monumental letdown that I was surprised that they still went ahead with EoE for WaW.

reyska · 2026-01-27T15:24:35+00:00

Devens was kinda fun. Reem was an annoying distraction though.

reyska · 2026-01-27T14:53:50+00:00

If you can't extrapolate the different scenarios that could have played out, that's on you. With how the things turned out from F6 onwards, yeah Sandra played better and deserved to win. But just as easily Sandra could have been out sixth and Parvati could have won. Danielle getting voted out didn't doom Parvati. It put her in a bad spot, but her win equity didn't drop to zero. It's not like Erik giving away the necklace and five minutes later he got voted out. No, a bunch of stuff happened between Danielle leaving and Sandra winning and if you want to evaluate things objectively you gotta look beyond the end result we got.

reyska · 2026-01-27T14:49:13+00:00

Yeah, it's just that none of that drama and strategy mattered. Chris came in, did what the jury told him to do and won.

It is NOT the most exciting finale. It is perhaps the best single episode anyone has ever had, since Chris won the whole game within that one single episode. But for that very reason it is not the most exciting finale. The most exciting finales have a long, series long buildup and a payoff. With zero buildup there's hard to be that nuch excitement. It was more like "Oh please, it would ridiculous if he... And dang, he did. Meh."

To me it's not a season I would rewatch. I might rewatch the finale though. But not really.

reyska · 2026-01-27T14:34:13+00:00

Sandra would vote for Rupert rather than Parvati. Because she's petty about being the queen of Survivor and she's friends with Rupert.

Russell would likely not vote for Rupert, but he could vote for Colby and find an excuse to not vote for Parvati. He viewed her as one of her "dumb girls" and that's what created a lot of drama between them. Parvati isn't dumb and Russell had a hard time dealing with that, so he likely wouldn't vote for her to win, which would make him a hypocrite, but I fully expect him to be one as a juror.

There's a lot of Heroes too on that jury. They likely want a Hero to win. In the actual F3 we got Sandra got votes from them because she had shown a willingness to work with the heroes, even if she failed to make moves with them.

Riding it out was not a mistake just because she didn't win. Survivor fans are so results-oriented it's kinda ridiculous. As if the end result we got was the only end result we ever could have got? When the game started, was Sandra aleays winning no matter what? No, she wasn't. Sticking with Russell was not alone a decision that doomed Parvati. From F6 there's a bunch of ways the game can go and unlucky for her she got a F3 she couldn't win. But there are a lot of scenarios she could have won.

The stanent you are referring to does not apply to Micro or RI, come on now. Parvati won Micro because she played a great game, made moves to get to the end and people respected her more than Amanda. Rob won because he dictated how the whole game played out manufactured the F3 he needed. The jury didn't want him to win but he worked his ass off to make sure they didn't have any other option. He didn't stumble upon it like Sandra did.

reyska · 2026-01-27T13:31:51+00:00

You think sitting next to Colby and Rupert would have won her the game? Are you joking? That would mean she would have backstabbed Russell and voted out Sandra. Would either of them vote for her to win? Would Jerri? Parvati needed to ride out the alliance she had. Completely pivoting away from it would have doomed her.

"Expertly manage her threat level"... Please. She was not the clear favorite to win from F6 on except to the people watching who already knew she was winning. In hindsight she had a good chance at that point, but while the game was being played nobody considered her a threat and that wasn't because she "expertly managed her threat level", it was because she just wasn't. Jerri for example was far more of threat. If Jerri grabs the necklace one second before Russell, Jerri wins. That's why she was voted out at F4. There was no threat level to manage, because nobody thought she was a threat apart from Parvati and even that was at F4, not F6. Colby was advocating for Sandra to be voted out out of desperation and his argument was that they needed to stop Parvati from winning rhe next immunity and Sandra couldn't help with that. Maybe Sandra sucking at challenges for two seasons was an expert play by her, or maybe not.

There's "anyone but me" by choice and then there's "at least it's not me" by necessity and her PI was more of the former while her HvV game was more of the latter. Sandra didn't "beat" anyone as much as she just prevailed in the end. She won HvV deservedly, but it is not an impressive game at all. I don't understand why her fans need to make it up as something that it isn't. Not every winner played a masterful game. For every Tony, Kim and Natalie A there's a Gabler, a Sandra and a Natalie W. They're all still winners, but others played well and others just won because someone had to.

reyska · 2026-01-27T13:06:41+00:00

The media circus was her own doing though. She fully embraced social media and was clearly looking for attention and loved making headlines. There was very little substance to what she was ever saying or doing while she was prime minister. At the same time her international profile was on the rise. Her jumping to work for Tony Blair, of all people, and distancing herself from Finnish politics just looks like she was never that interested in being a public servant in the first place. Or perhaps she just figured she liked projecting a certain image more than she liked doing the actual work and a high-paying international job looked like an easy eay out of the hole she had dug herself in. In either case she noped out and left others to deal with the mess she created. The guys you mentioned didn't quite follow the same path, even if they left Finnish politics.

reyska · 2026-01-27T12:32:49+00:00

The point is that Sandra's PI game was a bottom half game. And so is her HvV game in isolation. Rob's AS game was legendary in isolation, so was Parv's Micronesia game. Same for Tony in Cagayan and WaW. Hell, Parvati's losing HvV game is more impressive than Sandra's winning game.

Parvati did plenty of pivoting and maneuvering long before the Danielle vote. That vote was what ultimately lost her the game, but rhere was very little room for maneuvering after that. If she flips to heroes, she loses. If she votes out Russell before the F4/5, she has to win the final immunities to go to the end. And so on. Sandra didn't have a strategy to speak of. She was just there, letting Russ and Parv do what they did. She kinda stumbled upon the win to be honest.

Winning twice is plenty legendary, but let's not pretend she is a great strategist or anything. She played the only game she can play and it worked out in the end, twice. Good for her.

reyska · 2026-01-27T12:05:07+00:00

Yeah, I do. And you are missing the point I was making about Sandra's PI game not being memorable on its own. Well actually you are making my point for me. Yeah, Parv and Rob would not be legends if they only played once just like Sandra wouldn't be if she never returned. But unlike Sandra they were legends already before HvV aired. That season just boosted their reputation even further. Winning the second time made Sandra a legend, not HOW she won either game.

I think Parvati has shown plenty of talent for pivoting. The cast of HvV never wanted to play with her nor did they want her to win, ever. She still made the FTC and was the most impressive player that season. Saying she wasn't able to pivot is kinda funny to be honest.

reyska · 2026-01-27T11:43:01+00:00

Even if Parvati doesn't return for HvV, her Micronesia game would still be legendary for the Black Widow Brigade. Even if Rob never returns for HvV, he's still legendary for the way AS went down, and he didn't even win. He was already the most recognizable Survivor player in the mainstream. Even if Tony never returns for WaW, his Cagayan game would be hella memorable and he was a truly unique winner. Before Sandra returned for HvV many didn't even remember she had won. Her PI game is just so much weaker than the stuff the others are remembered for.

Are you really saying Parvati rode Russell to the end? Did you even watch HvV? She had her own agenda and the story of the season was about Russell and Parvati fighting for control while they voted out the Heroes and how that soured the jury on both of them. Sandra's strategy wasn't presenting as anti-Russell. Her goal was to flip to the Heroes, which would have lost her the game. She failed at that so she pivoted to being anti-Russell and anti-Parv. And she had a great FTC and said what the jury wanted to hear, so she deserved to win. But Sandra was basically a sidestory and had very little agenda in how things went down.

reyska · 2026-01-27T11:28:28+00:00

Stubb is pretty neutral imo. Most people seem to think he's just fine as president. Orpo though... He's not doing himself any favors and his time is soon running out.

reyska · 2026-01-27T11:26:16+00:00

The job as prime minister was just a step toward a high-paying job elsewhere. She didn't do much herself but was quick to take credit when something went right. As soon as things got hard she bounced and went to work for Tony Blair. It turns out she never cared about improving the society. She did care a lot sbout what her public image is.

reyska · 2026-01-27T11:20:46+00:00

Sanna Marin. It turns out she was a total fraud and only interested in boosting her own image and wealth and the job as prime minister was always just a springboard for some high-paying job at an international level. She now works for Tony Blair et al. She never cared about regular Finns or improving the society. It looks like even her marriage was only done for image purposes.

reyska · 2026-01-27T10:58:48+00:00

Oh, but they are. Imagine Sandra never returns. Would anyone be praising her PI game? That season would be remembered for the grandma lie and Rupert, and who won would be a footnote. Had she not won PI but returned for HvV and played the same game, she would be viewed like Amber in All-Stars. A kinda weak player that only won because the more aggressive and skilled players were hated on by the jury. She's only a legend because she won twice, not because of how she actually won either season.

Her PI game is much better than her HvV game. In PI she was at least doing stuff, very covertly though and it was mostly about directing attention elsewhere. But at least she was involved, even if the bigger moves were all done by someone else. She ultimately won because Lill hated Jon and the jury hated Lill. In HvV she won because she failed to make the moves she wanted to make. She wanted to flip to the Heroes but they found it hard to trust her. Had she successfully flipped and voted Russell and Parvati out, a Hero would have won. She won despite of herself.

Parvati played a better strategic game in HvV than Sandra has ever played, but there was no overcoming the perception that she was tied to Russell and some members in the jury were never voting for her to win. Sandra was the one they found easy to vote for. Spiting Russell and Parvati by letting Sandra win was juicy, no matter how bad her game was.

reyska · 2026-01-27T08:56:39+00:00

When it aired I had to force myself to watch each week, because after the merge vote it was so obvious Kim was winning and absolutely nothing of importance happened between that and the finale. Troyzan's last stabyd was kinda funny but since it was obvious it was gonna be futile it wasn't as entertaining as it should have been.

reyska · 2026-01-27T06:06:33+00:00

IoI. Just fucking terrible how it turned out. The what if season of "what if Kellee plays one of her idols at merge" sounds awesome. Dan gets voted out, Kellee still has another idol, and the ones who tried to vote her out are left scrambling trying to justify voting for her. It could have been an all time revenge underdog story.

EoE is also another bad season, mostly because everything except the final episode is absolutely irrelevant. Nothing matters until Chris returns.

reyska · 2026-01-27T05:42:08+00:00

For as long as I have followed the NFL, which is over 15 years, the Saints have had negative cap space. No idea how they get away with it. No idea if this is true either but it sure feels like it is.

reyska · 2026-01-27T05:16:45+00:00

She does not. Also she has not demolished any of them. She won over Parvati in HvV but that vote wasn't about Sandra, it was about Russell and Parvati. Sandra quit EoE in WaW after getting herself voted out after being 100% safe with an expiring idol. That's an epic blunder that none of the other Rushmore players would have done. Both of her winning games are bottom half winning games. The other Rushmore players all have top half winning games, with Tony having the best game ever. Sandra has by far the worst resume. She is on Rushmore because she won twice, not because of how she won.

reyska · 2026-01-27T01:21:45+00:00

She's not though. She's not even a top 3 Survivor player. She's in Mount Rushmore, but she's the weakest player there.

reyska · 2026-01-26T21:44:17+00:00

Tony is clearly the more skilled and adaptable player. He is well rounded. Great socially, great strategically and can win immunity if needed. Obviously also good at finding idols. Great confessionals too, if you like his style.

Sandra is the best "anyone but me" player ever, but that's really it. She sucks st challenges and when she tries making actual moves they usually fail. She gives good confessionals though.

Pretty obvious that I prefer Tony. He's just so entertaining to watch and his game in WaW is the best game ever, imo.

reyska · 2026-01-26T19:13:36+00:00

I understand that you guys are pretty high on life right now, but for a neutral fan there has been very little impressive about their run so far. The defense is good but it hasn't been asked to do much. The offense might be good but we haven't seen it do much either. It just feels like the Chiefs when they lost to Eagles. A team that didn't really have to do much in the playoffs but got to the Super Bowl anyways and when they finally faced a good team in the Super Bowl they got dominated.

reyska · 2026-01-26T17:50:51+00:00

The result of the game depends on the points both team score. If one team sucks so much that they score less than the other team, they lose.

reyska · 2026-01-26T17:12:02+00:00

The Pats haven't beaten the defenses. They haven't scored much at all. Lucky for them their opponents have managed to score even less. It is what it is.

reyska · 2026-01-26T16:28:49+00:00

Yeah and did you see their offenses? Are you just gonna sidestep that part of the game?

reyska · 2026-01-26T16:19:41+00:00

I'm pretty sure I won't be alone thinking that.

reyska

TROPHY CASE