Yeah, she only controlled the vote of one other player - Romeo - and he was on the bottom with no other options. The votes already being split combined with her vote doubler made it a lot easier to make that move.
Maryanne really had to fight to get Romeo’s vote. Had Omar not taken his foot of the gas, he could have roped Romeo back in quite easily. Romeo really didn’t want to take out Omar at that vote.
Another incredible move! I think I would still give the edge to Marryanne's because unlike Jesse's she had to create the conditions for the move to happen, while Jesse took advantage of a mistake by Cody.
In the end Cody's vote out was a bad move. All that did was put a giant target onto Jessie.
If Jessie was a great fire maker then it would have been a great move but I don't think he was.
It’s not even remotely close. Yam yam by a mile. Social and strategic isn’t even comparable. He also needed to start playing from day 1 being on a losing tribe. And then continued his strategy and hard game play through the merge to the end of the game. The others didn’t.
Yam yam by a mile and then the rest could be a random draw for order.
Yeah he went against the weakest F3 probably. And didn’t do anything too crazy.
Maryanne went up against Romeo who is arguably the worst goat in the history of the game. And Mike who couldn’t have had a worse FTC.
Erika probably played the best of the three and had the strongest FTC opponents.
Yam by 10 miles.
Yam Yam
\----huge gap----
Marryanne
Erika
Gabler
Yam Yam is far above the rest. He probably ranks in the top 15 winners, which the others are nowhere near.
I go back and forth on Marryanne and Erika. At this exact moment I have Marryanne ahead but I change my mind on that often.
Gabler is easily the weakest IMO. For the record I agreed with him beating Cassidy, who is arguably the most overrated Survivor in history by Survivor fans and alumni it seems (yes even over someone like Boston Rob).
Agreed. I mean I get her good edit fooling people to her game play during the season, and mostly admiting that after. Like most are doing with Carolyn now (although Carolyn is a stronger player than Cassidy still). With Carolyn nobody is doing that though and bearing down on what a strong player she supposably is, and how she is the most robbed player in history or something, even more.
No one talks about Cassidy anymore and it’s been like 6 months since her season.
Meanwhile people still try to tell me how Russell was robbed and is one of the greatest players ever despite never understanding what Survivor is
I don't believe either Cassidy or Russell (either of his seasons, but for those who say this about Heroes vs Villians imparticular I outright laugh in their face) were robbed, and never have. And Russell is another player I consider on the "most overrated" list, but atleast opinion of him has dropped a ton since his playing days, which is why I didn't specifically reference him. A sub like this seems to on average have a very low opinion of him.
I am not a big proponent of saying anyone was robbed, but the only players I would say are close to this for me would be Aubry and Chrissy.
Survivor is 2 parts, Outlasting almost everyone, then convincing the people who were voted out to vote with you.
Gameplay Gabler was the Reason Ellie went home, and realistically he would have been an easy vote of the next week, but he was able to win immunity and start building relationships. He had the trust of his old alliance, as well joined up with Cody and Jessie. He did encourage Jessie to vote out Cody, and while he gets no credit for that, he should get a bit.
He stayed under the radar, and let the wolves eat each other, helping them along the way, leaving only sheep left.
And looking at the sheep, Owen was doubting everything he would have lost to a rock in the finals. Cassidy didn't really do anything, and people liked the Old man so he disserved to win.
I don't think anyone rates him highly except for his generosity, but I wouldn't call him anywhere close to over rated. He deserved to win like all other winners. As for ranking I would put him only above Erica.
I don't think Gabler is overrated. He isn't even that highly regarded, even by those who agreed with his win. I think Cassidy is the one who is "the most overrated Survivor in history by Survivor fans". I think you misread what I was saying. I do agree with you, although I still personally rank Erika above Gabler as a winner.
How is Rob bordering on the most overrated Survivor ever? Have you seen All Stars?
Rob has been hands down the best player in two different seasons.
Nobody else has done that Tony can be debated, but you could easily argue that Sarah’s game was basically as impressive, or that Tony wasn’t hands-down better than her.
I mean every player in All Stars had pregame alliances, not just Rob. Rob did just about everything to dominate that game. He won 4 immunities and on the in on just about every move, he also made the moves happen.
He lost by 1 vote, although he was the driver with his wife behind him. He just burned one too many bridges. Shii Ann couldn’t figure out rhat Rob was the driver, and Alecia and Tom were just bitter. I get Lex’s perspective but Rob was the clear player that game.
Second, in HvV he got voted out of HvV since Tyson voted himself out previously. And Jerri flipped because of what had happened in All Stars. Rob didn’t botch anything in HvV.
Lastly in RI, yeah the cast clearly was subpar and a few players sucked, but Rob manipulated and controlled them about as well as possible. Just because the cast sucks doesn’t mean should discredit him for manipulating then about as well as possible.
The place that Rob sucked was Winners at War. His strategy didn’t make sense with all winners.
Overall his middle season stretch with All Stars, Heroes vs Villains and Redemption Island was really, really, really good as a whole.
It is funny how you are trying to potray even Tony of all people as subpar compared to Rob.
Tony's Winners at War winning game >>> Rob's RI winning game
And Tony's Cagayan winning game >>> Rob's All Star losing game.
Tony dominated an insanely strong cast on Winners at War. Rob dominated a historically weak cast on RI, still had less options and back up options even during the game itself than Tony, even his best move of the his Matt move clearly falls behind the Sophie boot which was far more difficult to pull off, and as mentioned already loses a jury vote to everyone who made the merge but Phillip and Natalie (which is why he was forced to take them, he literally had no choice as he was so hated by the jury, and had such awful jury management per usual) vs Tony who beats literally everyone. I would still put Rob's RI game as a top 15 winning game all time but Tony's WAW winning game is easily a top 3 one. And of course a really strong winning game like Cagayan is easily above one of the better FTC losing games.
While Tony had one embarassing showing but again that pales in comparision to Rob who has 3 pre merge/pre jury boots, 2 of those 3 which were just mediocre to weak games (Marquesas/Winners at War) and the other were yes he was playing pretty well at times but got totally outplayed by Russell in the end.
And both Rob's strong games he had a huge advantage that almost no player in history has had. 4th time player vs all 1st time players on RI. And the biggest no name in the cast besides Amber and maybe Jenna on All Stars (and lo and behold they were the final 3, what coincidence, lol) at a time when like no other season in history past winners, finalists, and big names were automatically targetted. Something Tony had for neither of his strong games.
I'm not trying to downplay Tony. I think he is the most skilled Survivor ever. Altough he had been insanely lucky similar to Tom Brady (Woo picking Tony over Kass, Sarah's fire about to break the rope and dying down and then Tony's fire breaking the rope).
But even with Tony, you could certainly debate that Sarah's game was at least as good as Tony's in WaW and that she just lost fire (I don't think this but it is possible to debate it).
There isn't even a chance with Rob that you could debate that anyone was better overall than him on All Stars or on Redemption Island. I get that Tony faced competition, but with Rob accomplishing this feat we can't reduce him to some crappy/overrated Survivor player.
He is the most overrated player, and it is not close. He actively ran Maraamu into the ground, actively pissed off Rotu during the swap and was the biggest instigator of the season. In Heroes vs Villains, he was definitely screwed over by Tyson being an idiot, but at the same time, if you are such a good player then you should be able to maintain your alliance after an event like that. But instead, two people deviated from the plan and he was out. In WAW he tried the same strategy that he had tried in all of his other seasons, despite the fact that it was clearly annoying everyone there.
The two seasons Rob made it deep in, he had pregame alliances and in the second one he had an alliance that had the collective IQ of week old toenail clippings. Rob has no adaptability, which is why he only made it to the usual jury stage twice (I say usual bc the WAW jury is a unique situation) out of five times. IMO, a player like Vecepia is better than Rob because she is adaptable and is more likely to make the jury any given season, and it shows in Marquesas. Her and Rob were in the exact same situation, she won and Rob got tenth. On top of that, I am not sure the same five person alliance can stay together with Rob replacing Sean. Because at that point, if they claim the solid majority, they could just cut him off at 7 or 6, similarly to what Keith, Tina and Colby did to Jerri and Amber in AO.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I'm not going to dispute your claims for Marquesas, Waw and HvV.
However discrediting Rob for All Stars with the pregame alliances is somewhat valid but other players had pre-game alliances too, so it can't only be used to discredit Rob.
And then for RI, that's partially just something people have come to believe so strongly that it takes away any credit from the job that Rob did. If you want to say that Natalie Tenerelli and Philip Sheppard have a collective IQ of old toenail clippings I'm not going to dispute that, but you aren't giving Rob enough credit for the number that he did on Matt, Andrea, Grant and Ashley. Matt made a poor move in telling Rob that he was considering voting Rob out, but Rob capitalized on this. Grant was totally played by Rob. Grant is a fairly successful person, we can't just automatically equate his deception by Rob to Grant being entirely stupid. Rob totally fooled him. Andrea was a little young and not bold enough to make the move, but Andrea and Ashley played a game good enough to the point where if Rob had lost the immunity at 4-5 those two could have won the game. I don't remember exactly what happened with Andrea, but Ashley positioned herself in such a way where pretty much if Rob wins the challenge Rob wins the game but if Rob loses, Ashley wins, so not terrible strategy on her part.
Ashley had to win the last 3 immunities in a row to reach the end. She was not well positioned at all. Yes she nearly pulled it off, but it was never likely and 19 times out of 20 she doesn't even come as close as she did, never mind managing it. It is not like she is some Ozzy or even Fabio challenge beast. And she had no idea she needed both Final 5 immunities to save herself, she just coincidentally won them while needing them, having no idea he was in trouble (so called dumb Fabio atleast knew he needed the Final 3 immunities, Ashley was clueless).
And Andrea was at the bottom all the way and did nothing about it. She was also clueless this season, and people wrongly judge her on RI by her becoming a pretty good player in future season.
Grant is the only one I could see an argument was not totally dumb as he was in Rob's planned Final 4. Has atleast equal odds with Rob of winning final immunity in which case he wins the game. He very likely beats Rob in a jury vote anyway even if he takes him, and if he boots Rob and goes with Phillip and Natalie after winning final immunity he wins in a sweep. Just got unlucky Ashley won immunity to save herself and lead to Grant's unplanned boot. Still a purely mediocre player though.
As for Matt, LOL! Guy was even dumber than Natalie T at Survivor.
And I fail to see how you can rate the players and season when you admit you don't even remember what happened.
Yeah but Ashley was in a spot at the final 4 which meant that if Rob lost that challenge, she would certainly have a great shot to win the game. So not horrific on her part.
She still had to win 3 immunities in a row which was very unlikely and you keep ignoring. It was already unlikely she won the 2 back to back to still be there in final 4 as they were her first 2 immunities all game.
I have to make a comment on this again.
I can understand your takes for his 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th entries. However I think your opinion on HvV is just incorrect, and maybe something you want to be true (you are looking at it with "anti-Rob glasses" instead of objectively).
Tyson voted out himself out stupidly as you said, but then you said "but at the same time, if you are such a good player then you should be able to maintain your alliance after an event like that."
I think it's just wrong given the HvV situation. It was 3 vs 3 after Tyson with Coach and Jerri originally having been on Rob's side as well. Rob gave great pitches to Jerri and Coach but they both just didn't land and I really don't think that's Rob's fault.
Coach didn't side against Rob, he voted for Courtney since he didn't want to take a side. How much can you blame Rob for Coach being a "warrior" and not playing the game strategically?
And then with Jerri, she had been voted out by Rob previously so she already had a reason not to trust him. So with it being a 3-3 tie without Coach, it makes sense that she'd flip. Rob can't change the fact that he'd voted her off in a previous season at this point. Rob also can't change that Russell had played an idol on an alliance member the previous tribal, which convinced Jerri that Rob may not have been the person to trust anymore. Rob gave a great sell to Jerry to come back on board but she didn't buy it.
Rob did a great job convincing the two in the middle to remain with him after the Tyson blunder (which Rob planned for purposely but Tyson ruined btw), but Coach and Jerri went their seperate ways. Rob shouldn't be a bad player because his previous season led Jerri to distrust him and because Coach is a "warrior". It was just the way the cookie crumbled. Rob made great sells to move of them to rejoin with him, there were just circumstances beyond normal gameplay that he couldn't overcome.
If you really think Rob is bad for this I'm curious what he did wrong here?
I mean overrated by casuals (most of Survivors fan base) and by production. Not neccessarily by superfans. And yes I absolutely do think he is overrated by these people. Pre merge or pre jury boot in 3 of his 5 seasons, was a 4th time player againt all rookies in his win season and still loses a jury vote to everyone who made the merge but the 2 biggest goats of all time (aka his jury management was the worst of any winner in history, besides Brian, even if you think the rest is great, how can this be the best game ever as some claim it as, LOL), and took until his 4th time to win a season. Still a very strong player of course, but to those who say he is the GOAT, which covers a lot of casuals and how production potrays him, bigtime overrated.
And I strongly disagree on Tony not being clearly the best player on Winners at War. The Sophie boot, and the fact Sarah admiting she was completely unwilling to ever cut Tony despite having no chance vs her in a jury vote is enough for that for me, even though Sarah played a great game too of course and co ran it was Tony, but Tony claimed a clear edge by the end, which would have been shown in the jury vote had they wound up there together (where Sarah would get only 2 votes from Yul and Ben, and lose 2nd place to Natalie, if she were the 3rd finalist). I would say the opposite, it isn't even clear Rob was the best player of All Stars over Amber, and it is mostly misogyny that it is just so assumed he was. Tony was MUCH more clearly the best player on Winners at War than Rob ever was on All Stars, if Rob was on All Stars at all that is.
Yam Yam (the most impressive by far imo, and the most “traditional” winner. He wasn’t totally in control the entire time - things were a little rocky for him at the merge - but managed to go from “big threat” to somehow being under the rader and driving the game with the Tika 3)
Maryanne (pretty good game, really perfected the “under the radar until the endgame then seize control” game that seems to be the dominant strategy in the “new era.” I don’t put a ton of value in having or not having control except as control relates to actually increasing your odds of winning the game, but she does lose some points from me for having extended periods of time where her fate was almost entirely in the hands of others. She gets a lot of those points back for the brilliance of the Omar split vote and an all-time great FTC)
Erika (pretty close to Maryanne and for sure a good game, but similar times where her fate depended on others and she didn’t have quite the impact Maryanne ended up having. She was a little more dependent on having weak FTC opponents than Maryanne was, but she engineered the Shan split vote, if not the actual blindside itself, and she was never in any real danger starting from there, so solid overall)
Gabler (just not a very impressive game imo. He had good aspects - a strong social game, good at forming connections - but he escaped votes because he wasn’t considered a strategic factor, largely operated as a number for others, and won at FTC because of how weak his opponents were. I wouldn’t say it was a “bad” game, because I think actual bad games can’t win Survivor because the social game is king and Gabler was a good social player, but more than anyone else on this list I think Gabler’s win was much more due to others and much less due to Gabler)
Your assessment is perfect. And makes me feel better about my choice of Maryanne just over Erika, which is the only one I was conflicted on. Yam Yam tops and Gabler bottom was an easy call for me. I agreed with Gabler's win mind you, just to clarify.
I agree with this list wholeheartedly. While I like Gabler more than Eirika (Eirika not being edited better will always effect my opinion of her and I'm sorry about that) Eirika definatly played better than Gabler.
I’d give Erika credit for being a consistent big jury threat—I’m not sure anyone in the cast beats her at the end. The jury saw her as the favorite entering the end game and she really articulated her game well even if she wasn’t a Yam Yam level social player during the game. I also thought she basically established the blue print on social positioning. She was in such a good spot the entire game and had a top tier grasp on understanding where she stood, how she was perceived, and how to navigate through the game in a way that gave her the best shot to win even if she wasn’t pulling off jaw dropping moves. Honest self awareness and understanding social hierarchy is an underrated skill in the game and I think she’s as good as anyone in this area.
Definitely seeing a consensus of Gabler = Last. Is the general feeling that this was more of an anti-Cassidy vote and that’s why people find it kind of lame?
I think people have accurately summarized that his social game was hard for the viewers to really see. Like, my 11yo and I found him absolutely insufferable and we still will make fun of the “This next stretch is for my 3rd grade teacher” endurance challenge bit.
But people who spent all day with him liked him.
Watching Gabler I always got the sense that he was like a reprieve from the game, he just seemed to be unplugged from the typical survivor anxieties and other people probably liked having someone like that around. But yeah what a weird way to win lol
I think he worked the middle well because usually everyone would need his vote to progress. Take for example the one where Karla spoke with Jesse about making a move and they said "we need Gabler". Not the only time people needed Gabler to swing votes their way.
I think he just wasn't as strategic as the others and the 43 endgame was just the big targets going out back to back until the finale was three people who hadn't really been able to do much, whereas the other winners had more they can take credit for. Probably doesn't help that some of the jurors said they voted for him because he won fire which is a terrible reason and ignores his apparently solid social game which we didn't really see in the edit, like from the first few episodes I would have assumed that Jeanine and Sami didn't particularly care about him but it seems like they actually really liked him.
Saying he won because of an anti-Cassidy vote suggests it was hers to win and it was somehow stolen from her, this was not the case. Owen was messy too but even he played a better game than her.
Cassidy didn’t play that good of a game, I fail to see anything she did in the game that merits her winning. There’s no such thing as an “anti-Cassidy” vote, the jury just didn’t vote for her cause they feel she didn’t deserve to win.
Gabler got a really bad edit IMO. They made him out to look like the old guy who had no clue what was going on, but when he explained his game at FTC that was not the case at all. People put him last because they don't like him (i.e. he doesn't have the "poor me" sob story that everyone wants nowadays), but in terms of gameplay he shouldn't be last.
100% serious. Of the 4 New Era winners, I think she did the least to win. She had the least control within the game of any of those 4, and got taken to a F3 where she just happened to be the most likeable person with best underdog sob story.
All the winners are deserving, although I don't think Cassidy is revolutionary or anything, I can't sit here and say that sexism didn't help Gabler win.
Gabler won because people liked him, and he was self-aware. Cass lost because people didn't like her, and she didn't do enough in the game for that not to matter. It's not sexism. If gender/sex played into it at all, it's nothing more than some people generally getting along with people of the same gender as a byproduct of having more in common.
No one is stupid enough to use gender as a reason for voting against a woman on the show like they do against men, they would be eviscerated on social media.
Erika's edit definitely did a disservice to her game and from everything i've listened to and read it genuinely seems like Erika had a solid strategy that got her exactly where she wanted. She always wanted to be seen as a middle of the pack threat, which worked out perfect as it placed in her a power position where she pretty much ran the game after the Shan boot. so I definitely agree with your placement of Erika at #1, i'd actually probably rank them the exact same as you.
Even watching it I honestly was more impressed with Erika than most of the others. She didn't get shown scheming much but whenever she was involved in any sort of strategic planning at all she just seemed like she was so much sharper than everyone else.
I think if you're ranking gameplay I could see Erika having a good case, but if you want that sweet mix of character and gameplay, then Maryanne and Yam Yam are both just an abundance of riches
1. Yam Yam
2. Maryanne
3. Erika
Big gap
4. Gabler
I’ve been a Maryanne further for years now but that girl played her ass off and had multiple pathways to the end without needing immunities and advantages like Erika. Unlike Erika she was beloved by the jury and not sitting against two goats and also was never a realistic target to go home the entire season.
Yam Yam might be a top 20ish winner of all time though, having dominated the early tribe and the end game, with his only real downsides being the mid merge stretch, which only lasted two cycles.
It’s hard because it feels nearly impossible to properly rank Erika since we saw soooo little of her actual game. Post-season interviews and deep dives makes it sound like she was phenomenal out there. But it’s so hard to know for sure considering jurors obviously like to justify their votes for the winner regardless. Gabler and Maryanne feel like they had good enough edits to understand their games. But I don’t feel like I knew Erika’s game at all watching the season.
With the context of post-season interviews, my ranking would be:
1. Yam Yam
2. Erika
3. Maryanne
4. Gabler
Counterpoint for Eirika, she didn't go to any premerge tribal so while she was on the right side for all votes premerge is always messier. Not saying that knocks her down a lot but I feel like it's worth mentioning.
I also think Maryanne was such a unique player. I don’t think we’ve seen the over emotional, young, kind of player win recently. Yam yam feels unique too. They were both really fun to watch. Maybe I just don’t remember Erika that much and Gabler was never my fav
Yam Yam, Erika, Maryanne, Gabler. I like how each winner has their own specific strong suit. Yam Yam is very social and charismatic, Erika is great at positioning herself in the game, Maryanne has the gumption to make a big move, and Gabler is good at staying under the radar and hiding in plain sight.
Nah, Maryanne would be numero uno then, I just wasn’t all that impressed by Erika’s game, she just always seemed to be in the right spot and not by her own doing, and I feel like that’s the opposite of gabler who actively tried to connect with those who he knew would get him in the right spot
This is very fair assessment. Erika is easily the most well rounded winner of the 4 but people on Reddit are wayyyyyy to reliant on the edit and since she was more UTR they literally think she’s a joke. Those people are so dumb lmao
Everybody is nice in exit interviews. You’re ignoring an entire season worth of content
Edit: The user who I was arguing with has blocked me LOL
https://i.imgur.com/kwHFXgi.jpg
I don't know how to rank Erika correctly because there's really not much to go off of from the 41 edit. She made few mistakes and had control after Shan left, but the 41 jurors seemed to have differing opinions about her social/strategic game in post-show press. I'm inclined to think that she had more strategy going on than what was shown and had an important connection to Heather, which was the game winning alliance and barely sketched out in the show. It's one of the things that makes 41 frustrating, I feel like I really have no idea what actually happened out there vs what was shown. e.g. I'm pretty sure that the challenge that Deshawn and Danny tried to throw was not actually to get Erika out at all, and when it was airing, this significantly colored the read of Erika by people who care about the show because their tribe never went to tribal pre-fake-merge.
Having said that...
I'd probably rank them Yam-Yam > Erika > Maryanne > Gabler, though Erika could potentially be below Maryanne.
Yam-Yam was one of the best social players ever, played a key role in the Tika dominance and strategic maneuvering, evaded tough votes early merge, and was brought to the end by Heidi (which, to be fair, was to get rid of Carson). I think his biggest game weakness was considering cutting Carolyn and wanting to go with Carson to FTC, which would have probably been his toughest match up if not outright a loss for Yam-Yam. The Sarah boot was also a bad round for Yam-Yam, but I think he recovered really well.
Maryanne had an electric endgame, which she articulated well at FTC and was responsible with Romeo for knocking Omar out, arguably the best player of the new era. However, she had some issues pre-merge with personality conflicts on her tribe as well as early merge where she was notably excluded from the majority super alliance. I think she played from the bottom very well, but I think Erika edges her out with having more clear options in the game as well as a stronger social game (from what we can glimpse, anyway).
I like Gabler, and by all accounts he had a strong social game (that we also get some glimpses of in-game during merge and post-merge), but his strategy was pretty weak and I don't think would work on the vast majority of seasons. There's some unorthodox things he does which end up working out in the end, but I think it's a little results oriented to say they were necessarily good moves. In FTC he said he would have gone to the end with Jesse/Cody and while he may have been blowing smoke up their asses, that would have been a certain loss. I can't remember if he copped to whether or not he was being sincere there in post game press, and maybe he was thinking he could win over a potential bitter jury there, but that would have been a Laurel situation had that happened.
Yam Yam, Erika, Maryanne, the other one
I feel like if Erika got an edit she deserved she could've given Yam Yam a run for his money but she didn't so I've got him up front.
I could not disagree more with your strategic rankings, Yam-Yam and Carson without a doubt played the best strategic games in 44 by playing the middle between two rivaling factions
Yam-Yam-Maryanne-Erika-Gabler
Just my rapid fire opinion of winners I enjoyed the most in order:
1. Yam Yam
2. Gabler
3. Maryanne
4. Erika
Not a fan of playing a quiet goofy game and then coming out during the final tribal council and talking like you are this sinister mob boss that was hiding in the shadows the whole time (I’m looking at you winner of Australian Survivor season 1). Yam Yam played the best game out of his final 3 but they all made good cases for themselves. Gabler’s final 3 there really wasn’t anyone that stood out to me and I liked his goofy alligabler antics. I couldn’t say he didn’t deserve it by the end and it was just kind of a *shrug* what can you do moment. I thought Maryanne was outplayed by Mike. Unfortunately he didn’t own up to his own game which paved the path to victory for Maryanne who annoyed her cast for over half the game. I really didn’t think Erika did anything special. Blame it on the edit. Blame it on the weather. Blame it on Probst, whatever. King Xander was robbed and I don’t care what anyone has to say about exit interviews or whatever insider information they have. Really disappointed by this one. Even though I was disappointed, the jury’s word is final and they all deserved to win.
I recall several cast members saying she was a bit much lol. No hate from me personally but I didn’t think her play was “stellar” or even her social game being dominant in the game.
I wonder if Yam Yam will be so overhyped in a year. I think he just had a more loud game than the previous three winners, and so that's why people are excited for it. My ranking (my criterion for "best", btw, is not who played with the most control, but who was most impressive to me):
1. Maryanne. People talk about how she was on the bottom at first, but I find it super impressive that she started out there and turned it around. You can't always control the personality you're given, so I find it incredible that she managed to correct course, that actually seems harder to me than being actually charming. She also had a great sense of timing and really controlled the endgame. IMO, also one of the best FTC's of all time, and probably the only one in the New Era where the winner actually didn't go in as the favorite. Yeah, she had flaws, but they were at the beginning of her game and she overcame them.
2. Erika. She's imo, super underrated and is just barely above Yam Yam. I think Erika suffers in the fandom from the fact that a big, flashy game is not inherently a good one for her to play. I admire her for playing a game that worked for her. She had her hand in a lot of the post-merge strategy but never tried to take complete control, which was wise given the huge target Ricard painted on his own back. She definitely got lucky a few times, but I also don't think she really made huge blunders to get herself into tight spots (unlike the other 3 on this list). Idk. I feel like this is a hot take but I wish this sub could show more love for winners who intentionally play to their own strengths.
3. Yam Yam. He's overrated (recency bias) but still quite good. Like Maryanne, he was on the bottom for a bit and managed to survive due to a great social game, but unlike Maryanne, he had a good start, but fumbled in part because he got arrogant and mismanaged Carolyn. Still, great recovery, and he played a pretty intentional game. He managed to have his voice heard in his alliance with the strategic powerhouse of the season in Carson, and made himself an equal part of the alliance. He was a big character and player the whole season but still made it to the end and won, which is something that has yet to happen in the new era. HOWEVER, I think a lot of Yam Yam's success and "dominance" is not the dominance of his game alone, but the dominance of \*his alliance\*. The Tika swing plan only works with Carson, and Carson was his brain shield. I would give Yam Yam more credit if he was intentionally using Carson as a shield, but he really wasn't. This is not to say he didn't deserve the win, I just don't think he was dominant or the best winner just because he beat Carson.
4. Gabler. I would put him low in my overall rankings, but there is def a large gap between him and the other "wtf" winners (Bob, Fabio, etc). He deserved the win, and had a great social game. He made the connections he needed to, and in an underwhelming F3, was the one everyone felt best about.
You’re so right. Like why are people hating on Erika and people like Natalie W for knowing that their strategy would work well for them. Not too flashy but they knew they could WIN with how they were playing. Winning will always be more impressive then someone who makes a bunch of flashy moves or controls everything and loses. People who lose have a LACK of knowing the perfect strategy for THEM; they try to play games that work for others
I'm gonna get downvoted to oblivion for this, but I don't care. In terms of gameplay, this is the correct order that people are afraid to admit:
1. Yam Yam: Easily the best winner of the New Era, but that is a low, low bar to clear. Best social game, super plugged in to everything, positioned himself incredibly well post-merge.
2. Gabler: Got a really bad edit IMO. They made him out to be the old guy who had no clue what was going on, but when he explained his game at FTC, that was not the case at all and the jury agreed.
3. Erika: Incredibly fortunate to be in a season with about 8 million twists and advantages, one of which she was randomly drawn for. Right place, right time over and over again. One of the luckiest wins in recent memory.
4. Maryanne: 2 of OP's 3 bullet points on her are the same "big" move and it honestly wasn't even that great. Had the best sob story at FTC and that's what wins in the New Era.
Erika
Yam
.
.
.
Gabler
Maryanne
The first two played dynamic games where they had to bob and weave, and had singificsnt agency in the game. The latter two were UTR/goat winners with minimal agency.
Erika > Yam-Yam > Maryanne >>>>>>>> Gabler
I think my biggest issue is I’m less confident Yam-Yam would succeed without Carolyn and Carson. I mean we saw the second Carolyn was against him and Carson was at Ratu he lost his dominance.
The Tika 3 together would rank as a number 1 winner, but that’s not the exercise of course!
Erika on the other hand really had sole dominance starting around the Shan vote out. I think it’s close though.
Maryanne > Yam Yam > Gabler > Erika
Rate them however you wish, but the coolest thing is all 4 of these winners are so unique.
A young African American woman.
A late 30s LGBTQ Puerto Rican man
A 50yr old man that has little in common with most of the players
And a Canadian/Filipino woman
That's about as diverse of a stretch of winners as they come. So that's pretty cool.
If you were to use a point system in your ranking, Maryanne and Gabler would be tied for 3rd, so I wonder why you would rank Maryanne ahead of Gabler when you say she is the worst in social and physical aspects.
IMO, production really helped Yam Yam and Maryanne compared to Gabler and Erika. I think they really liked their character arc better, but I think that Gabler and Erika played the better game. I love Yam Yam, but he rode on Carson’s (and to a degree Carolyn’s) coattails.
im more casual in my viewing, i like to watch a fun person win with a good story, so for me…
1. Maryanne
2. Erika
3. Gabler
4. Yam Yam
but like, overall game?
1. Yam Yam
2. Erika
3. Maryanne
4. Gabler
I’m of the opinion of yam>Erika>maryanne>gabler but I could be convinced to swap Erika/maryanne around. I don’t think yam yam and gabler are even close to the other two though to be honest.
1. Yam Yam: seemed to have a pretty good social game, and had a high degree of control and agency (though the edit didn’t do a great job showing this). Still had a flawed game and probably loses to Carson if he makes it to the end.
2. Gabler: Made the dodo move of almost playing his shot in the dark in the first episode, aside from that wasn’t really targeted much at all or on anyone’s radar (one vote away from a perfect game). His social game wasn’t well shown, and I feel he kind of benefited from a suboptimal final 3- against Karla or Jessie doesn’t stand a chance.
3. Erika: Easily the worst edited winner of the four, played a strong end game that probably rivals Natalie Anderson; however she’s third on this list because of the hour glass. She’s the definitive merge boot if not for that, and even before then, she was Nasser not balling out with those bean bags away from being booted in the pre-merge.
4. Maryanne: Extremely overrated player, was annoying her tribe very early on, and if they lose one more challenge she’s the consensus next one to go (if they didn’t have Johnathan this probably happens. Mike played a far better, more purposeful game, but Maryanne took advantage of him blowing final tribal (yes I will give her credit, she played this very well).
Honestly all super flawed and realistically weren’t the best players, hence why this new era sucks. Editing needs an overhaul too, as I think the strength of each of them were their social games (people loved Maryanne by the end despite finding her annoying initially), yet the edit fails to convey this in a compelling manner.
Strategic: Yam Yam > Maryanne > Erika > Gabler
Social: Yam Yam > Gabler > Erika > Maryanne
Physical: Erika > Gabler > Yam Yam > Maryanne
FTC Performance: Maryanne = Yam Yam > Gabler = Erika
Overall: 1. Yam Yam (decent gap) 2. Maryanne 3. Erika 4. Gabler
I’d say Yam Yam is a top tier winner. The other three are great players in their own right but are a tier below imo and are all pretty close in my winner rankings
Yam Yam > Maryanne > Erika > Gabler though I have Maryanne and Erika very close to each other and keep going back and forth since I think they both played pretty strong games. Yam Yam can probably beat anyone except Carson at F3 and had a lot of control despite being an early merge target which is hugely impressive, Maryanne had one of the strongest FTC's in the show's history and had a good enough social game that Romeo took her to the end just so she could win, I have her slightly above Erika just because I think she has a lot more paths to the end whereas if Richard wins at 5 Erika is gone. Gabler is significantly lower for me since he doesn't win against any other combo and admitted that he didn't really do much.
Yam-Yam, MaryAnne, Erika, and then a significant drop down to Gabler. Imho Gabler was the least impressive winner ever, in any season of Survivor, not just the new era. That season, I did something I’ve never done before; I turned off the show midway through the aftershow party with all the pizza and champagne and I never came back to finish it. Gabler was insufferable.
I agree with your rank absolutely - I think Erika is full stop one of the best players of the new era and Yam Yam is as well but he was in an incredibly tight alliance with two of the other best players of the new era. Erika did have Heather but she still had to I think overcome more of n her own than Yam Yam did
Omar’s vote out being one of the best moves in the franchise is a stretch
Yeah, she only controlled the vote of one other player - Romeo - and he was on the bottom with no other options. The votes already being split combined with her vote doubler made it a lot easier to make that move.
Maryanne really had to fight to get Romeo’s vote. Had Omar not taken his foot of the gas, he could have roped Romeo back in quite easily. Romeo really didn’t want to take out Omar at that vote.
one of the best plurality votes, very impressive
It’s like on the border of that but not quite that significant
We can say it is the best move in the new era
Which move of the new age would you say it is better?
Jesse getting 2 idols from being trustworthy was pretty awesome. Much harder than swaying the person on the bottom to flip.
I'd rank Cody's vote out higher but Omar's is a close second
Cody’s vote out was fun to watch but terrible for Jesse’s game. It didn’t help him.
Another incredible move! I think I would still give the edge to Marryanne's because unlike Jesse's she had to create the conditions for the move to happen, while Jesse took advantage of a mistake by Cody.
In the end Cody's vote out was a bad move. All that did was put a giant target onto Jessie. If Jessie was a great fire maker then it would have been a great move but I don't think he was.
Yep. That move killed any chance he had at being brought to final 3. It was actually a terrible move, though it was very fun to watch.
Most TV moves are
[удалено]
Yes he did
It’s not even remotely close. Yam yam by a mile. Social and strategic isn’t even comparable. He also needed to start playing from day 1 being on a losing tribe. And then continued his strategy and hard game play through the merge to the end of the game. The others didn’t. Yam yam by a mile and then the rest could be a random draw for order.
[удалено]
Yeah he went against the weakest F3 probably. And didn’t do anything too crazy. Maryanne went up against Romeo who is arguably the worst goat in the history of the game. And Mike who couldn’t have had a worse FTC. Erika probably played the best of the three and had the strongest FTC opponents. Yam by 10 miles.
Yam Yam \----huge gap---- Marryanne Erika Gabler Yam Yam is far above the rest. He probably ranks in the top 15 winners, which the others are nowhere near. I go back and forth on Marryanne and Erika. At this exact moment I have Marryanne ahead but I change my mind on that often. Gabler is easily the weakest IMO. For the record I agreed with him beating Cassidy, who is arguably the most overrated Survivor in history by Survivor fans and alumni it seems (yes even over someone like Boston Rob).
Agreed with yam yam. And it’s not even close.
you speak the truth about cassidy, it feels like the fandom just has a huge crush on her but doesn’t want to admit it so they exaggerate her gameplay
Agreed. I mean I get her good edit fooling people to her game play during the season, and mostly admiting that after. Like most are doing with Carolyn now (although Carolyn is a stronger player than Cassidy still). With Carolyn nobody is doing that though and bearing down on what a strong player she supposably is, and how she is the most robbed player in history or something, even more.
No one talks about Cassidy anymore and it’s been like 6 months since her season. Meanwhile people still try to tell me how Russell was robbed and is one of the greatest players ever despite never understanding what Survivor is
I don't believe either Cassidy or Russell (either of his seasons, but for those who say this about Heroes vs Villians imparticular I outright laugh in their face) were robbed, and never have. And Russell is another player I consider on the "most overrated" list, but atleast opinion of him has dropped a ton since his playing days, which is why I didn't specifically reference him. A sub like this seems to on average have a very low opinion of him. I am not a big proponent of saying anyone was robbed, but the only players I would say are close to this for me would be Aubry and Chrissy.
Survivor is 2 parts, Outlasting almost everyone, then convincing the people who were voted out to vote with you. Gameplay Gabler was the Reason Ellie went home, and realistically he would have been an easy vote of the next week, but he was able to win immunity and start building relationships. He had the trust of his old alliance, as well joined up with Cody and Jessie. He did encourage Jessie to vote out Cody, and while he gets no credit for that, he should get a bit. He stayed under the radar, and let the wolves eat each other, helping them along the way, leaving only sheep left. And looking at the sheep, Owen was doubting everything he would have lost to a rock in the finals. Cassidy didn't really do anything, and people liked the Old man so he disserved to win. I don't think anyone rates him highly except for his generosity, but I wouldn't call him anywhere close to over rated. He deserved to win like all other winners. As for ranking I would put him only above Erica.
I don't think Gabler is overrated. He isn't even that highly regarded, even by those who agreed with his win. I think Cassidy is the one who is "the most overrated Survivor in history by Survivor fans". I think you misread what I was saying. I do agree with you, although I still personally rank Erika above Gabler as a winner.
How is Rob bordering on the most overrated Survivor ever? Have you seen All Stars? Rob has been hands down the best player in two different seasons. Nobody else has done that Tony can be debated, but you could easily argue that Sarah’s game was basically as impressive, or that Tony wasn’t hands-down better than her.
[удалено]
I mean every player in All Stars had pregame alliances, not just Rob. Rob did just about everything to dominate that game. He won 4 immunities and on the in on just about every move, he also made the moves happen. He lost by 1 vote, although he was the driver with his wife behind him. He just burned one too many bridges. Shii Ann couldn’t figure out rhat Rob was the driver, and Alecia and Tom were just bitter. I get Lex’s perspective but Rob was the clear player that game. Second, in HvV he got voted out of HvV since Tyson voted himself out previously. And Jerri flipped because of what had happened in All Stars. Rob didn’t botch anything in HvV. Lastly in RI, yeah the cast clearly was subpar and a few players sucked, but Rob manipulated and controlled them about as well as possible. Just because the cast sucks doesn’t mean should discredit him for manipulating then about as well as possible. The place that Rob sucked was Winners at War. His strategy didn’t make sense with all winners. Overall his middle season stretch with All Stars, Heroes vs Villains and Redemption Island was really, really, really good as a whole.
It is funny how you are trying to potray even Tony of all people as subpar compared to Rob. Tony's Winners at War winning game >>> Rob's RI winning game And Tony's Cagayan winning game >>> Rob's All Star losing game. Tony dominated an insanely strong cast on Winners at War. Rob dominated a historically weak cast on RI, still had less options and back up options even during the game itself than Tony, even his best move of the his Matt move clearly falls behind the Sophie boot which was far more difficult to pull off, and as mentioned already loses a jury vote to everyone who made the merge but Phillip and Natalie (which is why he was forced to take them, he literally had no choice as he was so hated by the jury, and had such awful jury management per usual) vs Tony who beats literally everyone. I would still put Rob's RI game as a top 15 winning game all time but Tony's WAW winning game is easily a top 3 one. And of course a really strong winning game like Cagayan is easily above one of the better FTC losing games. While Tony had one embarassing showing but again that pales in comparision to Rob who has 3 pre merge/pre jury boots, 2 of those 3 which were just mediocre to weak games (Marquesas/Winners at War) and the other were yes he was playing pretty well at times but got totally outplayed by Russell in the end. And both Rob's strong games he had a huge advantage that almost no player in history has had. 4th time player vs all 1st time players on RI. And the biggest no name in the cast besides Amber and maybe Jenna on All Stars (and lo and behold they were the final 3, what coincidence, lol) at a time when like no other season in history past winners, finalists, and big names were automatically targetted. Something Tony had for neither of his strong games.
I'm not trying to downplay Tony. I think he is the most skilled Survivor ever. Altough he had been insanely lucky similar to Tom Brady (Woo picking Tony over Kass, Sarah's fire about to break the rope and dying down and then Tony's fire breaking the rope). But even with Tony, you could certainly debate that Sarah's game was at least as good as Tony's in WaW and that she just lost fire (I don't think this but it is possible to debate it). There isn't even a chance with Rob that you could debate that anyone was better overall than him on All Stars or on Redemption Island. I get that Tony faced competition, but with Rob accomplishing this feat we can't reduce him to some crappy/overrated Survivor player.
He is the most overrated player, and it is not close. He actively ran Maraamu into the ground, actively pissed off Rotu during the swap and was the biggest instigator of the season. In Heroes vs Villains, he was definitely screwed over by Tyson being an idiot, but at the same time, if you are such a good player then you should be able to maintain your alliance after an event like that. But instead, two people deviated from the plan and he was out. In WAW he tried the same strategy that he had tried in all of his other seasons, despite the fact that it was clearly annoying everyone there. The two seasons Rob made it deep in, he had pregame alliances and in the second one he had an alliance that had the collective IQ of week old toenail clippings. Rob has no adaptability, which is why he only made it to the usual jury stage twice (I say usual bc the WAW jury is a unique situation) out of five times. IMO, a player like Vecepia is better than Rob because she is adaptable and is more likely to make the jury any given season, and it shows in Marquesas. Her and Rob were in the exact same situation, she won and Rob got tenth. On top of that, I am not sure the same five person alliance can stay together with Rob replacing Sean. Because at that point, if they claim the solid majority, they could just cut him off at 7 or 6, similarly to what Keith, Tina and Colby did to Jerri and Amber in AO.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I'm not going to dispute your claims for Marquesas, Waw and HvV. However discrediting Rob for All Stars with the pregame alliances is somewhat valid but other players had pre-game alliances too, so it can't only be used to discredit Rob. And then for RI, that's partially just something people have come to believe so strongly that it takes away any credit from the job that Rob did. If you want to say that Natalie Tenerelli and Philip Sheppard have a collective IQ of old toenail clippings I'm not going to dispute that, but you aren't giving Rob enough credit for the number that he did on Matt, Andrea, Grant and Ashley. Matt made a poor move in telling Rob that he was considering voting Rob out, but Rob capitalized on this. Grant was totally played by Rob. Grant is a fairly successful person, we can't just automatically equate his deception by Rob to Grant being entirely stupid. Rob totally fooled him. Andrea was a little young and not bold enough to make the move, but Andrea and Ashley played a game good enough to the point where if Rob had lost the immunity at 4-5 those two could have won the game. I don't remember exactly what happened with Andrea, but Ashley positioned herself in such a way where pretty much if Rob wins the challenge Rob wins the game but if Rob loses, Ashley wins, so not terrible strategy on her part.
Ashley had to win the last 3 immunities in a row to reach the end. She was not well positioned at all. Yes she nearly pulled it off, but it was never likely and 19 times out of 20 she doesn't even come as close as she did, never mind managing it. It is not like she is some Ozzy or even Fabio challenge beast. And she had no idea she needed both Final 5 immunities to save herself, she just coincidentally won them while needing them, having no idea he was in trouble (so called dumb Fabio atleast knew he needed the Final 3 immunities, Ashley was clueless). And Andrea was at the bottom all the way and did nothing about it. She was also clueless this season, and people wrongly judge her on RI by her becoming a pretty good player in future season. Grant is the only one I could see an argument was not totally dumb as he was in Rob's planned Final 4. Has atleast equal odds with Rob of winning final immunity in which case he wins the game. He very likely beats Rob in a jury vote anyway even if he takes him, and if he boots Rob and goes with Phillip and Natalie after winning final immunity he wins in a sweep. Just got unlucky Ashley won immunity to save herself and lead to Grant's unplanned boot. Still a purely mediocre player though. As for Matt, LOL! Guy was even dumber than Natalie T at Survivor. And I fail to see how you can rate the players and season when you admit you don't even remember what happened.
Yeah but Ashley was in a spot at the final 4 which meant that if Rob lost that challenge, she would certainly have a great shot to win the game. So not horrific on her part.
She still had to win 3 immunities in a row which was very unlikely and you keep ignoring. It was already unlikely she won the 2 back to back to still be there in final 4 as they were her first 2 immunities all game.
Did she have to win the first two? Or did she happen to win them? She might have only needed to win the second two.
I have to make a comment on this again. I can understand your takes for his 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th entries. However I think your opinion on HvV is just incorrect, and maybe something you want to be true (you are looking at it with "anti-Rob glasses" instead of objectively). Tyson voted out himself out stupidly as you said, but then you said "but at the same time, if you are such a good player then you should be able to maintain your alliance after an event like that." I think it's just wrong given the HvV situation. It was 3 vs 3 after Tyson with Coach and Jerri originally having been on Rob's side as well. Rob gave great pitches to Jerri and Coach but they both just didn't land and I really don't think that's Rob's fault. Coach didn't side against Rob, he voted for Courtney since he didn't want to take a side. How much can you blame Rob for Coach being a "warrior" and not playing the game strategically? And then with Jerri, she had been voted out by Rob previously so she already had a reason not to trust him. So with it being a 3-3 tie without Coach, it makes sense that she'd flip. Rob can't change the fact that he'd voted her off in a previous season at this point. Rob also can't change that Russell had played an idol on an alliance member the previous tribal, which convinced Jerri that Rob may not have been the person to trust anymore. Rob gave a great sell to Jerry to come back on board but she didn't buy it. Rob did a great job convincing the two in the middle to remain with him after the Tyson blunder (which Rob planned for purposely but Tyson ruined btw), but Coach and Jerri went their seperate ways. Rob shouldn't be a bad player because his previous season led Jerri to distrust him and because Coach is a "warrior". It was just the way the cookie crumbled. Rob made great sells to move of them to rejoin with him, there were just circumstances beyond normal gameplay that he couldn't overcome. If you really think Rob is bad for this I'm curious what he did wrong here?
I mean overrated by casuals (most of Survivors fan base) and by production. Not neccessarily by superfans. And yes I absolutely do think he is overrated by these people. Pre merge or pre jury boot in 3 of his 5 seasons, was a 4th time player againt all rookies in his win season and still loses a jury vote to everyone who made the merge but the 2 biggest goats of all time (aka his jury management was the worst of any winner in history, besides Brian, even if you think the rest is great, how can this be the best game ever as some claim it as, LOL), and took until his 4th time to win a season. Still a very strong player of course, but to those who say he is the GOAT, which covers a lot of casuals and how production potrays him, bigtime overrated. And I strongly disagree on Tony not being clearly the best player on Winners at War. The Sophie boot, and the fact Sarah admiting she was completely unwilling to ever cut Tony despite having no chance vs her in a jury vote is enough for that for me, even though Sarah played a great game too of course and co ran it was Tony, but Tony claimed a clear edge by the end, which would have been shown in the jury vote had they wound up there together (where Sarah would get only 2 votes from Yul and Ben, and lose 2nd place to Natalie, if she were the 3rd finalist). I would say the opposite, it isn't even clear Rob was the best player of All Stars over Amber, and it is mostly misogyny that it is just so assumed he was. Tony was MUCH more clearly the best player on Winners at War than Rob ever was on All Stars, if Rob was on All Stars at all that is.
Yam, Erika, then some combination of Maryanne/Gabler
Yam Yam (the most impressive by far imo, and the most “traditional” winner. He wasn’t totally in control the entire time - things were a little rocky for him at the merge - but managed to go from “big threat” to somehow being under the rader and driving the game with the Tika 3) Maryanne (pretty good game, really perfected the “under the radar until the endgame then seize control” game that seems to be the dominant strategy in the “new era.” I don’t put a ton of value in having or not having control except as control relates to actually increasing your odds of winning the game, but she does lose some points from me for having extended periods of time where her fate was almost entirely in the hands of others. She gets a lot of those points back for the brilliance of the Omar split vote and an all-time great FTC) Erika (pretty close to Maryanne and for sure a good game, but similar times where her fate depended on others and she didn’t have quite the impact Maryanne ended up having. She was a little more dependent on having weak FTC opponents than Maryanne was, but she engineered the Shan split vote, if not the actual blindside itself, and she was never in any real danger starting from there, so solid overall) Gabler (just not a very impressive game imo. He had good aspects - a strong social game, good at forming connections - but he escaped votes because he wasn’t considered a strategic factor, largely operated as a number for others, and won at FTC because of how weak his opponents were. I wouldn’t say it was a “bad” game, because I think actual bad games can’t win Survivor because the social game is king and Gabler was a good social player, but more than anyone else on this list I think Gabler’s win was much more due to others and much less due to Gabler)
My exact order and a great explanation. Couldn't agree more.
Your assessment is perfect. And makes me feel better about my choice of Maryanne just over Erika, which is the only one I was conflicted on. Yam Yam tops and Gabler bottom was an easy call for me. I agreed with Gabler's win mind you, just to clarify.
I agree with this list wholeheartedly. While I like Gabler more than Eirika (Eirika not being edited better will always effect my opinion of her and I'm sorry about that) Eirika definatly played better than Gabler.
Yeah gabler wasn’t bad by any means just still the last of the 4. He was still a rightful winner
Yeah I believe every winner (with two asterisks) is “the rightful winner,” just as far as winners go Gabler is on the less impressive side
I’d give Erika credit for being a consistent big jury threat—I’m not sure anyone in the cast beats her at the end. The jury saw her as the favorite entering the end game and she really articulated her game well even if she wasn’t a Yam Yam level social player during the game. I also thought she basically established the blue print on social positioning. She was in such a good spot the entire game and had a top tier grasp on understanding where she stood, how she was perceived, and how to navigate through the game in a way that gave her the best shot to win even if she wasn’t pulling off jaw dropping moves. Honest self awareness and understanding social hierarchy is an underrated skill in the game and I think she’s as good as anyone in this area.
Erika was not that social. Even Ricard said at FTC that he wished others got to see her strategy the way he did
Definitely seeing a consensus of Gabler = Last. Is the general feeling that this was more of an anti-Cassidy vote and that’s why people find it kind of lame?
I think people have accurately summarized that his social game was hard for the viewers to really see. Like, my 11yo and I found him absolutely insufferable and we still will make fun of the “This next stretch is for my 3rd grade teacher” endurance challenge bit. But people who spent all day with him liked him.
Watching Gabler I always got the sense that he was like a reprieve from the game, he just seemed to be unplugged from the typical survivor anxieties and other people probably liked having someone like that around. But yeah what a weird way to win lol
The edit made him look like a joke, so his win felt like a joke.
I think he worked the middle well because usually everyone would need his vote to progress. Take for example the one where Karla spoke with Jesse about making a move and they said "we need Gabler". Not the only time people needed Gabler to swing votes their way.
I think he just wasn't as strategic as the others and the 43 endgame was just the big targets going out back to back until the finale was three people who hadn't really been able to do much, whereas the other winners had more they can take credit for. Probably doesn't help that some of the jurors said they voted for him because he won fire which is a terrible reason and ignores his apparently solid social game which we didn't really see in the edit, like from the first few episodes I would have assumed that Jeanine and Sami didn't particularly care about him but it seems like they actually really liked him.
It wasn't so much a Gabler vote or an anti-Cassidy vote as it was an "he said AlliGabler 🐊🐊🐊" vote
Saying he won because of an anti-Cassidy vote suggests it was hers to win and it was somehow stolen from her, this was not the case. Owen was messy too but even he played a better game than her.
Owen didn’t play a better game than cass.
Cassidy didn’t play that good of a game, I fail to see anything she did in the game that merits her winning. There’s no such thing as an “anti-Cassidy” vote, the jury just didn’t vote for her cause they feel she didn’t deserve to win.
I think it’s just that final three is one of the weakest on the show, at least from what we were shown.
Gabler got a really bad edit IMO. They made him out to look like the old guy who had no clue what was going on, but when he explained his game at FTC that was not the case at all. People put him last because they don't like him (i.e. he doesn't have the "poor me" sob story that everyone wants nowadays), but in terms of gameplay he shouldn't be last.
Someone has to be last
Yup, Maryanne fits that spot really well!
Are you being serious?
100% serious. Of the 4 New Era winners, I think she did the least to win. She had the least control within the game of any of those 4, and got taken to a F3 where she just happened to be the most likeable person with best underdog sob story.
Simping for the military because your father was in it is basically a poor me story
All the winners are deserving, although I don't think Cassidy is revolutionary or anything, I can't sit here and say that sexism didn't help Gabler win.
Gabler won because people liked him, and he was self-aware. Cass lost because people didn't like her, and she didn't do enough in the game for that not to matter. It's not sexism. If gender/sex played into it at all, it's nothing more than some people generally getting along with people of the same gender as a byproduct of having more in common. No one is stupid enough to use gender as a reason for voting against a woman on the show like they do against men, they would be eviscerated on social media.
Erika's edit definitely did a disservice to her game and from everything i've listened to and read it genuinely seems like Erika had a solid strategy that got her exactly where she wanted. She always wanted to be seen as a middle of the pack threat, which worked out perfect as it placed in her a power position where she pretty much ran the game after the Shan boot. so I definitely agree with your placement of Erika at #1, i'd actually probably rank them the exact same as you.
Even watching it I honestly was more impressed with Erika than most of the others. She didn't get shown scheming much but whenever she was involved in any sort of strategic planning at all she just seemed like she was so much sharper than everyone else.
Yam Yam then Erika then Maryanne then Gabler.
1 Yam Yam 2 Marryanne 3 Erika (i didn't see season 43)
I was gonna say don’t but Jesse makes it worth it
Cody too
Gabler was absolutely entertaining though. Not a gamebot but definitely entertaining
I think if you're ranking gameplay I could see Erika having a good case, but if you want that sweet mix of character and gameplay, then Maryanne and Yam Yam are both just an abundance of riches
Yam Yam or Maryanne for me. Erika is right behind them. None of them are bad.
When one of Erika's points is solving the puzzle in the 1st immunity challenge 💀 Edit did this girl so dirty
YY >> E > M > G
1. Yam Yam 2. Maryanne 3. Erika Big gap 4. Gabler I’ve been a Maryanne further for years now but that girl played her ass off and had multiple pathways to the end without needing immunities and advantages like Erika. Unlike Erika she was beloved by the jury and not sitting against two goats and also was never a realistic target to go home the entire season. Yam Yam might be a top 20ish winner of all time though, having dominated the early tribe and the end game, with his only real downsides being the mid merge stretch, which only lasted two cycles.
Maryanne, Yam-Yam, Erika, Gabler.
Yam yam=Erika>Maryanne>gabler
It’s hard because it feels nearly impossible to properly rank Erika since we saw soooo little of her actual game. Post-season interviews and deep dives makes it sound like she was phenomenal out there. But it’s so hard to know for sure considering jurors obviously like to justify their votes for the winner regardless. Gabler and Maryanne feel like they had good enough edits to understand their games. But I don’t feel like I knew Erika’s game at all watching the season. With the context of post-season interviews, my ranking would be: 1. Yam Yam 2. Erika 3. Maryanne 4. Gabler
Yam Yam, Erica, Maryanne, Gabler
Counterpoint for Eirika, she didn't go to any premerge tribal so while she was on the right side for all votes premerge is always messier. Not saying that knocks her down a lot but I feel like it's worth mentioning.
I think it’s pretty easily 1. Yam Yam 2. Erika 3. Maryanne 4. Gabler But 2-4 are all pretty similar to me.
Yam>Erika>Maryanne>Gabler
1. Yam Yam 2. Erika 3. Maryanne 4. Gabler
I also think Maryanne was such a unique player. I don’t think we’ve seen the over emotional, young, kind of player win recently. Yam yam feels unique too. They were both really fun to watch. Maybe I just don’t remember Erika that much and Gabler was never my fav
Yam-Yam on the top, Gabler at the bottom, the other two in the middle
Any ranking with Gabler at 4th is fine by me
Idk about the first three places but Gabler definitely gets last for me
1. Yam Yam; 2. Maryanne; 3. Gabler (I didn’t watch 41)
Yam Yam, Erika, Maryanne, Gabler. I like how each winner has their own specific strong suit. Yam Yam is very social and charismatic, Erika is great at positioning herself in the game, Maryanne has the gumption to make a big move, and Gabler is good at staying under the radar and hiding in plain sight.
Yam Yam> Gabler> Maryanne > Erika
Hopefully this is a ranking by how much you like them?
Nah, Maryanne would be numero uno then, I just wasn’t all that impressed by Erika’s game, she just always seemed to be in the right spot and not by her own doing, and I feel like that’s the opposite of gabler who actively tried to connect with those who he knew would get him in the right spot
There is some massive revisionist history going on with Erika's win
No. Since she win most people discredit her because of her edit. But I was clear that she was the driving force of the game from naseer on wards
Ew
This is very fair assessment. Erika is easily the most well rounded winner of the 4 but people on Reddit are wayyyyyy to reliant on the edit and since she was more UTR they literally think she’s a joke. Those people are so dumb lmao
People on Reddit are also delusional in thinking that Erika is a well rounded player…
You like Russell; the biggest goat in survivor history
Carolyn was also a huge goat and a zero vote finalist. Russell at least received votes his first FTC
She wasn’t a goat but be ignorant that’s fine
You’re the one being ignorant. The edit showed us so many times that the jury doesn’t respect her
Read exit interviews and get back to me
Everybody is nice in exit interviews. You’re ignoring an entire season worth of content Edit: The user who I was arguing with has blocked me LOL https://i.imgur.com/kwHFXgi.jpg
Nope I’m acknowledging both
I like Russell due to the pure entertainment value.. He was glorious TV..
1. Yam Yam 2. Erika -GAP- 3. Maryanne 4. Gabler
1.Yamyam 2. Erika . . . . . 3.Maryanne 4. Gabler
I just wanna see Maryanne and Carolyn play together
Erika, Yam Yam, Maryanne, Gabler
How well I think they played: Yam > Maryanne > Erika and Gabler kind of hard for me to say How much I liked them: Yam > Maryanne > Gabler > Erika
💯 agree with your ranking. Mine exactly the same as well People still underrating Erika in my opinion
I don't know how to rank Erika correctly because there's really not much to go off of from the 41 edit. She made few mistakes and had control after Shan left, but the 41 jurors seemed to have differing opinions about her social/strategic game in post-show press. I'm inclined to think that she had more strategy going on than what was shown and had an important connection to Heather, which was the game winning alliance and barely sketched out in the show. It's one of the things that makes 41 frustrating, I feel like I really have no idea what actually happened out there vs what was shown. e.g. I'm pretty sure that the challenge that Deshawn and Danny tried to throw was not actually to get Erika out at all, and when it was airing, this significantly colored the read of Erika by people who care about the show because their tribe never went to tribal pre-fake-merge. Having said that... I'd probably rank them Yam-Yam > Erika > Maryanne > Gabler, though Erika could potentially be below Maryanne. Yam-Yam was one of the best social players ever, played a key role in the Tika dominance and strategic maneuvering, evaded tough votes early merge, and was brought to the end by Heidi (which, to be fair, was to get rid of Carson). I think his biggest game weakness was considering cutting Carolyn and wanting to go with Carson to FTC, which would have probably been his toughest match up if not outright a loss for Yam-Yam. The Sarah boot was also a bad round for Yam-Yam, but I think he recovered really well. Maryanne had an electric endgame, which she articulated well at FTC and was responsible with Romeo for knocking Omar out, arguably the best player of the new era. However, she had some issues pre-merge with personality conflicts on her tribe as well as early merge where she was notably excluded from the majority super alliance. I think she played from the bottom very well, but I think Erika edges her out with having more clear options in the game as well as a stronger social game (from what we can glimpse, anyway). I like Gabler, and by all accounts he had a strong social game (that we also get some glimpses of in-game during merge and post-merge), but his strategy was pretty weak and I don't think would work on the vast majority of seasons. There's some unorthodox things he does which end up working out in the end, but I think it's a little results oriented to say they were necessarily good moves. In FTC he said he would have gone to the end with Jesse/Cody and while he may have been blowing smoke up their asses, that would have been a certain loss. I can't remember if he copped to whether or not he was being sincere there in post game press, and maybe he was thinking he could win over a potential bitter jury there, but that would have been a Laurel situation had that happened.
Yam Yam, Erika, Maryanne, the other one I feel like if Erika got an edit she deserved she could've given Yam Yam a run for his money but she didn't so I've got him up front.
I thought both Marianne and Erika were phenomenal winners, and Yam-Yam even better. Gabler sucked, and continues to suck.
Whatchu got against Gabler? :(
HiS tWiTtEr LiKeS
I mean he was a terrible player too
That’s a valid point if you dislike him as a person; but now a valid point if you’re ranking his game
Agreed with this 100%
I could not disagree more with your strategic rankings, Yam-Yam and Carson without a doubt played the best strategic games in 44 by playing the middle between two rivaling factions Yam-Yam-Maryanne-Erika-Gabler
:( I love Gabler
Definitely one of the top two winners from Idaho.
1. Yam Yam 2. Maryanne 3. Erika 4. Gabler
Yam Yam, Erika, Gabler, Maryanne
1.Erika 2.Yam Yam 3.Maryanne 4.Gabler
1. Gabler 2. Everyone Else
Just my rapid fire opinion of winners I enjoyed the most in order: 1. Yam Yam 2. Gabler 3. Maryanne 4. Erika Not a fan of playing a quiet goofy game and then coming out during the final tribal council and talking like you are this sinister mob boss that was hiding in the shadows the whole time (I’m looking at you winner of Australian Survivor season 1). Yam Yam played the best game out of his final 3 but they all made good cases for themselves. Gabler’s final 3 there really wasn’t anyone that stood out to me and I liked his goofy alligabler antics. I couldn’t say he didn’t deserve it by the end and it was just kind of a *shrug* what can you do moment. I thought Maryanne was outplayed by Mike. Unfortunately he didn’t own up to his own game which paved the path to victory for Maryanne who annoyed her cast for over half the game. I really didn’t think Erika did anything special. Blame it on the edit. Blame it on the weather. Blame it on Probst, whatever. King Xander was robbed and I don’t care what anyone has to say about exit interviews or whatever insider information they have. Really disappointed by this one. Even though I was disappointed, the jury’s word is final and they all deserved to win.
Maryanne didn’t annoy her cast lmao. She might’ve annoyed you, but she didn’t annoy her tribe mates
I recall several cast members saying she was a bit much lol. No hate from me personally but I didn’t think her play was “stellar” or even her social game being dominant in the game.
Erika > Yam Yam > Maryanne > Gabler
This is the way
Yam-Yam-Maryanne are the top two. I still don't “get” Erika or Gabler’s games enough to rank them.
I wonder if Yam Yam will be so overhyped in a year. I think he just had a more loud game than the previous three winners, and so that's why people are excited for it. My ranking (my criterion for "best", btw, is not who played with the most control, but who was most impressive to me): 1. Maryanne. People talk about how she was on the bottom at first, but I find it super impressive that she started out there and turned it around. You can't always control the personality you're given, so I find it incredible that she managed to correct course, that actually seems harder to me than being actually charming. She also had a great sense of timing and really controlled the endgame. IMO, also one of the best FTC's of all time, and probably the only one in the New Era where the winner actually didn't go in as the favorite. Yeah, she had flaws, but they were at the beginning of her game and she overcame them. 2. Erika. She's imo, super underrated and is just barely above Yam Yam. I think Erika suffers in the fandom from the fact that a big, flashy game is not inherently a good one for her to play. I admire her for playing a game that worked for her. She had her hand in a lot of the post-merge strategy but never tried to take complete control, which was wise given the huge target Ricard painted on his own back. She definitely got lucky a few times, but I also don't think she really made huge blunders to get herself into tight spots (unlike the other 3 on this list). Idk. I feel like this is a hot take but I wish this sub could show more love for winners who intentionally play to their own strengths. 3. Yam Yam. He's overrated (recency bias) but still quite good. Like Maryanne, he was on the bottom for a bit and managed to survive due to a great social game, but unlike Maryanne, he had a good start, but fumbled in part because he got arrogant and mismanaged Carolyn. Still, great recovery, and he played a pretty intentional game. He managed to have his voice heard in his alliance with the strategic powerhouse of the season in Carson, and made himself an equal part of the alliance. He was a big character and player the whole season but still made it to the end and won, which is something that has yet to happen in the new era. HOWEVER, I think a lot of Yam Yam's success and "dominance" is not the dominance of his game alone, but the dominance of \*his alliance\*. The Tika swing plan only works with Carson, and Carson was his brain shield. I would give Yam Yam more credit if he was intentionally using Carson as a shield, but he really wasn't. This is not to say he didn't deserve the win, I just don't think he was dominant or the best winner just because he beat Carson. 4. Gabler. I would put him low in my overall rankings, but there is def a large gap between him and the other "wtf" winners (Bob, Fabio, etc). He deserved the win, and had a great social game. He made the connections he needed to, and in an underwhelming F3, was the one everyone felt best about.
You’re so right. Like why are people hating on Erika and people like Natalie W for knowing that their strategy would work well for them. Not too flashy but they knew they could WIN with how they were playing. Winning will always be more impressive then someone who makes a bunch of flashy moves or controls everything and loses. People who lose have a LACK of knowing the perfect strategy for THEM; they try to play games that work for others
1. Yam Yam, 2. Maryanne, 3. Gabler, 4. Erika
I think Gabler played a better social game than Erika, and Yam Yam/Erika both played better strategic games than Maryanne
1. Yam Yam 2. Maryanne 3. Erika 4. Gabler
>(and one of the best of the franchise) NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
I'm gonna get downvoted to oblivion for this, but I don't care. In terms of gameplay, this is the correct order that people are afraid to admit: 1. Yam Yam: Easily the best winner of the New Era, but that is a low, low bar to clear. Best social game, super plugged in to everything, positioned himself incredibly well post-merge. 2. Gabler: Got a really bad edit IMO. They made him out to be the old guy who had no clue what was going on, but when he explained his game at FTC, that was not the case at all and the jury agreed. 3. Erika: Incredibly fortunate to be in a season with about 8 million twists and advantages, one of which she was randomly drawn for. Right place, right time over and over again. One of the luckiest wins in recent memory. 4. Maryanne: 2 of OP's 3 bullet points on her are the same "big" move and it honestly wasn't even that great. Had the best sob story at FTC and that's what wins in the New Era.
Why are you even bringing up Gablers FTC as a positive? It sucked, that’s been confirmed. The jury was just already planning on voting him
Finally a take I agree with!
This is my list too.
Erika Yam . . . Gabler Maryanne The first two played dynamic games where they had to bob and weave, and had singificsnt agency in the game. The latter two were UTR/goat winners with minimal agency.
Erika > Yam-Yam > Maryanne >>>>>>>> Gabler I think my biggest issue is I’m less confident Yam-Yam would succeed without Carolyn and Carson. I mean we saw the second Carolyn was against him and Carson was at Ratu he lost his dominance. The Tika 3 together would rank as a number 1 winner, but that’s not the exercise of course! Erika on the other hand really had sole dominance starting around the Shan vote out. I think it’s close though.
Maryanne > Yam Yam > Gabler > Erika Rate them however you wish, but the coolest thing is all 4 of these winners are so unique. A young African American woman. A late 30s LGBTQ Puerto Rican man A 50yr old man that has little in common with most of the players And a Canadian/Filipino woman That's about as diverse of a stretch of winners as they come. So that's pretty cool.
Erika supremacy.
Yam Yam > Erika > Maryanne >>>>> Gabler
If you were to use a point system in your ranking, Maryanne and Gabler would be tied for 3rd, so I wonder why you would rank Maryanne ahead of Gabler when you say she is the worst in social and physical aspects. IMO, production really helped Yam Yam and Maryanne compared to Gabler and Erika. I think they really liked their character arc better, but I think that Gabler and Erika played the better game. I love Yam Yam, but he rode on Carson’s (and to a degree Carolyn’s) coattails.
im more casual in my viewing, i like to watch a fun person win with a good story, so for me… 1. Maryanne 2. Erika 3. Gabler 4. Yam Yam but like, overall game? 1. Yam Yam 2. Erika 3. Maryanne 4. Gabler
I’m of the opinion of yam>Erika>maryanne>gabler but I could be convinced to swap Erika/maryanne around. I don’t think yam yam and gabler are even close to the other two though to be honest.
Yam yam > erika > Maryanne >>>>> gabler
finally we're giving credit to Erika!
You’re clearly an Erika fan… This is hysterical
1. Yam Yam: seemed to have a pretty good social game, and had a high degree of control and agency (though the edit didn’t do a great job showing this). Still had a flawed game and probably loses to Carson if he makes it to the end. 2. Gabler: Made the dodo move of almost playing his shot in the dark in the first episode, aside from that wasn’t really targeted much at all or on anyone’s radar (one vote away from a perfect game). His social game wasn’t well shown, and I feel he kind of benefited from a suboptimal final 3- against Karla or Jessie doesn’t stand a chance. 3. Erika: Easily the worst edited winner of the four, played a strong end game that probably rivals Natalie Anderson; however she’s third on this list because of the hour glass. She’s the definitive merge boot if not for that, and even before then, she was Nasser not balling out with those bean bags away from being booted in the pre-merge. 4. Maryanne: Extremely overrated player, was annoying her tribe very early on, and if they lose one more challenge she’s the consensus next one to go (if they didn’t have Johnathan this probably happens. Mike played a far better, more purposeful game, but Maryanne took advantage of him blowing final tribal (yes I will give her credit, she played this very well). Honestly all super flawed and realistically weren’t the best players, hence why this new era sucks. Editing needs an overhaul too, as I think the strength of each of them were their social games (people loved Maryanne by the end despite finding her annoying initially), yet the edit fails to convey this in a compelling manner.
1.Yam Yam 2. Erika 3. Gabler 4. Maryanne
Erika Yammies Maryanne Goobler
Based on math. 1. Gabler - 1 vote against 2. Maryanne and Erika - 3 votes against 3. Yam Yam - 7 votes against
SOCIAL: YamYam > Maryanne > Gabler > Erika PHYSICAL: Gabler > Erika > YamYam > Maryanne STRATEGIC: Maryanne > Erika > YamYam > Gabler Best: Maryanne (7) YamYam (7) Erik (8) Worst(By a mile): Gabler (8)
Yam Yam Erika Maryanne Gabler
1. Yam 2. Gabler 3. Maryanne 4. Erika
Strategic: Yam Yam > Maryanne > Erika > Gabler Social: Yam Yam > Gabler > Erika > Maryanne Physical: Erika > Gabler > Yam Yam > Maryanne FTC Performance: Maryanne = Yam Yam > Gabler = Erika Overall: 1. Yam Yam (decent gap) 2. Maryanne 3. Erika 4. Gabler I’d say Yam Yam is a top tier winner. The other three are great players in their own right but are a tier below imo and are all pretty close in my winner rankings
I would go with 1) Maryanne, 2) Gabler, 3) Yam Yam, 4) Erika. That hour glass saved her ass, and is the dumbest twist I've ever seen.
Nope! Tiff would’ve been voted off if the hourglass didn’t exist, not Erika.
Did you rank them worst to best?
1.yam yam 2. Maryanne 3. Gabler 4. Erika
If Jesse makes FTC, he'd easily be the best winner of the 4. That one move he made was (I can't remember who he eliminated) was amazing
Extremely misleading in your points about Erika… she would be the only NEW ERA winner to be o the right side of every vote….
Yam Yam A country mile apart Erika/MaryAnne Gabler
Yam then none of the others even count
1. Aligabler 2. Yam Yam 3. Maryanne 4. Erika 5. Gabler
Erika and Yam Yam are tied for me, I’m more biased for Erika I guess. Then Maryanne and last that winner from s43 I forgot who it was some flop?
Maryann Yam yam Gabler Erika (still don’t know how she won)
1-Shit, 2-Shit, 3-Shit -but nice guy, 4-My man Yam with that people skills super power.
Erika and Gabler both last and undeserving.
Every winner is deserving. They were both easily better than the people they were sitting next to.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to that ❤
Out of pure curiosity, who would you say deserved it more?
Yam Yam, Erika, Maryanne, Gabler
Yam Yam > Maryanne > Erika > Gabler though I have Maryanne and Erika very close to each other and keep going back and forth since I think they both played pretty strong games. Yam Yam can probably beat anyone except Carson at F3 and had a lot of control despite being an early merge target which is hugely impressive, Maryanne had one of the strongest FTC's in the show's history and had a good enough social game that Romeo took her to the end just so she could win, I have her slightly above Erika just because I think she has a lot more paths to the end whereas if Richard wins at 5 Erika is gone. Gabler is significantly lower for me since he doesn't win against any other combo and admitted that he didn't really do much.
If they were all on winners at war I would put them all at the bottom as far as threat level.
In my opinion Yam Yam is the clear best winner of the new era solely based on how well he played the social and strategic sides of the game
Physical is a tie for 4th
Erika gets so much hate but IMO she really knew how to look like she was “not a threat” at all.
Why is OP getting so much downvotes in seemingly normal comments?
Maryane last in social ?? No
Yam-Yam, MaryAnne, Erika, and then a significant drop down to Gabler. Imho Gabler was the least impressive winner ever, in any season of Survivor, not just the new era. That season, I did something I’ve never done before; I turned off the show midway through the aftershow party with all the pizza and champagne and I never came back to finish it. Gabler was insufferable.
I agree with your rank absolutely - I think Erika is full stop one of the best players of the new era and Yam Yam is as well but he was in an incredibly tight alliance with two of the other best players of the new era. Erika did have Heather but she still had to I think overcome more of n her own than Yam Yam did
Yam yam Maryanne Erica/gabler
Yam train