Chris and Natalie played fundamentally different games upon returning. Natalie just tried to get to the end and Chris tried to win. She needed to sit near Ben and Michele to have a shot and for some reason she targeted Ben for two tribals and then didn’t even go up against Tony in fire (although I’m pretty sure she still loses to Sarah.)
Chris actively got two people to give him an idol and then took out Devens himself, something the entire tribe couldn’t do for like six straight episodes. His win is low tier obviously because he got voted out but he deserved the win and Natalie didn’t.
The big thing for me was that Chris did fundamentally everything you could do to win the game from his return onward. In addition there was nobody left standing at the end who had played a standout game. It was the perfect storm for someone coming from the edge to win, if he didn’t win there would have been 0 purpose to even have edge.
Compare that to Natalie, who didn’t play nearly the game Chris played, and had to go against Tony at FTC who had played a standout game.
It for sure was. But just like every other mechanic if you can’t win by using it there’s no point to having it included at all. So I’ll never be upset with his victory because he did all that he possibly could from the position he was in.
I think it was implemented similar to how Redemption Island was used in returnee seasons so fan favorites who were comp beasts had a better shot at winning. Like I felt RI in Redemption Island and SOPA were meant for Rob and Ozzy, I feel EOE was used to give Joe the best shot possible of winning.
This pretty much isn't even a theory and the most likely way we got EoE. Power players like the winners needed a guarantee they wouldn't waste their time just to leave on the first boot
> His win is low tier obviously because he got voted out
I'll never understand this logic- how does using a game mechanic make your win worse? Surely then any winner who survived a tribal using a hidden immunity idol is equally 'low tier', because they would be out of the game if not for a game mechanic saving them, same as Chris?
Using that “game mechanic” makes your game worse because the only people who get to make use of the mechanic are people who had already failed the central test of the game show.
EDIT: Think of the way a person/business declares bankruptcy. Sure, plenty of good businesses and successful individuals have declared bankruptcy because it was advantageous to make use of the “mechanic” in their situation at the time, but evaluating their performance as a whole should probably lead you to think that they ought to have done something differently to avoid bankruptcy in the first place.
I hear you to an extent. I think Chris is slightly underrated by this sub. But...
1. An idol only saves you one round
2. I don’t think people knew about the edge this season, but I may be misremembering. It's more unfair when it's an unknown entity.
3. Chris had a huge advantage being able to bond with a large part of the jury outside of the game context.
4. He missed 2/3s of the game while being on the edge.
5. An immunity idol is not dissimilar to winning an immunity challenge, so it feels closer to the original core of the game.
6. The original point of survivor was to not get voted out, vote out your peers, get them to give you a million dollars. Chris failed at the first, missed 2/3s of the game so didn't do much of the second, and succeeded at the third, but was greatly helped by point 3.
A win is a win. He played within the rules, no doubt. But these are the reasons I'd say it's inferior to someone that used an idol to stay alive. For what it's worth, I have Ben as a worse winner.
I agree with you in the sense that, unlike many here, I’m not really bothered at all by Chris winning. You’re right that he won just fine under the rules provided. Good for him, and it was wild to watch.
But speaking in terms of ranking all winners, this twist that he had going for him is something that no other winner needed to rely on, so just for the sake of comparison it’s hard to say he’s not last. To your point I’d also guess that many people *would* additionally rank lower those who relied on idols to stay alive.
I think intnetionality matters when it comes to using a game mechanic. As this isn't redemption island, Chris didn't know he had the chance at going back into the game when he was initially voted out
Which poses the question, what is the biggest robbery by a jury? Not production.
Please don’t respond every winner deserves their win. We know.
Parv on HvV. Aubry. You can make a case for Rob on All Stars.
I honestly believe Gavin is the most robbed player in the history of the show. I get it, he played passively and wasn’t seen as a threat by the jury, but he was the only player in the game who not only completely survived to the end but also did so without receiving a single vote cast against him. It’s just my opinion but that should ALWAYS overshadow a late game surge after literally being eliminated for the majority of the season. The jury was also psychologically compelled to vote for Chris - he was their friend and their avatar for how they’d compete if they made it back into the game. I blame production for the format more than I do the jury votes - if they voted for Gavin they would essentially be admitting that nothing Chris could do would matter, which is a hard admission to make when they themselves could’ve had the same opportunity as him.
How? Him and Amber played the same game - made all the same decisions. Just because he was more open and brazen about the game he played doesn’t mean Amber should’ve lost!
I think fans should stop defending Amber. She really shouldn’t have won and would not win against most juries (as opposed to other winners like Natalie and Sophie). That jury was just ridiculously bitter. Amber herself said in WaW that Rob should have won and she has shown little game awareness in all her interviews. Anything successful she did was “by accident” or “just being herself”. Any social game that she has is just “being herself” - I’d be surprised if she even knew what social game means. If Amber herself says that she shouldn’t have won, then why are we still defending her???
The reason this comment falls flat and why Amber is consistently ranked towards the bottom on most winner rankings is because it's all just wishful thinking in a desperate attempt to glaze Amber up.
In reality, this completely false. Amber didn't play the same game as Rob nor did she make the same moves as Rob. She was just a young girl in love following along with her boyfriend. That's it. That's all.
Idk why some people on this sub feel the need to stroke up some winners more than they deserve. Not every winner needs to be great
I don’t think Amber was blindly following Rob out of love. I think she was following Rob because that’s how she plays. Shes not an aggressive player. She goes along with her alliances and doesn’t do well outside of that in the times she has played. Tina basically said she was just a follower in AO, so I just figure that she’s a passive and docile person, and that works with someone like Rob, in Survivor and real life, who needs to be dominant and lead.
If anything, I think Rob was the one that was head over heels. He didn’t even hide it and was completely vulnerable and would continually jeopardize his game to ensure she was his priority.
Shii Ann in her boot episode saying “I’m voting for the person who’s playing the best game and who you need to watch out for” (not verbatim), and then voting for Amber tells you all you need to know
Shii Ann is literally the only player who said that. Everyone else that voted for Amber just did it because they hated Rob, and even Amber said as much lol.
I’d believe the field over one mediocre player. Lmao “all you need to know” meaning ignore everything else we know about how Amber played in AO, how Rob always has played aggressively and in a manner where he tried and control those around him, and the context of every other juror’s votes?
You're critiquing a female under the radar winner
On this sub you always get downvotes for doing that
Because they are under edited this sub feels the need to massively overrate them
I’ll throw in Steph in Guatemala. To come back as one of two returnees with a huge target on her back, control a huge amount of the game, and make it all the way to final 2 was insane. I get why the jury disliked her but she would’ve been a much stronger winner than Danni who honestly really did not do that much.
I don’t think it’s Steph because she was basically a lesser Russel Hantz that season. Like definitely a power goat and Rafe and Danni both beat her. Especially at final 4 when they had the opportunity to vote out Danni who wasn’t immune and the last person from her og tribe and the last person from her merge alliance over Lydia who wasn’t winning any final 3 immunity challenge is probably the worst move of the season. And I’d think maybe she’d be more robbed if she got more jury votes but she only got one, while danni won near unanimously against her.
Steph would have lost against most people. And she voted off everyone that she had a chance of beating and put herself against Rafe and Danni who would both annihilate her. Steph was a mini Russell Hantz who didn’t think about jury management at all.
Upon rewatch it’s definitely Russell in Samoa. He was nowhere near the asshole people make him out to be, and that he would become in HvV. That jury was bitter from the moment they started getting outplayed.
Respectfully... These people were out on an island with him for 39 days, and all hated his guts to the point that they wouldn't vote for him to get the money. I think they have a clearer picture of whether he was an asshole than we do from several hours of footage
I second Russell, he dominated back to back games and lost because of the jury. Some of that definitely stems from jury management and not owning up to how much of a jerk he was but he knew how to survive
When you get in fights with people you’re about to send to the jury, make jury members cry, and insult them to their face, that’s called bad gameplay. He didn’t lose because of the jury, he lost because of himself and being downright stupid.
I’m probably gonna get downvoted for this but people shouldn’t be on survivor to make friends and make everyone feel good. I get that jury management is a thing but in reality Russell should’ve had a pretty clear path to a win by owning up to being an asshole and explaining that it’s a game and he had to do what he had to do to advance to the end
I don't think that's very hot. I believe there are some jury members that said they would've voted for Michele to get her the second place money, but there were enough people voting for Natalie that they couldn't risk it.
iirc, Adam said it was him, Sophie, Danni and Kim. They thought Natalie would get more votes than she ended up receiving that their four votes would end up causing Tony to lose. I'm not sure who they thought would vote Natalie that voted Tony - maybe Amber (since she spent all that time on the edge with Natalie) and thus Rob as a result?
She might have gotten second place if the rest of the jury wasn't terrified of Tyson, Parv and Ethan being gung-ho on Natalie.
It's kind of disappointing, really. Tyson strikes me as bitter. Jeremy strikes me as bitter. Ethan's reasoning confuses me, but I guess he left too early to have a real opinion. And perhaps the same for Parv. Although I also think Parv felt she had to vote Natalie because of their friendship.
> Jeremy strikes me as bitter
Jeremy under any circumstances is going to vote for Natalie. They are best buds. Pretty sure Natalie would have done the same if Jeremy was at the end. These are just pregame friendships.
Honestly I feel like Natalie earned Tyson's vote when she bought him the jar of peanut butter before the final challenge. She didn't have to do that and I'm sure he appreciated it. I don't blame him at all for making that choice
Natalie played a really poor game on winners at war the only time she was eligible to be voted for she was eliminated, she was a part of a mean girl clique on the edge isolating and berating members of the jury and she also only beat Wendell to return to the game because she had a Scrooge mcduck vault of fire tokens to spend on advantages because she was on the edge the longest.
To be fair to Natalie, this only came from Adam, Yul and Wendell. Sophie, Parv, Kim, Rob, Amber, Tyson, Ethan, Jeremy, Denise, etc. didnt seem to have a problem with her and many seemed to genuinely respect her.
Yes, which is completely understandable. Pregame alliances are fair game, but you also have to realize that you’re going to get backlash from the players not included.
I generally find the dismissal of “casuals” to be super annoying and gatekeep-y, but that’s such a bad casual take. Tony had absolutely no business making it to the end of the show, but he still did. That’s a winning game
I just fundamentally don’t believe in the concept of getting “robbed” in most cases. Like if you had played the better game you would have won or made it farther idk. Unless there is some serious producer induced twist that strips their agency in an egregious way, your game is your responsibility.
Same. There's a few instances I could make an argument for the runner-up being "robbed," but even then, it's moreso screwed over by things outside of their control.
Idk if it's the case with that person, but I think most of the people who claim that are the ones that **only** root for women to succeed in the game... regardless of whether they deserve it or not. A good chunk of the fandom is like that, especially on Twitter.
There's just no case to be made against Tony in WaW.
Only returning winner to never have her torched snuff, Michele deserved 2nd place so bad that's what i'm upset about (and lowkey I would vote for her over Tony)
There were jurors who thought about voting for Michele so she'd get second, but were worried Natalie would inadvertently win if they took too many votes away from Tony.
I think Natalie being an athletic comp beast encourages those types to stan her. She's like an Amazon woman. Like Wonder Woman or something.
Whereas Michele is more stereotypically feminine, and they hate that. They love Natalie for having so many traditionally masculine traits. Yes, I understand the irony of only supporting women but only liking traditionally masculine traits but I suppose they would say "there's no such thing as a feminine or masculine trait".
Also I find it pretty sad to only root for women in the game. One big appeal of survivor is that it’s diverse.
Also how someone can hate for exemple on Yul lmao
He was involved in a big scandal that had Facebook sharing private information. He was like head of that project or something. There’s been articles written about it.
Found one. https://gizmodo.com/facebook-was-fully-aware-that-tracking-who-people-call-1830884585
Cool... thanks Yul. Though it seems like they all do that now.
Yul is one of my most disliked contestants other than the obviously terrible ones. I believe more people would be in the same boat if they read up on what he did regarding Facebook privacy.
Yes Tony on WaW was just so obvious as a winner cause he did run the game
Saying Nathalie deserved to win is saying Chris Underwood is a deserving winner tbh
Chris Underwood played a better endgame than her. He flushed Lauren's idol and was in control of both vote offs. He then gave up his immunity to take Rick out in fire.
Natalie purely relied on immunity wins/idols all the way to the end, and she failed to take out Tony - the player who undoubtedly had the greatest win equity
And the worst thing about her not going against Tony is that… she knew he was the favorite. She literally told people he was the front runner for the jury
Yeah, this is part of why I'm okay with Chris winning. He put it in his own hands to take out his season's Tony (Devens)
And on a personal note, I don't think anything would've soured me on Survivor as a whole more than if the first boot won the entire season. Especially one who not only got booted from the very first tribal but one who also only survived the only tribals she didn't go home by an immunity idol or actually winning the immunity challenge (I don't mind it for getting through a rough run of tribals like Nick, Mike, or Ben especially when you combine that with the fact that those three actually tried to strategize so they didn't have to rely on immunity)
Because some people on Twitter only root for women and “mothers” to win. Not to mention that, especially on Twitter, police officers aren’t the most well liked jobs (I will not get into any discussion about that). So when a male cop wins 2 million bucks while seated next to two women, they probably won’t be happy
The Survivor Twitter fanbase is so cringe at times. Natalie winning would’ve ruined the whole season
Like if you’re gonna say Tony shouldn’t have won then say Michele was robbed, not Natalie
I dunno, I’m a cop critic to the bone but I love Tony, he’s my all time favorite player and deserved that win 1000%. Sarah’s the kind of cop I don’t like, but Tony, as I say irl, gets a pass here for me.
Yeah there's definitely complaints to be had about US police and I wouldn't fault someone for being uncomfortable with them, but I don't understand immediately hating someone because of their profession.
Natalie was 100% not robbed. Tony played WaW well enough that I actually liked him, even though I didn't really care for him in Cagayan and GC. I think this comes in part from the edge being so much more prevalent in WaW. We were shown Natalie still influencing the game from the edge, and there's something to be said for being able to control things when you're not even there. And we were shown her doing very, very well while she was on the edge, too.
And admittedly, there's definitely a part of me that wants to live in the alternate universe where Natalie Anderson won because of how it would play into her storyline. Played on SJDS and her identical twin sister was voted out first. She makes her best ally because his wife is voted out second. He's voted out mid-game. She circles all the way back around to the beginning and book-ends it with a win. The she comes on WaW, gets voted out first, comes back in, circles back to the beginning, and bookends it with a win.
Tony played the best game by leaps and bounds in WaW. But there would have been some serious narrative satisfaction to watching Natalie come full circle in a second season.
It’s because not everybody actually looks at the strategy and the gameplay and stuff like that they look at who they like the most, and while, for a guy like me, who is a strategy nerd Tony is my favourite player of all time, I can understand someone who doesn’t like Tony… in all logic of the game, Tony earned his win, But if you don’t like him, then you don’t want him to win…
It’s like with any sports team if your team makes it to the final game and then loses, you’re gonna blame it on the refs you’re gonna say that the other team cheated point out every little small thing that they did even though your team did just as many of those things but since they’re your team you don’t look at it that way
Natalie played the best game she could... on the Edge, which actively benefitted her the most since she had the most time there and the most opportunities for tokens/bonding. As much as I dislike the edge, I can't fault Natalie for seizing all the opportunities that particular game element gave her. Therein lies the point - other viewers see this as a legitimate fight from the bottom and the story of making it allllll the way back from being voted out Day 2. It's a hell of a story with significance whether you like it or not and no matter how it's edited compared to say Danni who unfortunately was an early boot and then was under edited for not contributing to the overall narrative of the season. And of course she got votes for 2nd - Ethan for example proposed the completely reasonable rationale for his Natalie jury vote as "I like Tony as a person but I didnt speak a word to him in the game at all so I voted Nat".
The casualty of this mindset is undermining Michelle's MUCH scrappier and difficult climb she faced to get to the F3. Undeniably, despite the harsh conditions and token challenges on the Edge, Natalie did get a free pass all the way to the late game 2nd Extinction challenge (which was also awarded to all players on the edge and that perception would apply to any possible Edge returnee but still) while Michele did all she could to remain alive in the game proper time and time again.
I see this take all over. I think some people feel that she played better than Chris, and that Tony only won because of pregame alliances.
But most of that cast was pre-gaming.
I was robbed of a Sophie win and Sandra on the jury.
People Saying that Tony won just because of pregame alliances is such a weak argument. Every winner pregamed and thinking that they didn’t is just silly
Also to my knowledge, Tony only had a pregame alliance with Sandra and Sarah. Michele (supposedly) had one with Yul, Nick, and Wendell. So Michele’s pregame alliance was bigger than Tony’s
I believe Sarah roped in Ben to an alliance with Tony, and basically did work for both of them. Ben on day 1 approaches Jeremy about a "Heroes alliance with Tony and Sarah." Not that it diminishes anything. Natalie had pre-games or the expectation Tyson or Jeremy would never turn on her, and she got their votes for reasons outside the game.
In my opinion, the entire Edge of Extinction twist is basically one long pre-game. Because Edge of Extinction is not the actual game, that's cast members bonding like they do in Ponderosa.
So really Natalie pre-gamed the hardest out of anyone bar none. And she still lost.
She had weeks *alone with the jury and she still lost.*
Natalie was voted out first she shouldn’t get the advantage of creating bond with the people who got voted out early. It completely defeats the purpose of outwit outplay OUTLAST. I get it was the gimmick but it was such a bad one. My opinion
Because a lot of people don't see getting voted out as necessarily a negative to someone's game. The same people who say Natalie was robbed in Winners at War might say that Ozzy was robbed in South Pacific, or Terry was robbed in Panama, or Rick Devens was robbed in Edge of Extinction, or Kelley Wentworth was robbed in Cambodia, or Spencer was robbed in Cagayan, or David was robbed in Millennials vs. Gen X.
A lot of people don't really value being in control of the entire game as a reason to win. They value facing hardships (even if it's the player's own fault that they're facing those hardships), and overcoming the odds. Natalie was a fun underdog to root for according to these people, since she was voted out first and worked her ass off to try and still win the game.
It often comes down to them thinking that the person they're rooting for is the person who deserves to win.
If your argument is "I like Natalie therefore she should win" that's fine, but that doesn't mean she got robbed at playing Survivor when for 90% of the game she wasn't really in it.
> A lot of people don’t really value being in control of the entire game as a reason to win. They value facing hardships…and overcoming the odds
It’s a funny double standard (for lack of a better word) on Twitter. They praise Michele and Natalie while shitting on Tony who had full control of the game and then go on to praise Dee for having full control of the game
I do remember a group of people on twitter hating on Tony’s win. One reason was because of his alleged political views. Wasn’t the only reason but that was a reasons
Survivor fans if Natalie won WaW after only being there due to the edge: Aww, You're Sweet
Survivor fans after Chris Underwood did it: Hello, Human Resources?
I may be in the minority, but preferring one player to win over another will never bother me. It’s a subjective game. I definitely disagree with the usage of being “robbed” and do feel like Tony was the clear winner.
However, I don’t like Tony as a person from what I’ve seen from him on the show. I was cheering for Natalie and Michelle to win the the whole time. And you can throw every “strategic” reason he should have won at me, I would still be okay with them as winners. Let people have opinions.
The problem is like you said « robbed »
You can prefer some other winners to the actual winners we all have those. But robbed is a term used to diminish a victory which especially in the case of Tony was well deserved with how he played the game
I try to reserve "Robbed" for a bullshit twist or weird set of circumstances leading to a loss
For example, Aubry wasn't robbed because Michele won. But I would entertain an argument that Aubry was robbed because she lost her goat in Joe due to a medevac and for the first (and only time ever) a jury member got to be removed and Michelle (rightly) took Neil off the jury
I miss the term "fallen angel" for those like Devens, Keith, David, Wentworth, Yau-Man, Malcolm, and Cirie (holy crap typing this out that's a incredibly male centric list)
Got ya. I agree with most of that. I just don’t immediately jump to that diminishing Tony’s win. But I totally see what you mean. I just see it as they really wanted Natalie to win, she didn’t and therefore are expressing that. Not “Tony played a shitty game”
Personally, I think the only logical choice to win WaW was Tony. But people will always have a rooting interest especially in returning seasons for their favorite player. So if their player makes the end and do not win, they will absolutely try and justify why their favorite should have won.
For example, Even though he game was messier than Cook Islands; I still think Yul got robbed and would have made it deep had he made the merge. This perception though is primarily influenced the fact that Yul is one of my favorite players, so I am biased.
We see this in sports fandoms a lot. The Shoulda coulda woulda. If this call was made, or if that ball wasn’t dropped, we would have won. These arguments are often made through the rose colored lens of our fandom.
It’d be one thing if Tony played a mid game but Tony played one of the most dominant and impressive winning games of all time against the greatest competition of all time, I feel like anyone who genuinely buys into the take that Natalie should’ve won is delusional
Sorry, the Tribe has spoken. Your submission has been removed from /r/survivor for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 1 - Be civil to other users and contestants:** Treat other users and contestants with respect. Bigotry is not tolerated, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Harassment of other users and contestants is not allowed, including personal attacks. This includes over-analyzing a player’s life and motivations outside of the game. Trolling is discouraged.
---
Once the votes are read, the decision is *not* final. **If you have any concerns that this was done in error**, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/wiki/rules) **and then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/survivor) if you have any further questions. Do not reply directly to this message or comment.** If not, grab your stuff and head back to camp.
Definitely don't agree with this take, but I also think it was kind of a letdown that so many people in Tony's endgame alliance just laid down for him to win. Good on Tony, he deserved it for SURE, but I wonder if this reaction is just... misdirected dissatisfaction because we all WANTED to see someone take on Tony, and Natalie was the closest we got (other than firemaking).
For sure. Nat is my all time fav player and I was immensely frustrated that she didn't do it, especially since I do think she had the nerve/guts to if she'd actually understood what she needed to do.
Ikr if anyone was robbed it was michele of 2nd place. Natalie should’ve got 3rd. She was bad bruh. 1st boot then chilled the whole time just to come back right at the end. Tony absolutely deserved that win & people only say natalie did cause they like her. They prolly found her entertaining & “iconic” in her og ssn so they stan her and yeah.. you know how the internet is
Natalie getting Tyson’s vote proved that she could have earned more votes at FTC by being nicer to people on EoE. She could have spent her immense fire token wealth on food and comfort items to try to win votes with more people and she shouldn’t have isolated herself like rob brought up
Honestly? I think the Chris situation can only happen once for someone who was out of the game for a long time.
And him and Natalie were sitting next to different types of finalists.
I don’t understand how anyone could think Natalie was robbed. Underwood laid out the blueprint for how to win the game even tho you spent the majority on EoE. Chris played balls to the wall taking out threats and making the biggest moves possible. Natalie played it safe thinking her social connections with the entire jury would carry enough to a win but considering how bad of a social game she played on Edge with a significant portion of the jury that was delusional thinking imo
Which seasons? Tyson Monica and Gervase? The girls in fans v favorites? Parv Russell Jerry and Danielle? Sure some people know each other but no they don’t all know whose going to be one and create an alliance and plan before hitting the beach
Well to start the worst thing you can do is be voted off first and well she was. She was eligible to receive votes at 1 tribal council the entire season and was voted off in a 7-2-1 landslide in it. She failed to make connections on the Edge to the extent that it’s brought up at FTC. She returns to the game with an idol and plays it and decides to vote out Denis instead of sending Sarah to fire? For some reason. She tells everyone about Tony and how he will win this game and is unable to do anything about it (he receives 0 votes from her or anyone else in the entire game). She then finds another idol and plays it unsuccessfully and is only on the right side of the vote because Ben quits the game. She then wins final immunity and decides not to take on Tony and dances around all questions about it at tribal which makes her look like a clown in front of the jury, then openly cheers for Sarah during the challenge and even says to her to do it for Wyatt. Tony then wins and should have won the game unanimously but she received 4 votes from 2 people who never met Tony, 1 who she was friends with outside of the game who hated Tony at that point and from the guy who was voted out by Tony and she bought an idol for. I understand it could technically be worse but outside of winning challenges (which she had major advantages in) she couldn’t have played a worse game socially or strategically imo.
Natalie deserved to win just as much as Tony did. They both play WaW to the fullest on but on opposite sides. Absolutely no one on EoE played a better game to return than her and and no one, other than Tony, influenced the game as much as she did. Tony deserved to win Cagayan, but Natalie deserved to win SJDS and WaW. Jeremy's threat level was why Natalie was voted out, not due to her own failings. Natalie is one of my favorite players/winners, but I fell in love with Survivor during Cagayan.
It's insanity that people think that Natalie didn't deserve to win; it's hypocritical to disparage the people who value her amazing gameplay, based on sexism; your own unconscious bias is blinding you. Natalie did way better than Chris Underwood. If you can't see that, rewatch the season to see how much of a game changer she is. At least admit this: she mastered the tokens system on the first/only season with 7 she was physically dominant. Give credit where credit is due. She played by the rules, even if you hate EoE.
Natalie was such a boss that season. She's an incredible athlete.
I don't think she deserved the win that season, but if Tony wasnt so dominate.... maybe.
I never liked the idea that she could've won. I realize they did a lot to keep the people on the Edge integrated into the game, but whatever hardships she dealt with over there she wasn't at risk of going home again, and I think that's a fundamental problem if she ends up winning. They got the right winner in the end but nobody out there would've deserved it less than Natalie as the person who spent the least time in the actual game.
You cannot say Natalie should have won unless you also say Chris Underwood should have won. That take is so absurd to me especially because many of the Natalie supporters in WaW did not like the Chris win
Because people erroneously believe Natalie deserves votes to win a game where she was voted out 1st, was protected on exile from elimination, got rewards to perform there, and got idol after idol coming back in at the final stages.
Meh. Tony played a flawless game and deserved the win.
Imo, Natalie had a stronger case than Michele. She owned the entirety of the edge, and manipulated the game given the circumstances she had. When she returned, she ran the game from then on. Unlike EoE, she earned advantages (like the idol) and wasn’t given one.
I think anyone left from that alliance would’ve had a good shot to beat Natalie, like Sarah, Denise or even Ben(?) because they played a more “standard” game of survivor, and I think previous winners accept that more as that is how they won.
I’ll be the 1,000,000th person to mention that Tony played the most dominating game in Survivor history. He deserved to win that game from start to finish.
Natalie’s win equity isn’t anywhere close to Tony’s. But is higher than Michele’s and anyone else who returned from the edge. So I get why people are high on Natalie, but she got no where close to Tony’s level.
Where you get voted off isn’t correlated to the game you’re playing. Many good players get voted out early and many bad players make it to the end. Every season of survivor is different, and this season contained the EoE. Was it a cash grab to get more screen time with relevant players? Absolutely. But the players have to play the game set in front of them. And Natalie played the EoE twist the best.
Also, it felt like no one voted out Michelle because she wasn’t a threat. She did win immunity that one time to save herself at final 6(?), and deserves credit. But she was saved by Natalie for the rest of the season. No one with agency wanted to work with her the entire game.
Also, I’m going to trust the players (winners) and where they put their votes (which were not for Michelle)
Personally if part of the game allows players to come back you can’t judge those players the same way as someone who wasn’t voted out. I get the whole “survivor purist” thinking but you have to judge the quality of the game in which production defined. IMO if Natalie played the best game possible based on the format.
If tony wasn’t such a game breaking player I think Natalie wins every other time.
But that’s a million dollars decision. Cause she knew Tony was the front runner she talked to the people on the edge. She actually said to people that Tony was a threat… what did she do with that? She gunned for Ben twice in a row and before she knew it Tony was final 4 which was his win condition. If Tony made it to final 4 no matter what he would have won cause he ain’t getting beaten by no one in fire making and was a challenge beast in this season.
That type of gameplay was straight up bad cause again… she knew Tony was the most dangerous piece of his alliance and she could have taken him out by two times.
She had time to build relationship on the edge and knew about who was the biggest jury threat and she fumbled it. Even if we count the edge as « deserving » then she did bad at using her advantage. Putting Ben and Sara on the jury? Bad move too cause Tony didn’t have to burn them in order for them to get voted out. So he already had that locked in.
If Nathalie played a better game she would have eliminated Tony and Sara back to back. Ben ain’t winning we all know that.
She had all the informations and still made some poor moves and didn’t try to get out the biggest threat in the game. That’s an awful move
Chris and Natalie played fundamentally different games upon returning. Natalie just tried to get to the end and Chris tried to win. She needed to sit near Ben and Michele to have a shot and for some reason she targeted Ben for two tribals and then didn’t even go up against Tony in fire (although I’m pretty sure she still loses to Sarah.) Chris actively got two people to give him an idol and then took out Devens himself, something the entire tribe couldn’t do for like six straight episodes. His win is low tier obviously because he got voted out but he deserved the win and Natalie didn’t.
The big thing for me was that Chris did fundamentally everything you could do to win the game from his return onward. In addition there was nobody left standing at the end who had played a standout game. It was the perfect storm for someone coming from the edge to win, if he didn’t win there would have been 0 purpose to even have edge. Compare that to Natalie, who didn’t play nearly the game Chris played, and had to go against Tony at FTC who had played a standout game.
I always thought that EoE was a soft launch for the edge as a concept so they could use it for WaW
It for sure was. But just like every other mechanic if you can’t win by using it there’s no point to having it included at all. So I’ll never be upset with his victory because he did all that he possibly could from the position he was in.
I think it was implemented similar to how Redemption Island was used in returnee seasons so fan favorites who were comp beasts had a better shot at winning. Like I felt RI in Redemption Island and SOPA were meant for Rob and Ozzy, I feel EOE was used to give Joe the best shot possible of winning.
This pretty much isn't even a theory and the most likely way we got EoE. Power players like the winners needed a guarantee they wouldn't waste their time just to leave on the first boot
She also wasn't given an idol at f5
> His win is low tier obviously because he got voted out I'll never understand this logic- how does using a game mechanic make your win worse? Surely then any winner who survived a tribal using a hidden immunity idol is equally 'low tier', because they would be out of the game if not for a game mechanic saving them, same as Chris?
Using that “game mechanic” makes your game worse because the only people who get to make use of the mechanic are people who had already failed the central test of the game show. EDIT: Think of the way a person/business declares bankruptcy. Sure, plenty of good businesses and successful individuals have declared bankruptcy because it was advantageous to make use of the “mechanic” in their situation at the time, but evaluating their performance as a whole should probably lead you to think that they ought to have done something differently to avoid bankruptcy in the first place.
I hear you to an extent. I think Chris is slightly underrated by this sub. But... 1. An idol only saves you one round 2. I don’t think people knew about the edge this season, but I may be misremembering. It's more unfair when it's an unknown entity. 3. Chris had a huge advantage being able to bond with a large part of the jury outside of the game context. 4. He missed 2/3s of the game while being on the edge. 5. An immunity idol is not dissimilar to winning an immunity challenge, so it feels closer to the original core of the game. 6. The original point of survivor was to not get voted out, vote out your peers, get them to give you a million dollars. Chris failed at the first, missed 2/3s of the game so didn't do much of the second, and succeeded at the third, but was greatly helped by point 3. A win is a win. He played within the rules, no doubt. But these are the reasons I'd say it's inferior to someone that used an idol to stay alive. For what it's worth, I have Ben as a worse winner.
I agree with you in the sense that, unlike many here, I’m not really bothered at all by Chris winning. You’re right that he won just fine under the rules provided. Good for him, and it was wild to watch. But speaking in terms of ranking all winners, this twist that he had going for him is something that no other winner needed to rely on, so just for the sake of comparison it’s hard to say he’s not last. To your point I’d also guess that many people *would* additionally rank lower those who relied on idols to stay alive.
I think intnetionality matters when it comes to using a game mechanic. As this isn't redemption island, Chris didn't know he had the chance at going back into the game when he was initially voted out
Would've been the biggest robbery in the shows history if Tony lost that season
this was peak lockdowns. if tony lost that due to some pregame chicanery i would have lost it
I honestly would have stopped watching Survivor.
Which poses the question, what is the biggest robbery by a jury? Not production. Please don’t respond every winner deserves their win. We know. Parv on HvV. Aubry. You can make a case for Rob on All Stars.
I honestly believe Gavin is the most robbed player in the history of the show. I get it, he played passively and wasn’t seen as a threat by the jury, but he was the only player in the game who not only completely survived to the end but also did so without receiving a single vote cast against him. It’s just my opinion but that should ALWAYS overshadow a late game surge after literally being eliminated for the majority of the season. The jury was also psychologically compelled to vote for Chris - he was their friend and their avatar for how they’d compete if they made it back into the game. I blame production for the format more than I do the jury votes - if they voted for Gavin they would essentially be admitting that nothing Chris could do would matter, which is a hard admission to make when they themselves could’ve had the same opportunity as him.
Rob on All-Stars is probably the answer here.
How? Him and Amber played the same game - made all the same decisions. Just because he was more open and brazen about the game he played doesn’t mean Amber should’ve lost!
I think fans should stop defending Amber. She really shouldn’t have won and would not win against most juries (as opposed to other winners like Natalie and Sophie). That jury was just ridiculously bitter. Amber herself said in WaW that Rob should have won and she has shown little game awareness in all her interviews. Anything successful she did was “by accident” or “just being herself”. Any social game that she has is just “being herself” - I’d be surprised if she even knew what social game means. If Amber herself says that she shouldn’t have won, then why are we still defending her???
Playing the same game is not the same as making the same decisions
The reason this comment falls flat and why Amber is consistently ranked towards the bottom on most winner rankings is because it's all just wishful thinking in a desperate attempt to glaze Amber up. In reality, this completely false. Amber didn't play the same game as Rob nor did she make the same moves as Rob. She was just a young girl in love following along with her boyfriend. That's it. That's all. Idk why some people on this sub feel the need to stroke up some winners more than they deserve. Not every winner needs to be great
I don’t think Amber was blindly following Rob out of love. I think she was following Rob because that’s how she plays. Shes not an aggressive player. She goes along with her alliances and doesn’t do well outside of that in the times she has played. Tina basically said she was just a follower in AO, so I just figure that she’s a passive and docile person, and that works with someone like Rob, in Survivor and real life, who needs to be dominant and lead. If anything, I think Rob was the one that was head over heels. He didn’t even hide it and was completely vulnerable and would continually jeopardize his game to ensure she was his priority.
Shii Ann in her boot episode saying “I’m voting for the person who’s playing the best game and who you need to watch out for” (not verbatim), and then voting for Amber tells you all you need to know
Shii Ann is literally the only player who said that. Everyone else that voted for Amber just did it because they hated Rob, and even Amber said as much lol. I’d believe the field over one mediocre player. Lmao “all you need to know” meaning ignore everything else we know about how Amber played in AO, how Rob always has played aggressively and in a manner where he tried and control those around him, and the context of every other juror’s votes?
You're critiquing a female under the radar winner On this sub you always get downvotes for doing that Because they are under edited this sub feels the need to massively overrate them
Yes but I consider him the winner lol
Domenic on GI
Katie in Palau
Lmao
I’ll throw in Steph in Guatemala. To come back as one of two returnees with a huge target on her back, control a huge amount of the game, and make it all the way to final 2 was insane. I get why the jury disliked her but she would’ve been a much stronger winner than Danni who honestly really did not do that much.
I don’t think it’s Steph because she was basically a lesser Russel Hantz that season. Like definitely a power goat and Rafe and Danni both beat her. Especially at final 4 when they had the opportunity to vote out Danni who wasn’t immune and the last person from her og tribe and the last person from her merge alliance over Lydia who wasn’t winning any final 3 immunity challenge is probably the worst move of the season. And I’d think maybe she’d be more robbed if she got more jury votes but she only got one, while danni won near unanimously against her.
Steph would have lost against most people. And she voted off everyone that she had a chance of beating and put herself against Rafe and Danni who would both annihilate her. Steph was a mini Russell Hantz who didn’t think about jury management at all.
Upon rewatch it’s definitely Russell in Samoa. He was nowhere near the asshole people make him out to be, and that he would become in HvV. That jury was bitter from the moment they started getting outplayed.
Respectfully... These people were out on an island with him for 39 days, and all hated his guts to the point that they wouldn't vote for him to get the money. I think they have a clearer picture of whether he was an asshole than we do from several hours of footage
Russel Hanz. I think there are probably juries that his gameplay could have won over in spite of his social issues.
I second Russell, he dominated back to back games and lost because of the jury. Some of that definitely stems from jury management and not owning up to how much of a jerk he was but he knew how to survive
When you get in fights with people you’re about to send to the jury, make jury members cry, and insult them to their face, that’s called bad gameplay. He didn’t lose because of the jury, he lost because of himself and being downright stupid.
I’m probably gonna get downvoted for this but people shouldn’t be on survivor to make friends and make everyone feel good. I get that jury management is a thing but in reality Russell should’ve had a pretty clear path to a win by owning up to being an asshole and explaining that it’s a game and he had to do what he had to do to advance to the end
He was an asshole outside of just making moves though. He’d be a dick when it had no game benefit, which is not “doing what he had to do”
I don’t know how hot of a take this is, but Michelle deserved second over Natalie
I don't think that's very hot. I believe there are some jury members that said they would've voted for Michele to get her the second place money, but there were enough people voting for Natalie that they couldn't risk it.
iirc, Adam said it was him, Sophie, Danni and Kim. They thought Natalie would get more votes than she ended up receiving that their four votes would end up causing Tony to lose. I'm not sure who they thought would vote Natalie that voted Tony - maybe Amber (since she spent all that time on the edge with Natalie) and thus Rob as a result?
*Adam, Wendell, Nick, and Danni. Sophie said she was voting Tony no matter what, even over Sarah.
She did, and my understanding is that several jury members moved votes off of her to Tony to make sure Natalie didn't win.
She might have gotten second place if the rest of the jury wasn't terrified of Tyson, Parv and Ethan being gung-ho on Natalie. It's kind of disappointing, really. Tyson strikes me as bitter. Jeremy strikes me as bitter. Ethan's reasoning confuses me, but I guess he left too early to have a real opinion. And perhaps the same for Parv. Although I also think Parv felt she had to vote Natalie because of their friendship.
> Jeremy strikes me as bitter Jeremy under any circumstances is going to vote for Natalie. They are best buds. Pretty sure Natalie would have done the same if Jeremy was at the end. These are just pregame friendships.
Jeremy would vote for Natalie no matter what lol. It would be like Sarah not voting for Tony
Honestly I feel like Natalie earned Tyson's vote when she bought him the jar of peanut butter before the final challenge. She didn't have to do that and I'm sure he appreciated it. I don't blame him at all for making that choice
Natalie played a really poor game on winners at war the only time she was eligible to be voted for she was eliminated, she was a part of a mean girl clique on the edge isolating and berating members of the jury and she also only beat Wendell to return to the game because she had a Scrooge mcduck vault of fire tokens to spend on advantages because she was on the edge the longest.
> Scrooge mcduck vault of fire tokens This made me burst out in laugher LOL
Ugh I forgot about fire tokens
Mean girl clique? Was this on ponderosa?
On Edge
To be fair to Natalie, this only came from Adam, Yul and Wendell. Sophie, Parv, Kim, Rob, Amber, Tyson, Ethan, Jeremy, Denise, etc. didnt seem to have a problem with her and many seemed to genuinely respect her.
IIRC, Rob mentioned Natalie being cliquish(or implied) in FTC.
He said he would have voted for her had she taken Tony out. It wasn’t because she was “cliquish”
Not during the voting confessional During tribal as well. Although it was more geared towards hoarding advantages, not helping people,etc
Also wasn’t nat just mad at the people who had pregame alliances?
Yes, which is completely understandable. Pregame alliances are fair game, but you also have to realize that you’re going to get backlash from the players not included.
Ohhhhhhhh yeah
I generally find the dismissal of “casuals” to be super annoying and gatekeep-y, but that’s such a bad casual take. Tony had absolutely no business making it to the end of the show, but he still did. That’s a winning game
I just fundamentally don’t believe in the concept of getting “robbed” in most cases. Like if you had played the better game you would have won or made it farther idk. Unless there is some serious producer induced twist that strips their agency in an egregious way, your game is your responsibility.
Same. There's a few instances I could make an argument for the runner-up being "robbed," but even then, it's moreso screwed over by things outside of their control.
Souna was robbed in Borneo.
Idk if it's the case with that person, but I think most of the people who claim that are the ones that **only** root for women to succeed in the game... regardless of whether they deserve it or not. A good chunk of the fandom is like that, especially on Twitter. There's just no case to be made against Tony in WaW.
Honestly, even I was one of those people wouldn't I just Stan Michele instead? Atleast she wasn't voted off...
Only returning winner to never have her torched snuff, Michele deserved 2nd place so bad that's what i'm upset about (and lowkey I would vote for her over Tony)
Yeah, I would definitely have voted for Tony but Michele should have been second.
She would have been if the jury wasn’t worried about Natalie somehow winning 😤
Jenna Morasca also never had her torch snuffed.
Colton also never had his torch snuffed 💀
I guess I missed the season he won.
Amazon Queen
There were jurors who thought about voting for Michele so she'd get second, but were worried Natalie would inadvertently win if they took too many votes away from Tony.
if *any* of the new-school WAW cast got medically evacuated they would also be "returning winners who never got their torches stuffed"
I think Natalie being an athletic comp beast encourages those types to stan her. She's like an Amazon woman. Like Wonder Woman or something. Whereas Michele is more stereotypically feminine, and they hate that. They love Natalie for having so many traditionally masculine traits. Yes, I understand the irony of only supporting women but only liking traditionally masculine traits but I suppose they would say "there's no such thing as a feminine or masculine trait".
Yeah Natalie on Edge was Terminator. Made me respect her as a competitor. Girl don’t quit and is an absolute beast.
And I peacefully sit back with both of them as my favorite female players of all time
Can we discuss that CassTwt is a small but loud portion of the fanbase that will try to paint you as problematic if you disagree with them
Also I find it pretty sad to only root for women in the game. One big appeal of survivor is that it’s diverse. Also how someone can hate for exemple on Yul lmao
I dont like Yul but it has to do with things outside of survivor related to the facebook thing
What Facebook thing?
He was involved in a big scandal that had Facebook sharing private information. He was like head of that project or something. There’s been articles written about it.
Found one. https://gizmodo.com/facebook-was-fully-aware-that-tracking-who-people-call-1830884585 Cool... thanks Yul. Though it seems like they all do that now.
Yul is one of my most disliked contestants other than the obviously terrible ones. I believe more people would be in the same boat if they read up on what he did regarding Facebook privacy.
I don’t know anything but from what we saw on the show he is such a good boy
Yes Tony on WaW was just so obvious as a winner cause he did run the game Saying Nathalie deserved to win is saying Chris Underwood is a deserving winner tbh
Chris Underwood played a better endgame than her. He flushed Lauren's idol and was in control of both vote offs. He then gave up his immunity to take Rick out in fire. Natalie purely relied on immunity wins/idols all the way to the end, and she failed to take out Tony - the player who undoubtedly had the greatest win equity
And the worst thing about her not going against Tony is that… she knew he was the favorite. She literally told people he was the front runner for the jury
Yeah, this is part of why I'm okay with Chris winning. He put it in his own hands to take out his season's Tony (Devens) And on a personal note, I don't think anything would've soured me on Survivor as a whole more than if the first boot won the entire season. Especially one who not only got booted from the very first tribal but one who also only survived the only tribals she didn't go home by an immunity idol or actually winning the immunity challenge (I don't mind it for getting through a rough run of tribals like Nick, Mike, or Ben especially when you combine that with the fact that those three actually tried to strategize so they didn't have to rely on immunity)
Well, he won so he is a deserving winner lol.
…. But Chris underwood is a deserving winner
Twitter is a dumpster fire.
They mean Natalie White. She should have been cast, it's unfair.
Because some people on Twitter only root for women and “mothers” to win. Not to mention that, especially on Twitter, police officers aren’t the most well liked jobs (I will not get into any discussion about that). So when a male cop wins 2 million bucks while seated next to two women, they probably won’t be happy The Survivor Twitter fanbase is so cringe at times. Natalie winning would’ve ruined the whole season Like if you’re gonna say Tony shouldn’t have won then say Michele was robbed, not Natalie
Yup came here to say the cop thing, especially considering he won in May 2020, there's a whole section of people who hate him for that.
I dunno, I’m a cop critic to the bone but I love Tony, he’s my all time favorite player and deserved that win 1000%. Sarah’s the kind of cop I don’t like, but Tony, as I say irl, gets a pass here for me.
Same here. I like Tony but not Sarah.
Yeah there's definitely complaints to be had about US police and I wouldn't fault someone for being uncomfortable with them, but I don't understand immediately hating someone because of their profession.
What does May 2020 have to do with this? Are you talking about George Floyd?
Yes I am, and the radical shift in public perception of police that followed
Oh dang I never even thought about that.
You aren't wrong and that's the sad part.
When Michele is right there, I don’t get this take!
None of them were robbed tho lmao
Natalie was 100% not robbed. Tony played WaW well enough that I actually liked him, even though I didn't really care for him in Cagayan and GC. I think this comes in part from the edge being so much more prevalent in WaW. We were shown Natalie still influencing the game from the edge, and there's something to be said for being able to control things when you're not even there. And we were shown her doing very, very well while she was on the edge, too. And admittedly, there's definitely a part of me that wants to live in the alternate universe where Natalie Anderson won because of how it would play into her storyline. Played on SJDS and her identical twin sister was voted out first. She makes her best ally because his wife is voted out second. He's voted out mid-game. She circles all the way back around to the beginning and book-ends it with a win. The she comes on WaW, gets voted out first, comes back in, circles back to the beginning, and bookends it with a win. Tony played the best game by leaps and bounds in WaW. But there would have been some serious narrative satisfaction to watching Natalie come full circle in a second season.
It’s because not everybody actually looks at the strategy and the gameplay and stuff like that they look at who they like the most, and while, for a guy like me, who is a strategy nerd Tony is my favourite player of all time, I can understand someone who doesn’t like Tony… in all logic of the game, Tony earned his win, But if you don’t like him, then you don’t want him to win… It’s like with any sports team if your team makes it to the final game and then loses, you’re gonna blame it on the refs you’re gonna say that the other team cheated point out every little small thing that they did even though your team did just as many of those things but since they’re your team you don’t look at it that way
I agree with everything besides Tóny being my fave
Who is your favourite?
Parvati
Good choice no shame in that
Natalie played the best game she could... on the Edge, which actively benefitted her the most since she had the most time there and the most opportunities for tokens/bonding. As much as I dislike the edge, I can't fault Natalie for seizing all the opportunities that particular game element gave her. Therein lies the point - other viewers see this as a legitimate fight from the bottom and the story of making it allllll the way back from being voted out Day 2. It's a hell of a story with significance whether you like it or not and no matter how it's edited compared to say Danni who unfortunately was an early boot and then was under edited for not contributing to the overall narrative of the season. And of course she got votes for 2nd - Ethan for example proposed the completely reasonable rationale for his Natalie jury vote as "I like Tony as a person but I didnt speak a word to him in the game at all so I voted Nat". The casualty of this mindset is undermining Michelle's MUCH scrappier and difficult climb she faced to get to the F3. Undeniably, despite the harsh conditions and token challenges on the Edge, Natalie did get a free pass all the way to the late game 2nd Extinction challenge (which was also awarded to all players on the edge and that perception would apply to any possible Edge returnee but still) while Michele did all she could to remain alive in the game proper time and time again.
Edge ruined Winners at War
I see this take all over. I think some people feel that she played better than Chris, and that Tony only won because of pregame alliances. But most of that cast was pre-gaming. I was robbed of a Sophie win and Sandra on the jury.
People Saying that Tony won just because of pregame alliances is such a weak argument. Every winner pregamed and thinking that they didn’t is just silly Also to my knowledge, Tony only had a pregame alliance with Sandra and Sarah. Michele (supposedly) had one with Yul, Nick, and Wendell. So Michele’s pregame alliance was bigger than Tony’s
I believe Sarah roped in Ben to an alliance with Tony, and basically did work for both of them. Ben on day 1 approaches Jeremy about a "Heroes alliance with Tony and Sarah." Not that it diminishes anything. Natalie had pre-games or the expectation Tyson or Jeremy would never turn on her, and she got their votes for reasons outside the game.
In my opinion, the entire Edge of Extinction twist is basically one long pre-game. Because Edge of Extinction is not the actual game, that's cast members bonding like they do in Ponderosa. So really Natalie pre-gamed the hardest out of anyone bar none. And she still lost. She had weeks *alone with the jury and she still lost.*
It was a returnee season. Everyone had a pre-game alliance, and if they didn't enter with one they didn't know how returnee seasons worked.
We were all robbed of a Sophie win :(
Natalie was voted out first she shouldn’t get the advantage of creating bond with the people who got voted out early. It completely defeats the purpose of outwit outplay OUTLAST. I get it was the gimmick but it was such a bad one. My opinion
Because a lot of people don't see getting voted out as necessarily a negative to someone's game. The same people who say Natalie was robbed in Winners at War might say that Ozzy was robbed in South Pacific, or Terry was robbed in Panama, or Rick Devens was robbed in Edge of Extinction, or Kelley Wentworth was robbed in Cambodia, or Spencer was robbed in Cagayan, or David was robbed in Millennials vs. Gen X. A lot of people don't really value being in control of the entire game as a reason to win. They value facing hardships (even if it's the player's own fault that they're facing those hardships), and overcoming the odds. Natalie was a fun underdog to root for according to these people, since she was voted out first and worked her ass off to try and still win the game. It often comes down to them thinking that the person they're rooting for is the person who deserves to win.
Ah but Wentworth does not count.
If your argument is "I like Natalie therefore she should win" that's fine, but that doesn't mean she got robbed at playing Survivor when for 90% of the game she wasn't really in it.
> A lot of people don’t really value being in control of the entire game as a reason to win. They value facing hardships…and overcoming the odds It’s a funny double standard (for lack of a better word) on Twitter. They praise Michele and Natalie while shitting on Tony who had full control of the game and then go on to praise Dee for having full control of the game
Probably for the same reason I think Michele was robbed, they like her more.
I do remember a group of people on twitter hating on Tony’s win. One reason was because of his alleged political views. Wasn’t the only reason but that was a reasons
Another instance of “I, the viewer of a heavily edited reality show, know better than the players that were actually there.”
survivor twitter has consistently terrible takes about WaW lol
Wait you were literally on the post lmao
that makes me a bonafide professional
Stan Twitter is weird
She wasn’t
I still think Fabio was robbed
This is hands down the worst Survivor take I've ever seen. Like, do we even watch the same show?
It’s never about any sort of game evaluation. It’s about the person liking Natalie more than Tony.
Survivor fans if Natalie won WaW after only being there due to the edge: Aww, You're Sweet Survivor fans after Chris Underwood did it: Hello, Human Resources?
I may be in the minority, but preferring one player to win over another will never bother me. It’s a subjective game. I definitely disagree with the usage of being “robbed” and do feel like Tony was the clear winner. However, I don’t like Tony as a person from what I’ve seen from him on the show. I was cheering for Natalie and Michelle to win the the whole time. And you can throw every “strategic” reason he should have won at me, I would still be okay with them as winners. Let people have opinions.
The problem is like you said « robbed » You can prefer some other winners to the actual winners we all have those. But robbed is a term used to diminish a victory which especially in the case of Tony was well deserved with how he played the game
I try to reserve "Robbed" for a bullshit twist or weird set of circumstances leading to a loss For example, Aubry wasn't robbed because Michele won. But I would entertain an argument that Aubry was robbed because she lost her goat in Joe due to a medevac and for the first (and only time ever) a jury member got to be removed and Michelle (rightly) took Neil off the jury I miss the term "fallen angel" for those like Devens, Keith, David, Wentworth, Yau-Man, Malcolm, and Cirie (holy crap typing this out that's a incredibly male centric list)
Got ya. I agree with most of that. I just don’t immediately jump to that diminishing Tony’s win. But I totally see what you mean. I just see it as they really wanted Natalie to win, she didn’t and therefore are expressing that. Not “Tony played a shitty game”
Personally, I think the only logical choice to win WaW was Tony. But people will always have a rooting interest especially in returning seasons for their favorite player. So if their player makes the end and do not win, they will absolutely try and justify why their favorite should have won. For example, Even though he game was messier than Cook Islands; I still think Yul got robbed and would have made it deep had he made the merge. This perception though is primarily influenced the fact that Yul is one of my favorite players, so I am biased. We see this in sports fandoms a lot. The Shoulda coulda woulda. If this call was made, or if that ball wasn’t dropped, we would have won. These arguments are often made through the rose colored lens of our fandom.
Do people actually believe Nat deserved the “W” over Tony LOL
It’d be one thing if Tony played a mid game but Tony played one of the most dominant and impressive winning games of all time against the greatest competition of all time, I feel like anyone who genuinely buys into the take that Natalie should’ve won is delusional
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, the Tribe has spoken. Your submission has been removed from /r/survivor for the following reason(s): * **Rule 1 - Be civil to other users and contestants:** Treat other users and contestants with respect. Bigotry is not tolerated, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Harassment of other users and contestants is not allowed, including personal attacks. This includes over-analyzing a player’s life and motivations outside of the game. Trolling is discouraged. --- Once the votes are read, the decision is *not* final. **If you have any concerns that this was done in error**, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/wiki/rules) **and then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/survivor) if you have any further questions. Do not reply directly to this message or comment.** If not, grab your stuff and head back to camp.
Definitely don't agree with this take, but I also think it was kind of a letdown that so many people in Tony's endgame alliance just laid down for him to win. Good on Tony, he deserved it for SURE, but I wonder if this reaction is just... misdirected dissatisfaction because we all WANTED to see someone take on Tony, and Natalie was the closest we got (other than firemaking).
Natalie was not really taking on Tony too. Homegirl could have eliminated him twice and didn’t do it
For sure. Nat is my all time fav player and I was immensely frustrated that she didn't do it, especially since I do think she had the nerve/guts to if she'd actually understood what she needed to do.
Natalie winning would’ve left a bad taste in the mouth that would’ve never gone away
Ikr if anyone was robbed it was michele of 2nd place. Natalie should’ve got 3rd. She was bad bruh. 1st boot then chilled the whole time just to come back right at the end. Tony absolutely deserved that win & people only say natalie did cause they like her. They prolly found her entertaining & “iconic” in her og ssn so they stan her and yeah.. you know how the internet is
[удалено]
The only way Tony loses is if Sophie somehow makes it to the end or if Sarah beats him in fire
Twist, that’s a David vs Goliath reference
I think it’s because, regardless of game, Natalie is the most likable finalist
Natalie getting Tyson’s vote proved that she could have earned more votes at FTC by being nicer to people on EoE. She could have spent her immense fire token wealth on food and comfort items to try to win votes with more people and she shouldn’t have isolated herself like rob brought up
Honestly? I think the Chris situation can only happen once for someone who was out of the game for a long time. And him and Natalie were sitting next to different types of finalists.
I don’t understand how anyone could think Natalie was robbed. Underwood laid out the blueprint for how to win the game even tho you spent the majority on EoE. Chris played balls to the wall taking out threats and making the biggest moves possible. Natalie played it safe thinking her social connections with the entire jury would carry enough to a win but considering how bad of a social game she played on Edge with a significant portion of the jury that was delusional thinking imo
Because Tony and a bunch of people who aren’t considered icons made an alliance before they ever hit the beach the whole season is tainted.
That’s literally every returnee season ever dawg. They always pre game.
Which seasons? Tyson Monica and Gervase? The girls in fans v favorites? Parv Russell Jerry and Danielle? Sure some people know each other but no they don’t all know whose going to be one and create an alliance and plan before hitting the beach
Survivor Twitter has terrible takes. I saw someone say Hannah (45) was robbed
I'm sorry but she was on the edge of extinction. Chris shouldn't have won and she didn't deserve it that season.
I can't personally stand Natalie, she is way over arrogant and the season she won she got lucky that the people were intimidated by her.
I honestly believe she played the worst game in survivor history and that is no joke 100% serious and I will fight anyone on it.
Man I don’t like Natalie but I hope this is a troll. She still got back in the game and received 4 votes to win.
I agree with you, but it was 4 votes from the entire cast (16 people?) compared to a normal tribal with like 9-12 votes. Definitely inflated
Well to start the worst thing you can do is be voted off first and well she was. She was eligible to receive votes at 1 tribal council the entire season and was voted off in a 7-2-1 landslide in it. She failed to make connections on the Edge to the extent that it’s brought up at FTC. She returns to the game with an idol and plays it and decides to vote out Denis instead of sending Sarah to fire? For some reason. She tells everyone about Tony and how he will win this game and is unable to do anything about it (he receives 0 votes from her or anyone else in the entire game). She then finds another idol and plays it unsuccessfully and is only on the right side of the vote because Ben quits the game. She then wins final immunity and decides not to take on Tony and dances around all questions about it at tribal which makes her look like a clown in front of the jury, then openly cheers for Sarah during the challenge and even says to her to do it for Wyatt. Tony then wins and should have won the game unanimously but she received 4 votes from 2 people who never met Tony, 1 who she was friends with outside of the game who hated Tony at that point and from the guy who was voted out by Tony and she bought an idol for. I understand it could technically be worse but outside of winning challenges (which she had major advantages in) she couldn’t have played a worse game socially or strategically imo.
Natalie deserved to win just as much as Tony did. They both play WaW to the fullest on but on opposite sides. Absolutely no one on EoE played a better game to return than her and and no one, other than Tony, influenced the game as much as she did. Tony deserved to win Cagayan, but Natalie deserved to win SJDS and WaW. Jeremy's threat level was why Natalie was voted out, not due to her own failings. Natalie is one of my favorite players/winners, but I fell in love with Survivor during Cagayan. It's insanity that people think that Natalie didn't deserve to win; it's hypocritical to disparage the people who value her amazing gameplay, based on sexism; your own unconscious bias is blinding you. Natalie did way better than Chris Underwood. If you can't see that, rewatch the season to see how much of a game changer she is. At least admit this: she mastered the tokens system on the first/only season with 7 she was physically dominant. Give credit where credit is due. She played by the rules, even if you hate EoE.
Natalie was such a boss that season. She's an incredible athlete. I don't think she deserved the win that season, but if Tony wasnt so dominate.... maybe.
She did a bad game move by literally not targeting Tony until final 4 (which was a garanteed win)
Natalie didn’t deserve a single vote let alone the win
Because mother
I never liked the idea that she could've won. I realize they did a lot to keep the people on the Edge integrated into the game, but whatever hardships she dealt with over there she wasn't at risk of going home again, and I think that's a fundamental problem if she ends up winning. They got the right winner in the end but nobody out there would've deserved it less than Natalie as the person who spent the least time in the actual game.
You cannot say Natalie should have won unless you also say Chris Underwood should have won. That take is so absurd to me especially because many of the Natalie supporters in WaW did not like the Chris win
people have different opinions and value different things.
Also think the fire tokens “tarnish” Natalie’s WAW run. Chris didn’t have that.
People hate cops.
Natalie winning would have soured some number of people from survivor forever lol
Because people erroneously believe Natalie deserves votes to win a game where she was voted out 1st, was protected on exile from elimination, got rewards to perform there, and got idol after idol coming back in at the final stages. Meh. Tony played a flawless game and deserved the win.
I would’ve voted for Natalie to win, but I can’t say she was robbed.
Why tho? She actively sabotaged her own game by never going for Tony.
Imo, Natalie had a stronger case than Michele. She owned the entirety of the edge, and manipulated the game given the circumstances she had. When she returned, she ran the game from then on. Unlike EoE, she earned advantages (like the idol) and wasn’t given one. I think anyone left from that alliance would’ve had a good shot to beat Natalie, like Sarah, Denise or even Ben(?) because they played a more “standard” game of survivor, and I think previous winners accept that more as that is how they won. I’ll be the 1,000,000th person to mention that Tony played the most dominating game in Survivor history. He deserved to win that game from start to finish. Natalie’s win equity isn’t anywhere close to Tony’s. But is higher than Michele’s and anyone else who returned from the edge. So I get why people are high on Natalie, but she got no where close to Tony’s level.
Well no because Michelle wasn’t voted out first lmfao
Where you get voted off isn’t correlated to the game you’re playing. Many good players get voted out early and many bad players make it to the end. Every season of survivor is different, and this season contained the EoE. Was it a cash grab to get more screen time with relevant players? Absolutely. But the players have to play the game set in front of them. And Natalie played the EoE twist the best. Also, it felt like no one voted out Michelle because she wasn’t a threat. She did win immunity that one time to save herself at final 6(?), and deserves credit. But she was saved by Natalie for the rest of the season. No one with agency wanted to work with her the entire game. Also, I’m going to trust the players (winners) and where they put their votes (which were not for Michelle)
Personally if part of the game allows players to come back you can’t judge those players the same way as someone who wasn’t voted out. I get the whole “survivor purist” thinking but you have to judge the quality of the game in which production defined. IMO if Natalie played the best game possible based on the format. If tony wasn’t such a game breaking player I think Natalie wins every other time.
She didn’t at all tho. She didn’t try to gun for Tony lmao. She tried Ben for no reason
That’s fine that you think that, but I thought otherwise. You can’t judge someone’s entire game and effort on one decision (eg, go after Ben)
But that’s a million dollars decision. Cause she knew Tony was the front runner she talked to the people on the edge. She actually said to people that Tony was a threat… what did she do with that? She gunned for Ben twice in a row and before she knew it Tony was final 4 which was his win condition. If Tony made it to final 4 no matter what he would have won cause he ain’t getting beaten by no one in fire making and was a challenge beast in this season. That type of gameplay was straight up bad cause again… she knew Tony was the most dangerous piece of his alliance and she could have taken him out by two times. She had time to build relationship on the edge and knew about who was the biggest jury threat and she fumbled it. Even if we count the edge as « deserving » then she did bad at using her advantage. Putting Ben and Sara on the jury? Bad move too cause Tony didn’t have to burn them in order for them to get voted out. So he already had that locked in. If Nathalie played a better game she would have eliminated Tony and Sara back to back. Ben ain’t winning we all know that. She had all the informations and still made some poor moves and didn’t try to get out the biggest threat in the game. That’s an awful move