Thursday, June 24, 2010


This past season of Heroes VS Villains on Survivor was one where I dedicated a great deal of posting time to discussing who is possibly the best player ever. With such heavy hitters like Russell Hantz, Boston Rob, Rupert Boneham etc., surely it would be settled once the season ran its course. The only caveat was the absence of original winner Richard Hatch (who you all know I consider the best player ever before the season began due to the fact he wrote the book on how to play the game). Be that as it may, we had our first two-time winner of Survivor when all was said and done as Sandra Diaz-Twine took home the check. So as the only two-time winner I surmised, she had to be considered the best player ever, especially after toppling all of these great All Stars. When I put it to a poll, the results shocked me however. The poll asked now that Sandra became the only two time winner of Survivor in history, is it indisputable that she be considered the best participant ever?

The voting broke down like this:

12 respondents said YES and a whopping 29 said NO!!!!!!!

I have to say I was totally blown away by the hating on Sandra. I know there is a faction out there that feel she flew under the radar or rode coattails etc. Valid points no doubt. However I feel people are missing the big picture here with Sandra and how effective she really in fact was. For starters, she continually avoided the guillotine by putting herself in a position to be the swing vote many times over (in Pearl Islands she was the swing vote almost every time). And when her alliance crumbled in H VS V, she went to Plan B and perservered her way to the end. And on top of it all, her abrasive personality was overlooked as the jury rewarded her twice with the big check. In other words she earned the jury respect which has always been Russell's flaw and what keeps him as a second tier player in the best ever discussion behind the top tier of Richard Hatch, Parvati Shallow, and Sandra in my opinion.

You can say the first time was a fluke but twice is anything but that. I admit that Sandra is not a "sexy" choice to win Survivor and I have no problem with anyone suggesting that Parvati should have won H VS V and thus grabbed the best ever label but facts are facts. Sandra is the only two time winner of the best grueling social/physical game in television and for that she derserves respect for it.

What do you all think? Let's hear the explanations of why she is not the best ever? Who supports my idea????

1 comment:

  1. Results alone dont determine how good a Survivor player you are. If they did then Phillip Sheppard would be a better player than Rob Cesternino. Both played twice and Phillip's results were better both times. Natalie Tenerelli or Sherri Biethmann would be good players just because they were dragged to finals due to sucking and being huge goats.

    Sandra is not the best ever. Not even close. Top 10 probably.