
Originally Posted by
ironcat;3905490; The show and reunion were really illuminating as far as Russell's problem, what it takes to win Survivor as the game stands now, and why he never will.
Russell's argument that Sandra had a failed strategy because all her attempts to take him out went for naught was incorrect; it was exactly this strategy that won her every hero's vote and ultimately the million. But since Russell has no understanding or appreciation for the end game, I'm not surprised that he can't comprehend this fact. He's like a golfer who can drive the ball the farthest and hit the green with his first shot every time, but can't sink a putt to save his life. It's a talent, but not enough to win a tournament as the rules stand. I also find it hysterical that now he wants to change the rules of the game to eliminate the part that he has no skills in, in order to win, rather than try to develop those skills and have a complete game. And of course it never occurs to him that if his competitors also didn't need to play with consideration of a jury, they too could be as ruthless and unrestricted in their style as he is with similar results.
As others have stated, playing "under the radar" and "riding coattails" are two distinct strategies, not the same. Sandra is an expert at the UTR one for sure. If you are atrocious at the physical challenges, which she is, it is probably the only successful way to play this game.
I also supect that they had Russell do 2 different PI's about the results of his first game, one speaking as if he'd won, and the other as if he'd lost, and then just edited in the one that applied. Jeff said in an interview that he thought Russell believed he had won in Samoa, and considering he only made a pretty cursory blanket "apology" at FTC to account for all his unsavory actions, I think he would have tried to do more (albeit badly) if he was absolutely sure they had cost him the earlier game.
I was disappointed that Russell won the fan award, but with Rupert getting second place, ultimately not surprised. It shows that each of them still have enough rabid supporters to put them ahead of the pack, although if the vote was for the most detested player instead, I suspect these two would also finish in possibly the same order. It certainly is no indication that the majority of viewers like or respect Russell, or think he deserved to win. Also, I wonder if his supporters would still feel that way about him if they were out there with him, tired, starving and being mistreated and taunted by his "entertaining personality", instead of watching him from their comfy couch eating a bowl of popcorn (which is exactly why having the fans vote for the winner changes the game into something completely different).