Okay so here's my beef, I hate when people refuse to acknowledge a winner as the best(at least for their season).
Survivor is a very interesting game, that really allows for any given person to win, we've seen this throughout 24 seasons. People of all ages, races, sizes, gender, sexual orientation, etc have won Survivor.
The key factor that determines the winner is an individuals ability to adapt. You have to play the season that your playing, and sometimes going hard and being a great strategist or physical player is not enough. It is easy to make it to the finals of Survivor, it is not easy to win Survivor.
The thing every winner has in common is they adapted to their season, they we're able to read how the game is going and go from there; the object of the game is not to make it to the finals, but to make it to the finals and get the jury to vote for you in the end. If you fail to do that, in my opinion you failed at a very crucial part of the game. Boston Rob learned his lesson in All Stars and was able to play better in Redemption Island.
To me any player that has had the torch snuffed clearly did something wrong. If you want to argue and try saying that a person did nothing so they are not a good player, go ahead, my point is, sometimes to win Survivor doing nothing is the best strategy, look at Sandra, are you going to tell me she accidentally won twice?
I know it sucks to hear, but sometimes in Survivor you win by letting someone else fuck up, its shitty as a fan to watch that happen, but hey, they get the title of Sole Survivor and $1,000,000(that they pay taxes on) so who was the better player, the person cashing the check or the person whining about how they were the best and should have won?
PS If the fans voted on the winner than Survivor would be a completely different game than it is, and yes maybe some of the "best players to have never won" could have won; but that's not the way Survivor is played. Just cause you can win checkers, doesn't mean your good at chess.
