Aus Survivor: Blood v Water, Ep 9

Will the winner this season be either a male or female?

  • Male

    Votes: 8 72.7%
  • Female

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Total voters
    11

D Space

Well-Known Member
Pity Sam isn't in it for a double whammy.
Hopefully Mark is the main one. After that I wouldn't care much if Croc went.
I don't mind Nina but they can't let her get too far into the game, she's very controlling like her mother.
Plenty of time to get rid of Nina. I’d go as far as keeping her until final 5, as opposed to players like Mel,Dave, Jordan, Jordie, Michelle etc
 

sav0001

Well-Known Member
Ad for next week is saying 3 major players are booted etc.

It showed 5 players. I can only remember 3.

Nina, Croc & I think Khahn, I think Mark was shown.

Chrissy was also shown. I think Khahn, Croc and Nina will go next week.
 

kxk

SAPIOSEXUAL
Did they dump Amy? Just going by adds, as I decided to dump Survivor, well watching every episode
This lot are boring
Khan is the only one I like, plus maybe a dash of chrissie

I am obsessed with Killing Eve instead, watching series 1-3 as many times as I can until 4 comes 27Feb
 

Brekkie

Moderator
Staff member
This is where the show being so formulaic really doesn't help if they don't get off to the strongest of starts as viewers think they know exactly how it will pan out rather than tuning in to find out how it does pan out.

Fair play to producers though for letting Sandra go and being honest with the format, the contestants and the viewers rather than conveniently having her find out she was off the Survivor Attic after producers knew she'd been voted out. Personally though as someone who has never watched the US version I found her reputation much more interesting than her to watch. Had I not known her history she'd have just been another obvious early boot. For me Nina is much more interesting to watch as at least her strategy is to play, not sit on the sidelines.
 

Zcsund1234

Well-Known Member
Personally though as someone who has never watched the US version I found her reputation much more interesting than her to watch. Had I not known her history she'd have just been another obvious early boot. For me Nina is much more interesting to watch as at least her strategy is to play, not sit on the sidelines.
To be honest her reputation is over rated by a lot of fans in my opinion. She kind of snuck her way through to the end of her first win and won against the runner-up who was someone voted out and had returned. And then in Heroes vs Villains where she wins again she was lucky in the sense that amongst all twenty players she had the longest time between seasons (13 seasons or 6.5 years) so no one was very focused on her in comparison to the likes of Parvati, Cirie, Boston Rob and even Amanda who were all very over exposed by this point.

Both of her winning games are very lacklustre, she is more just a very fun character. Her 3rd and 4th appearances she was in a semi-good position but she will never make it past a swap or merge again simply because of her being Sandra the two time winner. She can't win immunity and with the final 4 in survivor US now having the compulsory fire making challenge she has has absolutely no shot at ever making it to FTC again.
 

Meglos

HAVE A NECTARINE, GONK
To be honest her reputation is over rated by a lot of fans in my opinion. She kind of snuck her way through to the end of her first win and won against the runner-up who was someone voted out and had returned. And then in Heroes vs Villains where she wins again she was lucky in the sense that amongst all twenty players she had the longest time between seasons (13 seasons or 6.5 years) so no one was very focused on her in comparison to the likes of Parvati, Cirie, Boston Rob and even Amanda who were all very over exposed by this point.

Both of her winning games are very lacklustre, she is more just a very fun character. Her 3rd and 4th appearances she was in a semi-good position but she will never make it past a swap or merge again simply because of her being Sandra the two time winner. She can't win immunity and with the final 4 in survivor US now having the compulsory fire making challenge she has has absolutely no shot at ever making it to FTC again.
She is a good character, but really isn't the Queen of Survivor. That title belongs to Parvati.
 

Zcsund1234

Well-Known Member
She is a good character, but really isn't the Queen of Survivor. That title belongs to Parvati.
100% agree. Parvati is the rightful winner of Heroes vs Villains and had there not been out of show bias against her she would have been the two time winner. Parvati is the GOAT of Survivor and I will literally fight this until my last waking breath.
I love Parvarti. That twinkle in her eye, and her ability to wrap any man around her little finger is just a joy to watch.
So true. She is a true manipulation queen. Her ability to spin men silly out of their minds is phenomenal and the fact she wasn't the first boot on winners at war is still puzzling to me. She is still the only person in Survivor history to make it to FTC twice as a returnee player and still has the best track record over a three season stint. She killed that middle era of Survivor to the point of people fearing her for merely existing.
I take it both times she won she had to be taken to the final.
The first time she kind of found herself at the end. She started off in the merge with the majority but then ended up out of the loop after her closest ally was blindsided. She was able to sneak through a few rounds as she wasn't threatening and sucked at challenges. During the later stages she threw her last remaining ally under the bus to spare herself and then aligned with the remaining females to where she was taken to the end as Jonny FairPlay (unsure if you've heard of him) was seen as the bigger threat at the final 3.

In Heroes vs Villains she got lucky the Villains had the numbers at the merge and Russell, who was a very cunning player, viewed her as an easy beat and he was essentially controlling the game and decided she would join him in the F3 as no one would vote for her. However, she had better relationships with the heroes on the jury so she ended up accidentally winning.

Both times she didn't win final immunity and was taken the end by the immunity winner as they perceived her as the smaller threat. However, both times her opponents were unable to manage the jury enough to steal votes off Sandra. The only reason her first win was not unanimous is because one person simply did not want to give her the unanimous victory. She won twice because she played really passively and didn't piss the jury members off as much as the other finalists. She is by no means a bad player but she isn't the legend Jeff Probst, CBS and the survivor community make her out to be.
 

beardymac

john might've been the walrus, but paul was a cat
they perceived her as the smaller threat.
not true. Lill took Sandra over Fairplay because she would rather have given the million to a mother than to have it disappear up Fairplay's nose.
Russell took Sandra over Jerri because Russell sucks at jury management.

Also "out-of-show" bias didn't do Parvati in in HvV. It was the fact that she and Russell would scamper down to the beach every night to re-read JT's letter and basically rub salt in the wounds of all the Heroes. Again, terrible jury management.
 

Zcsund1234

Well-Known Member
not true. Lill took Sandra over Fairplay because she would rather have given the million to a mother than to have it disappear up Fairplay's nose.
Russell took Sandra over Jerri because Russell sucks at jury management.
It's been a while since I've watched Peal Island so fair, but in HvV Russell and Sandra literally have a conversation about him wanting to take her because he doesn't think she'll get a vote to which she has her iconic "I don't know about thatttt" confessional. He wanted Jerri's jury vote as well, but Sandra was going to be taken by him ultimately because he was not worried by her. For him it was a matter of do I betray Parvati or not.

I don't solely think Parvati's loss is due to how she treated the heroes. It is a large part of it I can't deny that, especially how she treated Rupert. Apparently there was some unsettled jealousy from Amanda's end but also who knows whats true. Parvati's jury management wasn't perfect in HvV but there is no way Sandra deserved that win over her I will never jump on that ship. So whilst Parvati did fuck up in that regard it isn't like Sandra was an amazing social player in that season either, as she isolated Danielle and Jerri for a lot of the season. I don't like the idea of praising Sandra as the deserving winner for a neutral jury management style over Parvati's negative one.

What I meant about Sandra being taken to the end was also about the series overall not so much just the final immunity winner. She managed to float to the end game both times and no one was majority threatened by her at all. Sure, you can credit her for that but for the most part her game relies on riding other people's coattails. She rarely ever controlled votes and the whole "anyone but me" thing is such an after thought, she never once said that in her first two seasons. It wasn't until the Christa vote in Pearl Islands where she was willing to throw an ally under the bus.
 

beardymac

john might've been the walrus, but paul was a cat
It's been a while since I've watched Peal Island so fair, but in HvV Russell and Sandra literally have a conversation about him wanting to take her because he doesn't think she'll get a vote to which she has her iconic "I don't know about thatttt" confessional.

I don't solely think Parvati's loss is due to how she treated the heroes.

If you listen to podcasts/interviews outside the game rather than just watching the edited show, you'd see what I'm getting at with Parv losing the Heroes votes.

The "Russ sucks at jury management" is basically that Russ thought he could put Jerri on the jury and still have her vote for him, and she probably would've if he hadn't been so brazen in his treatment of her when she was heading out the door / his FTC performance, which swayed her to Parv.

Also the concept of "deserving/undeserving winners" in Survivor is bullshit, imo. The rules are that the jury can vote for whoever they want to and for whatever reason they want to. It has always been that way, and so there are no undeserving winners. You can make the argument that a different jury would have voted a different way, but then you're making an argument akin to "if I had wheels, I would be a wagon".
 

Zcsund1234

Well-Known Member
If you listen to podcasts/interviews outside the game rather than just watching the edited show, you'd see what I'm getting at with Parv losing the Heroes votes.

I have, I’m an avid RHAP fan as well. I already knew what you were getting at with Parvati losing, I never disagreed that didn’t play in. I just don’t think Amanda and or Candice was willing to give Parvati a second win in general. Parvati is clearly at fault with not distancing herself from Russell, but she played the better game in my opinion. We can go on about how Parvati mocked the heroes, sandra wasn’t exactly an angel to all of the villains.

Courtney and Rupert and possible Colby more than likely vote for her if Sandra isn’t included in the final. Now obviously the reality is that’s the way it happened and she lost. But Parvati had no way of being able to control Sandra not making it there. She wanted Sandra out at 4 but that ultimately came down to Russell. Parvati had to earn her way to the end, Sandra got lucky.

You can give credit to Sandra in the sense that socially she was able to float and manage her threat level, but she did nothing actively to actually get to her second win. It was more anti Russell and Parvati than pro Sandra. I don’t think she’s an undeserving winner, she’s just overrated and blown up to be something she’s not. Anyone who won twice would have been. Parvati is the better player and the queen of survivor. Sandra is the luckiest.
 
Top