in fact I don't think it's unfair to say she's up there with the best. HOWEVER, I strongly believe she is NOT the best player in Survivor history simply because she won twice, which people like to reason. When looking at how good a player is, you CAN NOT base that purely on how well they've placed.
By saying Sandra is the best ever because she has the best track record is simply just flawwed logic. By THAT reasoning, if we wanna base skill on average placement, then:
Will Sims is a better player than Rob Cesternino
Lillian Morris is a better player than Cirie Fields
Denise Martin is a better player than Jonathan Penner
and Clay Jordan is a better player than Ami Cusack
Do you see how this thought process is wildly inaccurate? If you want to make a case for Sandra being a really good player, you have more feasible things to work with than "she won twice"
I don't understand your logic though. None of the people you mentioned have won.
The POINT of the game is to win. She's literally played twice and WON the game twice. The objective is to win and she has done so both times.
What makes anyone a better player than her? I don't even like Sandra and I think Parvati should've won Heroes v Villains but Parvati DIDN'T win. Just because I think Parv deserved it doesn't make Parvati a better player than literally the only person to successfully win the game twice without fail.
Okay but to be fair Jonathan and Ami aren't exactly great players. Penner is a mess of a player and Ami is way too emotionally driven to ever win, which worked for her until it bit her in the ass.
I base a Survivor's skill on how likely they are to make it to the end and win in any given season, but I also like them to have some agency in their own game, which is why it's hard for me to respect winners like Fabio or Bob. Sandra is no long-term master strategist or anything but she's stellar at getting votes at the end and hustling to keep the target off her back, so I think she could make a legitimate claim as the best player, though I don't think it's set in stone.
But realistically Kim Spradlin would never lose a season of Survivor lol.
I usually agree with you. But the winner deserves to win and therefore played the best game and therefore is the best survivor player. The goal is to win plain and simple. Not make it to 4th place or 8th or 15th. Survivor contestants don't get to choose their tribemates or challenges or anything out of their control during a game so they have to manage what is put in front of them which Sandra did better than anyone twice
Whilst I guess it's fair to say that she isn't the ultimate best, I do think it's fair to put her with the best players because I think she is. She is extremely crafty and knows how to get herself into a core of an allaince, also she knows that her weaknesses are her strengths in the game because she is shit at challenges and people keep her sound her for that. But the thing that really puts her up there with the best is her jury management skills. She knows what to tell to each person and how to convince them she is deserves the money effortlessly and it's truly magical to watch. DumbGinger
You can definitely argue thay she's not the best player, but your examples don't make a lot of sense. Will isn't a better player than Rob because Rob would have won the jury vote. Cirie could have won the jury vote too. As others pointed out, the only placement that actually matters is first.
all i know is Sandra is the worst survivor winner in the history boring to watch no fun. sucks @ comps literally gets carried the entire way to win just cause she is a fat minority woman
sandra is fave of mine but she isnt the best