that, when it comes to Survivor, placement really isn't a good indication of how good a player is. I think it's very much possible for a pre-merger to be a better player than a finalist. I mean, think of it this way-
Say you and a group of people are tasked with building a structure out of popsicle sticks and glue. To win this task, your structure has to reach a certain height and remain standing at that height for 20 seconds or so.
One person in this group just like glues a bunch of sticks together in an almost straight line, forming one long stick of sorts. Yeah it's going to reach that height requirement easily (making finals), but since he neglected the very basics of structure building, it's never going to work. It's just going to crumble and you're not going to win.
Maybe you take a much more practical and safe approach. You make a very strong base, lots of support, and you're coming along with a very stable little building. Everything is coming along very nicely, and it's looking like you could make it, but someone ends up finishing just like a minute before you do. You didnt take the prize this time, but you knew what you were doing and maybe under different circumstances youd have gotten it.
Would you really say the first person is a better builder than you?
I really just don't think you can take something as black and white as placements to determine how good a player is, Survivor is way too subjective for that, way too many factors in play.
I do think your placing indicates how good of a player you are, most of the time. You get thrown onto an island with a bunch of strangers. Sometimes the group is perfect for certain people, their style of playing the game suits that group very well. In a different season they might've done worse. However, I think most players who got good placings, were able to ADAPT to the group of people surrounding them. Which is one of the biggest factors in Survivor.
Sure, players pre-merge have a lot of potential, they just aren't fast enough to adapt to their environment which leads to their downfall. In later seasons they learn from that, and do better.
I agree with Juliann
Adaptability is probably the best trait to have for Survivor
While I wouldn't say all premergers are bad at the game, they just weren't really able to adapt to the circumstances that happened. I know many end up in a position where there seems to be nothing for them to get out of it but usually that's because they put themselves in that position.
juliannbowling4fun Oh yeah I definitely agree with a lot of that. I mean it'd be very ignorant to say that placements mean nothing whatsoever, and adaptability is a very important trait in a Survivor player. However there will always be that huge aspect of luck. I mean, you swap onto a new tribe, 5-2 in the old OT's favor and you lose the next 2 immunities, there's really only so much you can do. Maybe there's a crack in that 5, but assuming those 5 aren't stupid you're really just at the end of your rope. I think there are just too many factors to look at Survivor skill as objectively as placements.
DumbGinger totally agree, that's why you can't definitively say who's a good player, too many things go into it. Obviously there are people who are considered generally good and generally bad but also the fact that we see like 15-17 hours out of a 39 day game is way too little to truly determine the ability of a player
She was better than 90% of the shitholes that made merge