well dj4460 is trolling, and the others are just laughing because the way I put it was dumb and don't understand what the context even is so my bad on that.
Russell did deserve to win Samoa from a strategic standpoint tho
KrisStory He was good at getting to the end, but that's where Russell's skillset ended. He was awful and convincing people to hand him the money, because he was a huge douchebag, and everyone knew it through the way he acted around camp, and the way he treated everyone throughout the competition.
splozojames50 that wasn't apart of his strategy that was a byproduct of his strategy, just as Natalie coat-tailing Russell wasn't apart of her strategy but it just happened because of the way she was playing the game.
dj4460 yeah he didn't play a game that could win, but that doesn't mean he didn't play a good game...
krisstory exactly, if you use a strategy where a "byproduct" is you have close if not 0 chance of winning... how can you argue he played a good game?
"he didn't play a game that could win"
once again... you are admitting that russell blatantly wasnt playing to win yet still defend him as a good player?
natalie was quite aware of her game and was able to correctly identify how to placate russell to get him to not target her and, unlike russell, was able to go out of her way to make sure to make connections with the jury. compare that with what your view of a coat-tail rider who truly had no idea what they were doing aka a natalie tenoreli and there is a big difference.
Refer to my other comment for the first three parts of your comment here splozojames50
In regards to the last part, Natalie didn't have to convince Russell not to target her because he knew that she wouldn't ever target him. In most cases, when someone crossed Russell they were gone. The most awareness she had was that sticking with Russell as his little lapdog would get her to the end. So I applaud her for that, but its not a game that I would respect nor vote for if I was on Survivor.
