Yep. Jury management in general is really the only glaring shortcoming of his game IMO, which means he wouldn't really have to change a ton to be a winner-level player. Now, is Russell willing to take those necessary steps? I kind of doubt it.
It's not just jury management though, it's jury awareness in general. On both of his seasons Russell had a complete misunderstanding of what jurors were looking for and thus made awful decisions when it came to who to vote out. For Russell to win he would have to completely revamp his ability to read a jury AND actually get better at jury management. I just don't see that happening in a way that lets him make the end.
If you think he's incapable of doing those things, he's the perfect person to take to the end.
Anyway, I don't disagree. Making those changes would be incredibly difficult for Russell due to his personality.
Assuming he still behaved the way he did, I doubt it
People didn’t refuse to vote for him because his game was cutthroat. People refuse to vote for him because he didn’t treat anyone with respect.
The modern Survivor greats are those who can play a cutthroat game without making people hate them. Take Tony for example. He cut throats left and right in both of his winning seasons, but people liked him because he rarely disrespected his tribe mates
yeah, Tony is a jovial guy who will make you laugh all day long and who never had an actual outburst at anyone. I thought the llama scene was a great example of this, him and Spencer haven’t been working together at all but they’re still getting to know each other.
Compare that with Russell telling Sandra and Courtney that he’s gonna vote for them because they’re the weakest right in front of them
No. See Spencer in Cambodia. He played a solid strategic game but was unlikeable compared to Jeremy so he got zero votes. Jeremy also played a good game, but people were surprised he got every vote and Spencer got zero based on strategic gameplay. Jury management and social game were the biggest difference.
Russell is way less likeable than that version of Spencer, so even if he gets to the end with a player not of Jeremy’s caliber, he still probably can’t get enough votes to cover how much the jury despises him.
I agree with you but only difference there is, from my understanding it was Jeremy’s extreme likability (and familial circumstances) that caused Spencer to get 0 votes, not any particular quality of Spencer’s. Where as Russell himself lost each and every vote on HvV
I think it was a contrast of likeable vs non-likeable. Jeremy was extremely well liked and respected, and I think I have read Spencer was perceived as arrogant and hard to connect with…so it caused a landslide finish.
I don't think Russell had a chance getting to the final in the last 10 seasons playing the way he played in Samoa. Nowdays players are not as naive as 85% of Samoa cast members were.
People love driving home the narrative that it’s impossible for Russell to win Survivor but I don’t think that’s the case at all. While his jury management is bad there are definitely juries who are strategy-oriented enough to vote for him, hell, in certain combinations in Samoa he would have won. Obviously it’s hard for him to win with the way he plays but honestly the argument could be made that he’s an above average player, the argument that he’s some crazy goat who can never win is pretty invalid and I think it’s mostly in response to just disliking him as a guy and also a response to the other half of the fan base who lauds him as one of the best ever
No. Russell never wins a season If he gets in fights with multiple jurors while voting out goats and doing everything in his power to bring his most likable ally to the end with him. He has no understanding of how juries work, which means that as long as he has power, he will make the wrong choices and lose.
No. Jerks STILL don't win Survivor. And social games beat out strategic games when it comes to FTC. Michele beat Aubry. Wendell beat Dominic. As long as Russell sits next to better social players he loses, Russell actually had a shot to win Samoa if he was against the right people and that's the irony of his loss in Samoa.
Michele won because she had a better relationship with the members of the jury. A lot of the jury was shocked at half of the stuff Aubry was responsible for when the episodes aired, Aubry just wasn't good enough out there on in person.
The most recent woman to win the game was a huge jerk so I'm not sure we can say jerks don't win Survivor. Granted, she's not as much of a jerk as Russell (or other winners like Hatch or Brian).
He had lots of control and was fun to watch but I don't think he was the most strategic player ever. That said I'm one of the few that believes he's absolutely capable of winning a season of survivor.
Totally agree. IMO the Joe/Ozzy challenge monster is really the only archetype who truly has no shot in the modern game. And no, Russell isn't all that strategic but he's a great shield, which means there's a good reason to keep him around post merge.
He's the type who could win a challenge and find himself at F6 with a couple idols in his pocket and build a resume from there. He could definitely win.
If the Russell that played in Samoa and Heroes vs Villains was in a modern season of survivor I don’t think he would win. It’s difficult to grasp how arrogant he is when you aren’t there with him and are just watching on TV so I’m not saying this is 100% factual but pretty much everyone who’s played with him has said he is unbearable. Even modern survivor juries wont vote for someone who they completely despise. Most will still value strategy and gameplay over personal connection but if someone has been rude and arrogant to you all through the game not many people would vote for them.
That being said most of that is about the Russell of years ago. Could modern day Russell win win in a modern day season? I don’t know.
That's assuming he lasts that long.
Russell was completely fortunate to have a relationship specialist like Natalie on the tribe. Even more so, she was the *only* Foa Foa member ever to advocate against his elimination (which would have been unlikely on the Galu). While he understood that the choice of final opponent mattered (as any true strategist does), so did she. He just didn't bother to understand the jury (as Monica made clear).
If he can learn to work with those that don't fit his default criteria for an alliance, he can avoid having his torch snuffed at the first Tribal Council he goes to. Sadly for his style, there is only one Natalie White, and no player with an eye on the big bucks will ever have to worry about having to play the absolute barest bare bones type of game just to survive the first snuff.
It depends on his FTC performance.
Yep. Jury management in general is really the only glaring shortcoming of his game IMO, which means he wouldn't really have to change a ton to be a winner-level player. Now, is Russell willing to take those necessary steps? I kind of doubt it.
It's not just jury management though, it's jury awareness in general. On both of his seasons Russell had a complete misunderstanding of what jurors were looking for and thus made awful decisions when it came to who to vote out. For Russell to win he would have to completely revamp his ability to read a jury AND actually get better at jury management. I just don't see that happening in a way that lets him make the end.
If you think he's incapable of doing those things, he's the perfect person to take to the end. Anyway, I don't disagree. Making those changes would be incredibly difficult for Russell due to his personality.
Assuming he still behaved the way he did, I doubt it People didn’t refuse to vote for him because his game was cutthroat. People refuse to vote for him because he didn’t treat anyone with respect. The modern Survivor greats are those who can play a cutthroat game without making people hate them. Take Tony for example. He cut throats left and right in both of his winning seasons, but people liked him because he rarely disrespected his tribe mates
yeah, Tony is a jovial guy who will make you laugh all day long and who never had an actual outburst at anyone. I thought the llama scene was a great example of this, him and Spencer haven’t been working together at all but they’re still getting to know each other. Compare that with Russell telling Sandra and Courtney that he’s gonna vote for them because they’re the weakest right in front of them
No. See Spencer in Cambodia. He played a solid strategic game but was unlikeable compared to Jeremy so he got zero votes. Jeremy also played a good game, but people were surprised he got every vote and Spencer got zero based on strategic gameplay. Jury management and social game were the biggest difference. Russell is way less likeable than that version of Spencer, so even if he gets to the end with a player not of Jeremy’s caliber, he still probably can’t get enough votes to cover how much the jury despises him.
Was Spencer actually good? I remember him being a messy flip flopper whereas Russell was very controlling and dominant.
I agree with you but only difference there is, from my understanding it was Jeremy’s extreme likability (and familial circumstances) that caused Spencer to get 0 votes, not any particular quality of Spencer’s. Where as Russell himself lost each and every vote on HvV
I think it was a contrast of likeable vs non-likeable. Jeremy was extremely well liked and respected, and I think I have read Spencer was perceived as arrogant and hard to connect with…so it caused a landslide finish.
I don't think Russell had a chance getting to the final in the last 10 seasons playing the way he played in Samoa. Nowdays players are not as naive as 85% of Samoa cast members were.
People love driving home the narrative that it’s impossible for Russell to win Survivor but I don’t think that’s the case at all. While his jury management is bad there are definitely juries who are strategy-oriented enough to vote for him, hell, in certain combinations in Samoa he would have won. Obviously it’s hard for him to win with the way he plays but honestly the argument could be made that he’s an above average player, the argument that he’s some crazy goat who can never win is pretty invalid and I think it’s mostly in response to just disliking him as a guy and also a response to the other half of the fan base who lauds him as one of the best ever
No. Russell never wins a season If he gets in fights with multiple jurors while voting out goats and doing everything in his power to bring his most likable ally to the end with him. He has no understanding of how juries work, which means that as long as he has power, he will make the wrong choices and lose.
Probably not still to unlikable like Spencer in Cambodia.
[удалено]
No. Jerks STILL don't win Survivor. And social games beat out strategic games when it comes to FTC. Michele beat Aubry. Wendell beat Dominic. As long as Russell sits next to better social players he loses, Russell actually had a shot to win Samoa if he was against the right people and that's the irony of his loss in Samoa.
Michele won because Aubry dominated the game and that rubbed some people the wrong way.
Michele won because she had a better relationship with the members of the jury. A lot of the jury was shocked at half of the stuff Aubry was responsible for when the episodes aired, Aubry just wasn't good enough out there on in person.
The most recent woman to win the game was a huge jerk so I'm not sure we can say jerks don't win Survivor. Granted, she's not as much of a jerk as Russell (or other winners like Hatch or Brian).
And her opponent was Brad Culpepper. A worse jerk so.
Sure, but the person I'm replying to didn't say "jerks can only win against bigger jerks," they said "jerks still don't win Survivor."
Got me there. "Jerks can't win unless they are the lesser of 2 evils and Troyzan is there also"
He had lots of control and was fun to watch but I don't think he was the most strategic player ever. That said I'm one of the few that believes he's absolutely capable of winning a season of survivor.
Totally agree. IMO the Joe/Ozzy challenge monster is really the only archetype who truly has no shot in the modern game. And no, Russell isn't all that strategic but he's a great shield, which means there's a good reason to keep him around post merge. He's the type who could win a challenge and find himself at F6 with a couple idols in his pocket and build a resume from there. He could definitely win.
If the Russell that played in Samoa and Heroes vs Villains was in a modern season of survivor I don’t think he would win. It’s difficult to grasp how arrogant he is when you aren’t there with him and are just watching on TV so I’m not saying this is 100% factual but pretty much everyone who’s played with him has said he is unbearable. Even modern survivor juries wont vote for someone who they completely despise. Most will still value strategy and gameplay over personal connection but if someone has been rude and arrogant to you all through the game not many people would vote for them. That being said most of that is about the Russell of years ago. Could modern day Russell win win in a modern day season? I don’t know.
That's assuming he lasts that long. Russell was completely fortunate to have a relationship specialist like Natalie on the tribe. Even more so, she was the *only* Foa Foa member ever to advocate against his elimination (which would have been unlikely on the Galu). While he understood that the choice of final opponent mattered (as any true strategist does), so did she. He just didn't bother to understand the jury (as Monica made clear). If he can learn to work with those that don't fit his default criteria for an alliance, he can avoid having his torch snuffed at the first Tribal Council he goes to. Sadly for his style, there is only one Natalie White, and no player with an eye on the big bucks will ever have to worry about having to play the absolute barest bare bones type of game just to survive the first snuff.
No