Uh what? She's easily played one of the better games and she's had the confessional about bonding with Nina, she got strategic airtime the last episode, and explained it perfectly to Nina at TC too.

I couldn't care less about Nina, so bonding with her does nothing for me. That's what I am getting to in that I don't care about either side of the engagements, so it's all a blur of boring. 

Ironically floaters like Natalie White, A massively better player, beat him. I hope you don't have this opinion that OTT/aggressive strategies are the only good ones?

Natalie didn't beat him. She was just the only person there not named Russell. She is easily the  least deserving winner in the history of the game as she did nothing to win beyond showing up.

No remembers her as, "Natalie White...winner of Survivor Samoa!"

Instead it is "Natalie White: Uh...wasn't that the person who won that season Russell Hantz was on with the bitter jury? Not sure. Very forgettable..."

That said, I don't necessary need an aggressive personality to like a season. I just need likable people who are not ***********************. Last season had all sorts of stuff going on comparatively. I could have gone 18 different ways. This season, nada.

I guess it's too bad you're not into the castaways then, but saying she only had that one scene about suring or whatever isn't correct.

Right, except Mick was there as well and Natalie stole the win right from under him. Yeah,t hat's how she's remembered because they edited her win as such, not because she didn't control the merge vote or form strong bonds or play an elite social game. A few female wins are edited as how the man lost too (see Denise/Sophie/Sandra to a lesser extent). She's nowhere near the worst when Yul and Parvati lucked out with the f3/f2 twists or Cochran who played with 9 of his friends and a joke of a Fans tribe or Bob, who benefited from Sugar's insanity. It's very ignorant and just wrong tos ay she did nothing aside show up.

Honestly rereading the Samoa/HvV threads are tough because it shows people have a lack of understanding of how survivor works. I actually wouldn't mind engaging in this debate with you about Natalie/Sandra's wins because you seemed to be the most insistent that they didn't deserve their wins and somehow people are expected to not vote eprsonally when that's what's happened every season?

Uh what? She's easily played one of the better games and she's had the confessional about bonding with Nina, she got strategic airtime the last episode, and explained it perfectly to Nina at TC too.

I couldn't care less about Nina, so bonding with her does nothing for me. That's what I am getting to in that I don't care about either side of the engagements, so it's all a blur of boring. 

Ironically floaters like Natalie White, A massively better player, beat him. I hope you don't have this opinion that OTT/aggressive strategies are the only good ones?

Natalie didn't beat him. She was just the only person there not named Russell. She is easily the  least deserving winner in the history of the game as she did nothing to win beyond showing up.

No remembers her as, "Natalie White...winner of Survivor Samoa!"

Instead it is "Natalie White: Uh...wasn't that the person who won that season Russell Hantz was on with the bitter jury? Not sure. Very forgettable..."

That said, I don't necessary need an aggressive personality to like a season. I just need likable people who are not ***********************. Last season had all sorts of stuff going on comparatively. I could have gone 18 different ways. This season, nada.

U completely agree, people try and act like Natalie played Russell and was a good player. She was a face in the crowd.

She completely played Russell, hence her win and his loss (and then loss again).

I have to agree that this season so far isnt all that exciting but it's still the beginning..That can all change.

And Natalie wasn't just a face in the crowd..She did things that helped her get the win. Russell is an idiot and doesn't know how to play the game at all.

She completely played Russell, hence her win and his loss (and then loss again).

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and no one is buying your revisionist history. Don't take my word for it. Just google it. Just about every list out there has her as one of the worst winners in Survivor history, if not the worst. There are none that have her outside of the 5 worst that I have found. She is a concensus choice for being horrible. 

First page of google results...

example

example

example

example

No matter how much you want to spin it, Natalie wasn't a mastermind. She just tripped and fell into a bitter jury that had to pick a winner who wasn't Russell. 

Lol at revising anything when people who werre actually there know more than any of us since, uh THEY WERE THERE. We see 42 minutes a week of 3 days, that's like 1 percent of what actually goes down, how the hell would we know based off ane dit that they cancraft anyway they deem fit? There's a lot left out in an edit because it doesn't go with the story they want): Tony built relationships and was extremely social yet we saw almost none of it, Missy apparently was very cold to the outsiders and even belittled Reed over being gay, Ciera wanted to flip at f8 on Tyson and then send her mom out at 7, the list is never-ending. The fact that you don't get this blows my mind.

Yeah those people all also seem people like Parvati good winners, in fact let's discuss each of this links in how they talk about Natalie:

"she loses major points because going into the Final Tribal Council, not one single person from that jury was even planning on voting for White (they were split between Hantz and apparently feckless Dr Mick)"

Uh yeah, not true at all. Jury was never split as Russell was always gonna lose and only get two votes, Natalie just stole the votes from udner him. Inaccurate info.

"Natalie didn't do much throughout the entire season"

Formed strong bonds, was extremely aware, and had an excellent FTC.

"However, this was really the only impressive thing she contributed throughout the season, the rest of the vote-offs were the handiwork of Russell."

Lol what? No, premerge was all a group decision (Marissa being too aggressive, Betsy being weak in all aspects, Ben being a ******) and then merge Shambo was flipping as soon as Laura had no immunity, Fincher flipped because of Shambo, rest was a pagonging.

I won't even touch that Oz list when JT is in the bottom 10, like what? All these lists show to be lacking in actual understanding in how the game works: control means nothing if you use it build a jury that hates you, manipulation means nothing you're a ****** to people, and so on. The fact that you think "wow all these articles agreeing that she sucks means it must be true" is baffling. I'm not even arguing that she's top 10 because we have JT, Tom, Denise, Tina, Richard, Brian, Danni, Earl, Natalie A, Tony, and so on but she's far from the worst for reasons I've stated.

It's sad that the fanbase still doesn't get why Russell lost and why Natalie won.

Looking at the vast consensus, it would seem your are the only one that doesn't get it. And it makes no difference to me. You are free to fill you fantasy world with whatever "facts" you chose. It won't alter reality in any way.