Board 8 > darkx counts down the 20 greatest Survivor players of all time

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shoutout to @Peridiam for getting me thinking about this for the past few weeks. Actually I've been thinking a lot over the past year who I would put on such a list, but especially over the past week or so I've really been inspired to make a definitive list.

Over 500 individuals have played Survivor over the past 17 years, so to be isolated even in a top 20 list they had to have really done something special. I was going to do a top 10, then a top 15, but I ended up extending to 20. I had it narrowed down to 24 players - 18 winners, and 6 people who haven't won. The four people that I ended up cutting were all non-winners, so this list is dominated 18-2 by winners, as it probably should be.

Also, I should point out that I'm basing this list on a person's entire Survivor career, not just their best game/finish. That's not to say that I'm going to automatically knock a winner for getting picked off early in an All-Star season, but it's going to be about context. Did they play the same game and couldn't repeat its success, or did they try something new that didn't work out? Additionally, people who didn't win on their first try aren't automatically getting knocked down either. Again, depending on the circumstances, it can be impressive to learn from your mistakes and come back a few years later and hit a grand slam.

tag
---

Do you plan to reveal the 4 that were cut?
---

Great_Paul posted...

Do you plan to reveal the 4 that were cut?

Maybe. What I'll say is this - there was something specific about those four that made me cut them over the two non-winners that I kept.

20. Danni Boatwright
WINNER of Survivor: Guatemala

Guatemala is one of those seasons that time seems to have forgotten. It rarely gets talked about by the fanbase and has been noticeably lacking in returnee representation, being one of only two seasons that has not had any of its debut castaways return for a second game. Personally I think it's an upper-tier season with an amazing cast and a lot of great highlights. How fitting is it then that its winner is of the "silent but deadly" type? Over the course of Guatemala, Danni was very quiet in the game because she was almost always aligned with big dominant male personalities who ate up airtime and went head-to-head in challenges. But she always kept herself in the discussion of big decisions and was arguably the strongest woman in challenges, so when the men started to whittle down in numbers, suddenly she was the most powerful player in the game. Even more impressive is that she did this with her back against the wall. With her entire alliance wiped out, she charged into the cracks in the majority and with a couple of well-timed immunity wins, got herself to the end with someone who had pissed off most of the jury and won it. The big thing I'm missing from Danni is a "smoking gun" so to say. Some big move that says "THAT right there is why I'm one of the best." Maybe it's because she IS a quiet player, arguably the quietest on this list. But just that last little spark to really shine might have gotten her a lot higher here.

Convincing Rafe, the alliance leader, to betray Judd, Cindy and Lydia for her is a pretty big, baller move.
---

Inviso posted...

Convincing Rafe, the alliance leader, to betray Judd, Cindy and Lydia for her is a pretty big, baller move.

It's pretty good. She was very good at finding cracks in that alliance for sure.

Tag. Ya go my Francesca.
---

19. Tony Vlachos
WINNER of Survivor: Cagayan
19th place on Survivor: Game Changers

And thus we transition immediately from one of the quietest winners ever to arguably the loudest and most abrasive. Tony played a hell of a game in Cagayan for sure. Despite not winning a single immunity challenge, he dominated strategically with bold moves that included blindsides, immunity idols, betrayals, and an overall intimidating presence that got him one jury vote away from a clean sweep in the only final 2 in the modern era. There's not much more I can say about how he played. We all saw it, we all know it, we all love it. The biggest question is probably why is Tony so low? I've always called Tony a "high risk, high reward" player. His style paints a gigantic target on his own back from start to finish. As well as he played in Cagayan, it's a wonder that he never got voted out, right up to the end where Woo made one of the dumbest moves ever and took him to the end. And hell, even the jury could have been a Samoa-type one that didn't respect the way he treated others. He could have lost at any point and it would have been entirely his own fault. Case and point - Game Changers. He played exactly the same as he did before and lost not because of his reputation, but because he pissed off the wrong person and they came back with a vengeance. It says a lot that almost everyone saw this coming too. When I look at a lot of the one-time winners, I question, "could they repeat this performance?" Before he returned, my answer with Tony was a hard "no." And I was right.

Tina "Hot" Wesson #1

kateee posted...

Tina "Hot" Wesson #1

Tina was better than most people give her credit for, but she's not gonna get anywhere close to #1.
---

Tag
---

Tag!

Underleveled posted...

Inviso posted...

Convincing Rafe, the alliance leader, to betray Judd, Cindy and Lydia for her is a pretty big, baller move.

It's pretty good. She was very good at finding cracks in that alliance for sure.

Why he bought that is beyond me. All three of them would've been people he could just annihilate at the final two.

Judd would've been like "I played this game like a crocodile, man. I voted you guys out just to further myself, man. I'm Juddman, man."
Cindy would have been like "Hi guys, I'm so thankful to have played Survivor with you, I won a car, I love nature, I got to play Survivor, I won a car, uh...."
And Lydia would have talked about pancakes because she was just a sheep.

Rafe went to the end with two of the most serious players. Danni is a highly underrated winner, and that's probably because she was so dodgy in her confessionals that she had to be more quietly edited. She explained this was part of her strategy, so Probst wouldn't know what she was doing so he wouldn't ask her leading or revealing questions at Tribal. While that's brilliant, it doesn't make for good TV. I do wish she had come back for Game Changers (since she was on the shortlist).

And, having just rewatched Cagayan, I can definitely appreciate Tony. So entertaining and polarizing... and a fantastic player despite being so erratic. He built the necessary bonds early in Cagayan, even if he swore on his badge and family frequently, but he betrayed his bonds in Game Changers too early. You do not betray Queen Sandra and live to tell the tale. The circumstances of a Tony repeat performance require so many specifications that are nigh impossible. People are looking out for Tony types - and it's why Joe Mena isn't trusted. That, and he's just a wannabe that's nowhere near as good as Tony.
---

18. Cirie Fields
4th place on Survivor: Exile Island
3rd place on Survivor: Micronesia
17th place on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains
6th place on Survivor: Game Changers

Very few people have as impressive a Survivor resume as Cirie. She's one of only four people, and the only woman, to play four times. She's played for the second-most days, only behind Ozzy. Aside from a hiccup in Heroes vs. Villains, she's made it to the season finale every time. She has never been voted out by normal means - a tie, a surprise final 2, an idol, and four idols at once. And she's done this without ever winning an immunity challenge or possessing an immunity idol that she could legally play. Really on paper the only thing missing from her resume is a win. So what is it that's holding her back? I could say luck, but really aside from the surprise final 2 in Micronesia she didn't lose to luck, and even then you could argue that she had the same opportunity to win that final immunity as Amanda and Parvati. You could say it's that she's played a similar game all four times and hasn't changed anything up, but again, aside from a bump in HvV, it's always gotten her deep into the game, so why change what consistently works? Maybe it is her inability to win challenges or find idols, and to be fair, that is a huge part of the game, hence why I have her way down here. I'd usually say, if you can play four times and not win, it's time to pack it in, but in any of those three seasons where Cirie had made it near the end, if she had gone to the finals she would have swept the jury vote. I think she is capable of winning, but there's just something holding her back.

"She's one of only four people, and the only woman, to play four times."

What originality in your writing.

Oh good my first ignore with this account.

17. Rob Cesternino
3rd place on Survivor: The Amazon
15th place on Survivor: All-Stars

Yeah so here it is. I consider Rob Cesternino to be the best player who has never won, as I think a good portion of people do. The kid came into Amazon as a student of the game who then became a teacher to a group of incompetents. In fact, his biggest strength became his own downfall - his students learned from him so well that they used everything he taught them to get him out at the last second. That in an of itself is like, the ultimate compliment and slap in the face at the same time. Make no mistake about it, if Rob had gone to the final two he would have won, whether it was against Matt or Jenna, and they all knew it. The kid really did run that game. He was the mastermind behind virtually every vote. He always roped in the swing vote. He was one of the first people ever to turn the vote AGAINST the swing vote. He knew when to be the big voice and when to step back and let the alphas eat each other. And even though he wasn't a challenge dominator by any means, mental challenge or not, he does have an immunity under his belt, which is more than a lot of great players can say. Given that Rob still watches and anazlyses the show, I would love to see him return in a modern season. The question is, is his knowledge going to benefit him and finally get him that W, or is it going to be a repeat of All-Stars where everyone knows he's a threat and gets him out early?

I don't think Rob should be the highest non-winner. I mean, Jenna Morasca had a decent chance of beating him in the finals. Jenna Frickin' Morasca.
---

Inviso posted...

I don't think Rob should be the highest non-winner. I mean, Jenna Morasca had a decent chance of beating him in the finals. Jenna Frickin' Morasca.

Deena, Butch and Matt all definitely vote for Rob in that scenario. Heidi and Alex vote for Jenna. Christy probably means for Rob to win, so depending on whether or not she truly misunderstood the voting instructions, it may or may not come down to Dave, and I'd like to think he votes for Rob.

Deena definitely votes for Jenna. Deena was a big girl power warrior, and Rob outright betrayed her. It DOES come down to Dave unless Christy fucks up again. But Dave was rivals with Rob and Dave liked Jenna.
---

Jenna betrayed Deena as well, and Deena was never a big Jenna fan to begin with. Maybe she doesn't DEFINITELY vote for Rob but I'm leaning that way.

I just think that you have to remember, up until this point in Survivor history, the gameplay had been pretty standard. Form an alliance, stick with that alliance, Pagong the opposition, hope you're at the core of the alliance when it comes time to turn on each other. Rob flipping back and forth was revolutionary and awesome for viewers at home. BUT, that's looking at it from a viewer perspective. The players out in the Amazon haven't seen the show. They haven't been exposed to an edit that paints Rob has amazing and the best player ever (something I'm sure helped future winners moving forward, seeing strategy and backstabbing glorified rather than vilified). No, the players watching the season just know that this smartass kid fucked them over again and again for seemingly no reason (seemingly, because he didn't stick with the tried and true Survivor format.) I could easily see a sizable portion of the jury being super-bitter towards Rob if he's in the finals, especially against Jenna.
---

I do find it interesting that we are at least debating this though, because the particular reason why I kept Rob and Cirie and nixed the other four is because those two still do have that "what if" plaguing our minds, and it's a lot easier to make a case that they could have/should have won but got voted out at the last second, as opposed to four people who sat in front of the jury and flat-out lost.

Underleveled posted...

I do find it interesting that we are at least debating this though, because the particular reason why I kept Rob and Cirie and nixed the other four is because those two still do have that "what if" plaguing our minds, and it's a lot easier to make a case that they could have/should have won but got voted out at the last second, as opposed to four people who sat in front of the jury and flat-out lost.

Oh yeah. If you make the finals and lose, we have enough people who've won the show that you cannot consider a losing finalist one of the top 20 best ever to player.
---

Inviso posted...

Underleveled posted...

I do find it interesting that we are at least debating this though, because the particular reason why I kept Rob and Cirie and nixed the other four is because those two still do have that "what if" plaguing our minds, and it's a lot easier to make a case that they could have/should have won but got voted out at the last second, as opposed to four people who sat in front of the jury and flat-out lost.

Oh yeah. If you make the finals and lose, we have enough people who've won the show that you cannot consider a losing finalist one of the top 20 best ever to player.

Unless of course they are both a losing finalist AND a winner in separate seasons. Maybe ;)

Underleveled posted...

Inviso posted...

Underleveled posted...

I do find it interesting that we are at least debating this though, because the particular reason why I kept Rob and Cirie and nixed the other four is because those two still do have that "what if" plaguing our minds, and it's a lot easier to make a case that they could have/should have won but got voted out at the last second, as opposed to four people who sat in front of the jury and flat-out lost.

Oh yeah. If you make the finals and lose, we have enough people who've won the show that you cannot consider a losing finalist one of the top 20 best ever to player.

Unless of course they are both a losing finalist AND a winner in separate seasons. Maybe ;)

I don't think either player to whom that statement applies is all that great.
---

it's definitely not boston rob

since it took literally an entire season of zombie sycophants for him to finally win
---

For a second I forgot there were two people that have done that. And the one I forgot is probably not the one you thought I forgot.

Note that has nothing to do with either of them being on the list, just when I made my statement I had Parvati in mind and totally forgot that it applied to Rob as well.

Parvati played a fantastic game in HvV, but couldn't shake that the Heroes saw her as "Mrs. Hantz." She needed to vote Russell out in 4th or 5th (which would involve beating him in the F4 immunity, which she did not) if she wanted to win OR denounce his actions to each Hero as she sent them to the jury. Queen Sandra won because she did just that and insisted that she was after Hantz the entire time, but the likes of JT, Candice, and Colby were too stupid to go along with her (and Amanda was in too much of a rut because they were all being stupid).

Parv still deserves to be in the conversation, far more than Boston Rob does.

Rob C probably beats Jenna 5-2 if he can argue to the jury that he did what he needed to do to get to the end. Even Alex might vote for him - Alex said afterward that it was a good move for Rob IIRC.
---

Hasn't Rob himself confirmed that Jenna wins in that scenario tbh? Even then, strictly speaking, if you're voted out by someone, they won that chess game against you. Rob may talk a big game, but if he can't reach the end and Jenna can, Jenna is the better player in this instance. Jenna is a better player than Rob because Jenna beat Rob, know what I mean? Otherwise we're projecting people into situations and circumstances that never happened, and if that's the case, there's really no reason a plethora of players who never won or who lost at FTC wouldn't make a list like this. A player like Tony thus becomes an exception in a multitude of scenarios while a safer socially-oriented player would be at an advantage.

So yeah, there's a distinction between best games played and best players, imo. One considers the reality of the situation and the other considers the potential.
---

Omniscientless posted...

Hasn't Rob himself confirmed that Jenna wins in that scenario tbh? Even then, strictly speaking, if you're voted out by someone, they won that chess game against you. Rob may talk a big game, but if he can't reach the end and Jenna can, Jenna is the better player in this instance. Jenna is a better player than Rob because Jenna beat Rob, know what I mean? Otherwise we're projecting people into situations and circumstances that never happened, and if that's the case, there's really no reason a plethora of players who never won or who lost at FTC wouldn't make a list like this. A player like Tony thus becomes an exception in a multitude of scenarios while a safer socially-oriented player would be at an advantage.

Okay, so the final immunity challenge is the only thing that matters to determine who is the better player, gotcha.
---

On the subject of Parvati:

Her Cook Islands game was okay, but she was definitely a bit of a brat, and I think her attitude was definitely part of what secured Jonathan against Raro.

Micronesia, same bratty behavior and honestly, aside from being a young girl on NuAirai and roping Alexis/Natalie in, she didn't really do that much. It was more Cirie pulling the strings and Amanda/Natalie getting their hands dirty. The only reason Parvati even won the season is because of an unexpected final 2 breaking up the final three SHE CHOSE to go to the end with, resulting in Parvati vs. Amanda, when the jury hated both girls and found them undeserving. Parvati happened to look like she had more agency in the season while Amanda came off as someone who just kissed Ozzy's ass, so she secured a narrow victory.

HvV was Parvati playing the same way as Micronesia, only without an easy-to-beat goat in the finals with her. The jury may have hated Russell, but they hated Parvati's bratty attitude as well.

Overall, I think Parvati has a set of skills that give her a good shot at a deep run in most circumstances, but she's not the skilled social gamer her legend would have you believe.

On the subject of Rob v. Jenna:

I'm more willing to indulge notions of a "best player of a season" not being a winner if they got eliminated before the end than I am a losing finalist. Sometimes bad luck just fucks you over. That being said, I think Rob has been put on a pedestal unfairly. Yes, his gameplay was revolutionary at the time, but I don't think the jury took kindly to it the way later juries (and we at home) do. Rob would need to two of Dave/Deena/Christy, and I think Jenna has a head start on all three, just from the social aspect of how the game worked back then.
---

16. Yul Kwon
WINNER of Survivor: Cook Islands

Allegations of producer interference aside, Yul is a truly astute and perceptive player who could have still done well and probably still won in a balanced season. For what it's worth, he was my pick to win in episode 1 and I never looked back. He's a very intelligent man who knows how to make allies, then decide which ones to keep and which ones to make temporary. Hell, he could even get temporary allies back on board after going head-to-head with them once. He's a bargainer and a talker - he used to be a lawyer and it shows. Whether he's in a position of power or an underdog, he knows what to say to get people to do what he wants and does it in a way that comes off as diplomatic and non-threatening, and that's the sign of a really good player. I'd love to see Yul play again. Why? To validate my feelings that he actually is a good player. Here's the problem I have with Yul in Cook Islands - his win was likely dependent upon the fact that he had the super idol. To his credit, he leveraged it fantastically, but without it he likely goes out in 9th, and if not then certainly in 4th. Because this was the only super idol ever, and hell the only idol period ever, that was usable to get into the finals. He's still a great player that takes full advantage of every twist thrown at him, but in the particular season that he played he NEEDED a twist to get to the end.

Yul won because of a Hidden Invulnerability Idol, sure, but he played that thing brilliantly. He used it to garner loyalty from the Aitu Four, then made Penner paranoid enough to flip to avoid being on the wrong end of that God-Idol. All of this shows his mastery of how to use twists to his advantage.

I don't think Zuckerberg is going to let Yul play again, though, even if Yul says "Remember, that's how I made my first million." Yul would have to quit his job and it's not easy to find something as good as being on the Board of Directors at Facebook (but let's be real here, Yul could). I would LOVE to see him play again just to see how effective he is in a modern game with less loyal zombies and no complete invulnerability.
---