Dalton Ross Hate

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20451729,00.html

This ranking pretty much confirms my hate for Dalton Ross.

Discuss.

I actually agree with a good portion of his list in a certain way, but in other ways, not so much. Essentially, it seems to be he is ranking this based on how much the person who won was truly in control of their own fate in the game, but in many aspects, that isn't the most important thing. Sometimes the best way to control your fate in a game is to realize that being completely dominating, and visibly responsible for someone departure when you can cast that negative light on someone else, or backseat yourself temporarily, actually is a wise way to play the odds. There are cases where someone fell to that situation by force or luck, but I do believe situations can be seen as well where it likely was a more conscious effort of self-placement as less visibly/aggressively being controlling.

Also, a lot of people's ability to be seen in a certain life, is their confidence. If you act rediculously cocky, and like you have rediculous power, explain all your moves in a way that sounds interesting, and just come off as a hardcore player in how you speak in confessionals, if you do happen to do well, and after the edit the show up to make sense and tell a story, that individual is going to look rediculously good, although we will likely not be privvy to when they had to settle, or when someone else indirectly was the real catalyst for something besides themselves, because often times, that'll be too confusing for the audience to grasp, and it will rob to an extent the "characterizing" of that dominating player the show is trying to label them as.

I also think it should be taken into consideration the general intelligence level of others surrounding a winner in their season, or the way they played. Exactly, with Richard Hatch, who always seems to make it to the top of this list...I don't really think he was as much a definition of how to play the game, nor a genius as it's put out there. Honestly...it just makes sense, and eventually, lol, i promise you, if Ricahrd Hatch hadn't been cast for season 1, but the show went on for this long...I think we would have alliances people, lol. I DO think people would have pieced that together without grandfather Hatch "creating" the game for us. Idk, someone always kinda ticks me a bit when he gets so high EVERYWHERE, I mean..., coupled with what I just said, as he said, the people in his season were enjoying their "Robinson Crusoe" time on the island. Continuing my rant on this, I bet if Richard wasn't in the first season, and when the game still more or less became what it is in terms of the various different strategies people adopt, I don't think even as an unknown dude, Richard would neccesarily do amazing amongst a group PLAYING the game intelligently.

You need to take into account the people playing, and your luck. Yul getting the idol, a good part luck, it basically made his win possible. Brian also being with a couple of knuckleheads, gotta take that into consideration. JT having a majority tribe who had 4 wins in a row before merge disallowing them to settle the problems that led to them being some easy to infiltrate and self distruct. You REALLY need to take this into consideration when ranking winners, in my opinion, and I don't think Dalton did that so much. In another way, yes, I can understand his list if being looked from a certain perspective, but if I were to rank the winners, I would have ranked them by a more complex criteria than he did, and quite differently.

I should add, yes, it's kinda unfair to fault people for being lucky, or being with people who weren't thinking enough, but again, it's something to consider on a level. if Caryn wasn't so hard headed, Tom prob would not have won. It takes one bad apple really to spoil the bunch in a season, and cause at times even other capable players to fail and make an eventual winners path easy as pie.

I didn't expect that to become so long and nonsensical. My deepest apologies.

I completely disagree with his list, and all of the criteria. He's another of CBS's mindless zombies. Survivor journalists are restricted to publishing what CBS wants them to, or they aren't allowed access to parties and interviews.

That's why his list is a load of predictable bullshit. Natalie and Amber being ranked dead last is just hype for next season.

Also, Bob being ranked higher than ANYONE is a farce, while Sandra and Aras are ranked criminally low.

I cannot believe Sandra and Aras were placed as low as they were, plus Natalie didn't play a terrible game, granted Russell did play the strategic game better, he couldn't have played it without her and she played the social part a hell of a lot better, therefore she won.

Aras put together his alliance with Cirie, Shane, Courtney and Danielle that controlled most of the game, why is he not deserving?

The most undeserving winners in my opinion are Vecepia, Bob and Amber. Though Neleh wouldn't have been much better in terms of gameplay, I would have prefered to see her win over Vee, though she'd be on the list of most undeserving winners too lol. Sugar should have won over Bob as Boston Rob should have won over Amber, but like Russell with Natalie they won due to Sugar and Boston Rob failing to play the social game as well as they could have.

We should do like our own rankings, everyone votes on what they think and someone can put it together lol

The third paragraph is the worst.

Vecepia deserved the win. She played the smartest game, in that she voted Boston Rob out with the Rotu 4 to keep their trust, and possibly secure her to as far as the final five, where she could become a swing vote. She survived until the final five with only one ally, and after she lost that ally, she won the crucial immunity challenges, and took out the two social threats; Kathy and Paschal, to win the game.

Sugar deserves NOTHING. She is a terrible player. She threw the game away and played to PURPOSELY lose. She is the worst finalist ever in the history of Survivor, she received her just deserts with 0 jury votes.

Natalie played a better strategic game than Russell. Watch the final 12 episode again. She was the one that convinced the women to turn on Erik, while Russell had absolutely no idea what was going on, and threw his idol away. Russell wouldn't have gone anywhere near the final three without that move from Natalie. She forged better friendships than Russell could have.

Boston Rob threw his game away for love. He played a strong game, and so did Amber. If there had been no romantic connection, he might have taken Jenna Lewis so that he could win. Amber was Parvati before Parvati. She deserved her win.

Bob was the most deserving out of the final three, but he is the worst winner ever. Dalton placed him too high in his ranking.

I agree with parts of this list, but not with others. I would have Vecepia last. She was pretty worthless in my opinion. I wouldn't have Parvati quite as high. I barely even remember who Natalie was so I guess that's why she's ranked last.

On terms of gameplay it's hard to argue with Richard being #1 seeing he was the first to play/win the game.. but on terms of likeability, my personal favorite of the twenty winners on the list was Todd followed by Ethan (but of course, the list was not personality, it was gameplay). I feel like Sandra should be higher only because she won twice. I'm not a big fan of her personally but winning twice says something.