2. Sandra S7/S20
3. Parvati S16
4. Boston Rob S22
5. Tyson S27
5. Tyson S27
6 Richard Hatch S1
7. Kim Spradlin S24
8. Tom Westman S10
7. Kim Spradlin S24
8. Tom Westman S10
9. Yul S13
10. Brian Heidik S5
11. Jeremy S31
12. Sarah S34
13. Todd Herzog S15
14. Earl S14
15. Chris Daugherty S9
14. Earl S14
15. Chris Daugherty S9
16. Ethan Zohn S3
17. Aubry S50
18. Cochran S26
19. Nick S37
19. Nick S37
20. Wendell S36
21. JT S18
22. Dee S45
23. Kyle S48
24. Rachel S47
25. Savannah S49
26. Natalie S29
27. Adam S33
28. Denise S25
29. Ben S35
30. Sophie S23
30. Sophie S23
31. Michelle S29
32. Tommy S39
33. Mike S30
34. Yam Yam S44
35. Maryanne S42
36. Tina Wesson S2
37. Aras S12
38. Jenna Morasca S6
39. Amber S8
40. Danni S11
40. Danni S11
41. Kenzie S46
42. Erika S41
43. Bob Crowley S17
44. Fabio S21
45. Vecepia S4
46. Chris S38
46. Chris S38
47. Natalie White S19
48. Gabler S43
Let's start at the bottom; the height (depth?) of which, for my dollar, was Natalie White - which is why I have her last. Even if you're in the "no such thing as a bitter jury" camp, she just happened to be the one sitting next to a Hantz at the end. Unlike, Natalie, I think I would have voted for Chris; he maximized his return to the game following a very...very long stay away from it. But that's just a function of the competitors he was sitting next to - as a Survivor winner, his is a slender resume. Gabler...look, we're in an era with shorter seasons, tons of trinkets - Gabler was in a season with a dominant player who got bounced and wound up the compromise selection in a middling lot.
I think of Bob and Fabio (and to a lesser extent, Aras) and Maryanne (maybe Yam Yam too, and in this era of Survivor, the short game feels like less of a hill to climb) as similar, largely good natured, played a basically frictionless game - the other competitors liked them and likeability is their biggest (only?) strength. Jenna and Amber (and Tina and Denise) rode coattails but all had a level of value to their games not found with those bottom five winners. Michelle's somewhere in that group; her primary benefit was she wasn't seen as making the moves that took out the swing votes in the jury. Ben was outflanked down the stretch, but used multiple idols and an unprecedented end game twist (a coup d'eBen?) to get the win. It's only his being a good player throughout the game that keeps him from a lower slot.
Twinnies Natalie's game was uneven, but she fought from underneath and made some big strategic decisions in the endgame. A good comp is Mike from the following year, he was clearly better, just physically dominating the endgame maybe in an unprecedented way, but also largely responsible for being positioned underneath in the first place, and the quality of his opposition, like Natalie's, was suspect. JT would be in the top 10 if not for a subsequent appearance on the show - giving Russell the idol was such a terrible move that this is as high as he could reasonably be ranked. Ethan and Earl were both nice guys in the vein of Fabio/Bob, but added a second level of leadership. Adam made a lot of moves; not all of them were effective, but his unanimous jury vote is testament to the ability to create a jury perception of punches that landed when maybe he was just being busy. Nick made fewer moves, but was personable, strategic enough, and positioned himself well for the end game. Tommy won without the benefit of any twists and had a good handle on the general flow of the game. Erika was a good player; had a good handle on the strategic flow of the game, there was a dominant player, Ricard, he clearly played the best game in S41. Late period Survivor (short season, tons, just tons of twists) becomes super hard to envelop into this type of ranking; Dee was good, part of the decision making flow of the game, won competitions, didn't back her way into anything nor take over the game.
Heidik/Todd/Daugherty all fill that sneaky/strategic role that bumps them up I could see an argument that Earl/Ethan should be ranked ahead of Daugherty. Cochran's game was less slippery, strategic in his second stint and more guy everyone really liked. He was Ethan Zohn. Jeremy really falls into that phylum as well; he played a good all around game, never really lost control although wasn't as aware of everyone around him as others, but really relied on how much more people liked him, liked the moral force of him, than any particular strategic decision. Sarah played a rat floater game, made some good strategic moves, stayed in good with people when she needed to ge in good with them, was less in control of the game and more on the right side of where the game was being controlled. And she was boring TV, that doesn't matter for these purposes, but it should be noted that she's a not particularly appealing television character. Wendell's tough to rate, he and Domenick together controlled the back half of the game like Tom Westman, but absent a twist introduced in Ben's season allowing for firemaking, he wouldn't have made the final 3. Savannah played a really good late period game, had a tight alliance, understood where the game was, nearly won out.
Tony was messy; bold, impetuous, great TV and a really constant, tenacious player who benefited from the all time worst decision in show history (Woo's final 3 vote) and a jury that was better than Russell Hantz's.
Heidik/Todd/Daugherty all fill that sneaky/strategic role that bumps them up I could see an argument that Earl/Ethan should be ranked ahead of Daugherty. Cochran's game was less slippery, strategic in his second stint and more guy everyone really liked. He was Ethan Zohn. Jeremy really falls into that phylum as well; he played a good all around game, never really lost control although wasn't as aware of everyone around him as others, but really relied on how much more people liked him, liked the moral force of him, than any particular strategic decision. Sarah played a rat floater game, made some good strategic moves, stayed in good with people when she needed to ge in good with them, was less in control of the game and more on the right side of where the game was being controlled. And she was boring TV, that doesn't matter for these purposes, but it should be noted that she's a not particularly appealing television character. Wendell's tough to rate, he and Domenick together controlled the back half of the game like Tom Westman, but absent a twist introduced in Ben's season allowing for firemaking, he wouldn't have made the final 3. Savannah played a really good late period game, had a tight alliance, understood where the game was, nearly won out.
Tony was messy; bold, impetuous, great TV and a really constant, tenacious player who benefited from the all time worst decision in show history (Woo's final 3 vote) and a jury that was better than Russell Hantz's.
Yul/Kim/Tom all dominated every phase of their season; were either Yul/Kim to return and get into another jury vote there's room to move up. No one ever dominated like Rob in his final attempt; I'd see an argument anywhere in the top 4 for Rob. Sandra won twice and while there was never a point really in either game that she dominated, the results alone require a top 4 finish. Her third appearance was the most fun of the the three and doesn't hurt her overall ranking. Parvati did dominate in her second appearance, despite losing to Sandra - in a pretty deep field in season 20 she was the best player. She's also the hottest Survivor winner, which probably is worth some mention. Tyson moves into that group with his dominant win; he and Rob profile very similarly. If Yul/Kim are similar, so are Rob/Tyson.
And finally, Hatch. I think it's underappreciated how "making an alliance" wasn't inherently an obvious strategy when Survivor began - the Hatch template is basically still the method which reality competition contestants across the world still use (both in order to win and to make good TV). Survivor's harder in 2013 than it was in 2000; current competitors not only have all of the past Survivors to draw from but all the other reality competition programs that utilize similar group dynamics. I'm amenable to a counter-argument that Hatch's game doesn't match, say the level of strategy of Rob's winning season.
But in the end I remain really, really impressed with Hatch's forward thinking; for the same reason I'd still rank Dr. Will ahead of Dan Gheesling as the best BBUS player - I'll say Hatch, 30 seasons later, is still the greatest Survivor ever.
So, Winners at War necessitated a rethink that might ripple for awhile.
I'm not sure exactly the weight the season should hold; Boston Rob in 2020 doesn't necessarily reflect peak Boston Rob, for example. Survivor's not a sport - but Michael Jordan's Wizards performance doesn't reflect peak Michael Jordan and we all understand how that works.
I've moved Tony to the top spot; S40 was a really, really impressive performance, to come in with nearly the target level that snuffed out Rob/Parv before the game even started and leave never having received even one vote against him - it's an all time great game and he shoots to the top. I've dropped Hatch to 6; all the "he did it first" stuff still stands, but there needs, after 40 seasons, to be a stronger accounting given to the evolution of the game. Jeremy gets bumped up, Sarah gets a sizeable bump and there's a reshuffling of some of the players further down the list.
