Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite. If anything, I think it could have helped Rob.
I felt like it was throwing Rob's dominance of everyone in their faces and making them bitter towards it. Since apparently Natalie didn't get any votes I guess at worst it didn't matter.
That would be kinda cool. I don't think anyone they bring back would be Boston Rob, but I agree that they shouldn't bring back heavyweights every season. Unless one of them is Amanda Kimmel. She could be in every season.
And I don't want to see anyone from Redemption Island back yet. Wait at least a season.
EDIT: Also, because I can't remember - did they actually specify whether or not the two returning players would be against each other? Maybe they'll be on the same team. Just another random thought, lots more to come.
I'd be really really surprised if they were on the same team.
Well, that was a predictable thrashing, but no way can I call Rob the greatest survivor ever. A few others dominated their seasons just as much and won, but they did it on their first try. Rob needed four tries to perfect his game and finally win. If it takes you that long to win, how can you be the greatest survivor ever? Not saying he didn't play a great game, because he did, but he got some incredibly lucky breaks this season: the other tribe throwing the challenge to allow Rob's team back in it early when they were on the verge of falling way behind in the numbers game, having a tribe full of clueless nitwits, etc.
Probst calling Philip polarizing was not accurate. How can you be polarizing when everyone hates you or is annoyed by you?
And while much of the criticism of Natalie was accurate, she is only 19 and pretty naive, so you gotta cut her some slack. The same can't be said for Ashley, who was utterly useless and came off as quite a beotch.
I dunno why everyone calls the ending of this season predictable. If Ashley won the final immunity challenge Rob very possibly might have been gone.
Basically, it seems that you're making two primary arguments against Rob:
- He didn't do it on his first try
- He caught a lot of breaks.
I guess to me the not doing it on your first try thing doesn't matter. In All-Stars he played a truly great game and might have won if his romance with Amber didn't get to a point where it mattered to him more than the game. He would have gotten very, very far in Heroes vs. Villains if it weren't for Tyson. And while you can say this was his fourth game the level he took it to was unreal. It was practically a perfect game.
Would you say Larry Bird is a greater player than Michael Jordan because his college stats are better? I'd hope not.
As for catching a lot of breaks, everyone has to catch a lot of breaks to win. No way Sandra would have won on HvV if anyone else ever in the game had any sense of her ability to be dangerous. No way Amber wins if Rob didn't let her. No way Sandra wins the first time if Lillian isn't stupid enough to vote out Johnny Fairplay. Would Tom Westman's strategic game have been good enough to win if he was such a challenge monster?
Also, I keep saying it because I think it matters. Rob didn't just win, he dominated. Eight out of nine jury votes, and he only lost one to Phillip because Ralph isn't very smart.
I understand why Probst would say Phillip is polarizing. A lot of people find him genuinely entertaining. People frustratedly bitching on the internet make up a small percentage of Survivor fandom.
I agree with you about Natalie. I thought what Julie said to her was just uncalled for in how mean it was. Judging her game-play for what it was, it was terrible. But yeah, she's still 19. Ashley on the other hand I didn't like. Parvati might be the mistress of evil, but I at least like her. Ashley was just blech.
I think what we learned from this season is that the age limit needs to go back up.