Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-1294345-20160415023130/@comment-5277627-20160416121757

Clay Thompson wrote: Tanglefrost wrote:

Michele: She seems to be everyone's winner pick yet I despise her. She has done nothing, was invisible for the first half of the season, and has just ridden coat-tails of the women's alliance. If she were to win it would be a crime against Survivor. If she won, she would be the worst winner in history. Michele is playing the game, and has been playing it well since it began and she joined forces with Anna and Julia on the powerhouse Beauty tribe. To call her an uninteresting and lackluster winner is fair (although there's still a good bit of game left to play so you never know how she may change assuming she does make it to finals and win) but to dub her the worst winner in history is laughable. Look at Fabio, whose strategic aptitude wasn't much better than Mark the chicken's. Look at Natalie White, who won because of the jury's "At least she isn't Russell Hantz" attitude. I mean sure, if it's established that Russell won't win the season, then she can be a better option than Mick. But a lot of finalists have been better players than Mick so that's not saying much. The point is, it seems you're being hasty to assign Michele the "worst winner" title. Okay, she wouldn't be  the worst winner (Amber Brkich anyone?), but pretty close in my opinion.