When people choose the best Survivor players they usually choose people who dominated the game. (I.e. Russell, Rob, Parvati, Etc.) But most of the time on Survivor, the people who dominated the game do not win. Sure you have the occasional Richard Hatch, Brian Heidik, Tom Westman, or J.T. Thomas. But I would say at least 75% of the time, the person who dominates the game does not win. Russell has never won. Rob has never won yet. Parvati has only won once. So what qualifies a person as being the best player? Is it dominating the game or winning the game? This is what I find to be the biggest difference I have with a lot of Survivor fans. My opinion is that being the best player is winning the game. Whoever won deserved to win. Whoever won played the best game. Even if they did not dominate the season, they still did something right that the other contestants did wrong. So when I list who I think the best players ever are, I only choose winners. To me, I feel that if you did not win, you were not the best. So as much as it almost pains me to say it: Natalie was a better player than Russell in Samoa. Amber was a better player than Rob in All Stars. Sandra was a better player than Parvati and Russell in Heroes vs. Villains. None of them dominated the game, however, they all we better players. They have 1 Million Dollars to prove it. Sure you can blame it on the jury being bitter. You can say they were voting for a loser and not a winner. You can even try and say there is a flaw in the game. The fact is however, that this is the game, like it or not. Since the very beginning of Survivor, this has been the game. Not only do you have to vote people out, but you have to get them to vote for you in the end. Rob did not do this in All Stars and Russell did not do this in either season. You have to expect that the jury is going to be bitter. You have to think about that before you vote people out. And while Natalie, Sandra, or Amber did not dominate the strategy or challenges, they thought about the jury. They all knew that going into the final tribal council they had a better chance of winning than Russell and Rob. Once it gets to the final tribal council, dominating the game does not matter. What does matter is the jury and how you handled them in the game. I would love for someone to explain to me a way that I am wrong. Believe me; it killed me when Amber and Natalie won. (Not Sandra though, I liked her.) I hate it just as much as the next person. But they did win and deserved to win, because if they didn’t deserve it, they would not have won. I hate it when people say “The best person doesn’t always win.” Because by saying that, you are saying there is a flaw in the game. It may not have been who you liked, who you wanted, who won challenges, who was best strategist, or who was dominating the season, but the best player always wins. In the end, whoever wins played the best game. I would love to hear you comments on this. I am sure that a majority of people disagree with me. Please comment and tell me why I am wrong.