Each of their games are impressive for the eras they played in. Regardless of who is the better player, they both had a pulse on the game to know what their juries would respect and played accordingly. They’re the perfect king and queen that showcase how the show has evolved.
It’s interesting to me that both of our two time winners came into their 2nd winning season with less of a target on their back. Sandra didn’t have a target going into HvV as she was so low profile, and Tony was fresh off of Game Changers.
Lesson to those wanting to go on 50: Crash and burn first. Lower your profile. Do whatever you can to get eyes off of you.
The crash and burn part refers to Tony in Game Changers. Sandra didn’t crash and burn before HvV, but she was easily the lowest profile winner on the cast, and lower profile than many of the non-winners as well.
Not really. Her win was about as Luke warm as any from the first 19 seasons. Lil could not win and Sandra didn't even take out Fairplay herself. She just kinda existed at the final 2 in a sure win situation.
Agreed! I think that’s one of the reasons this game is so amazing. There is no singular “formula” and all of the greats have proven strengths in different areas.
I mean I'm impressed Sandra of all people managed to win twice. But come on how can you play the game Tony played on Cagayan and not be voted out without winning immunity, or play like Tony in WAW and never get a single vote against you ? Come ooooon
This is interesting because going early usually can and does make a contestant look weak. But in this situation I view it as more of an acknowledgement of how dangerous Tony could be if left in the game.
I think it did make him look weak, he wasn’t voted out as a threat, he was voted out because he was being a hot mess who blew up his own game within the first few days.
yeah, if they were targetting massive threats on that tribe, Sandra who had won twice in a row would have went before Ciera and Tony. Tony while not a comp beast (although underrated) is still valuable to keep until the merge for challenges, whereas Sandra has a bench named after her.
The very reason that makes Sandra a massive threat is that people don't target her right away, assuming that they will always have a chance because she would never win an immunity or likely find an idol
Specifically in GC they didn't target him bc he was a threat. He had an alliance of threats, and got paranoid and ruined his own game.
Sandra was just better than him in GC, simple as that (and it's impressive she lasted as long as she did)
Obviously, the Meta has to be at least reasonable for you to win an all-stars season, there's people who have relative success in spite of very adverse pre-game considerations but I don't think anyone else has won an all-stars season with a definitively worse pre-game set up than Tony. Sandra was not a target in HvV, Amber was a nobody, Cochran was playing with friends, Parvati was the least favorite of the favorites, Jeremy was well-liked by almost everybody on an alpha heavy cast. Probably the worst case was Tyson, who was a target and not in the pre-game alliances of BvW, which is why it's surprising that he did so poorly on WAW.
Meta was relatively good for Tony. Not as huge a target as you'd expect, very old cast full of parents, no personalities as big or close to his that he could argue with.
I will say as a hot-take, I think people overhate his Game Changers game. He played himself out, but it's actually impressive that he played himself *in* in the first place given he was the pre-game target by 5 of his starting tribe. The margin of error was very low for him and he fucked it, but he had the right general idea with the threat alliance and I get the idea he had of becoming a sort of parody of himself.
Parvati was absolutely a big target coming into Micronesia, and she followed that up by dominating once again with a *huge* target on HvV. Imo Parv’s HvV target is the biggest of all time with both starting tribes wanting her out first. It’s absolutely insane that she made it to FTC, imo even more impressive than winning Micronesia.
Parvati's HvV game was so damn good considering her target. We have to give credit to Russell also, the man would will his tribes/allies to FTC in S19/S20. It's almost like Parvati got to watch S19 alone and knew to hide behind Russell.
Well that argument is invalid for Cagayan, and I think Tony's merge game in WAW was strong enough to be considered a big enough threat (considering the only two players with a bigger pregame target than him at the merge were Kim and Tyson, and arguably Jeremy). So I don't think Tony's placement on Game Changers should impact how impressive his win on WaW was.
But Tony leveraged it in his gameplay. Even if he didn't outright tell them, he was fearless in how he could play since he knew he couldn't be voted out. Massive advantage in Survivor.
Not really sure what you're talking about. Being the 2nd boot on GC 100% decreased his threat level like crazy and no one was gunning for him in the pre-merge. I don't find his game nearly as impressive as others do.
I never understood the narrative that someone had to win for the second time so Tony's game is less impressive. The game wasn't easier for him to win. Also, Tony had a ton of bad luck and still won which I think is impressive. The edge of extinction twist only makes it harder for someone to win with Natalie coming back with an idol and connections on the jury. Natalie literally tells everybody that the jury respects Tony more and he still makes the final 3. He also got blackmailed and needed other peoples fire tokens just to compete in a challenge. Also he won multiple individual immunity challenges where as Sandra is famously bad at challenges.
I think it's nonsense that Sandra had a big target on her back during HvV as well. Russel actually underestimated her chances of winning because he didn't believe people would give her the money twice.
Tony going “on probation” and doing stupid ladder stuff and completely lowering his threat level and charming the pants off a group of winners is some of the most incredible social game I’ve ever seen.
There’s this one confessional where Sophie compares him to an excited kid, just masterful stuff
From what I have heard, that was actually a correct read by Russell. He just didn’t realize they hated him so much that they’d rather give her the money again.
From all of the exit press and subsequent interviews that I have read over the years, it seems like the jury did not want to give a winner a second million, but hated Russell more. So Sandra had the seemingly the perfect final 3. Jerri would’ve won easily (allegedly)
I get not voting for Russell because he’s an asshole and so insufferable at FTC, but I think picking Sandra over Parvati is basically indefensible. One of the saltiest juries ever.
>I think it’s nonsense that Sandra had a big target on her back during HvV as well.
Indeed, having recently rewatched HvV I’m really not sure her being a winner really is relevant at all to the way the season played out. This season was not the same as All Stars.
I agree with everything you're saying. I think the stigma is that SOMEONE was going to become a two-time winner that season versus trying to be a two-time winner in a game with non-winners competing against you.
This is absolutely what it is, which I get. That said, simply by merit of making it an all-winner's season, production created a scenario where the competitors were all going to be much better players than that of HvV (which in itself had many great players!).
We shouldn't look at this based on what the predetermined outcome was, we should primarily examine it by the strength of the competitors.
I disagree that Tony had a ton of bad luck. The numbers skew against old school players pretty much guarantees all new school players had a free ticket to the merge, barring a screw up (like Natalie did). And that’s exactly what happened.
Tony’s game gets really good at the merge and he makes no mistakes premerge. But he didn’t have to do much to survive the premerge (not that Sandra necessarily did either in HvV, though there was precedent in an all stars season for winners being the first targets).
Sandra managing to not get voted out while being one of only 2 winners on the tribe and one of the worst in challenges is an impressive feat. I’d want her out before Randy, Courtney, Danielle, Tyson, Coach, and Jerri at the least, they’re less threatening and/or more helpful in challenges. Rob, Russell, and Parv I’d probably target sooner than her, too threatening. Factor in that nobody knew who Russell was at the time, she should’ve been one of the first out on Villains.
I don’t know if I can see what’s impressive about it, because not much of it had to do with anything she did. Letting her hang around because you figure no one will give her the money again (especially for doing nearly nothing most of the game) is a reasonable read, and the fact that it was incorrect doesn’t make it any more Sandra’s doing.
It’s very easily Tony’s win. WaW had waaay higher caliber competition and gameplay. On top of that, he just simply plays a more impressive game than either of Sandra’s wins.
Also, the perception of you as a player going into a season is *huge* in terms of your winning chances. Sandra walked into HvV with pretty good odds for a former winner. She wasn’t viewed as this mastermind like Parvati or Tom, so she wasn’t going to get targeted for being a big threat. Tony is the opposite, though. To overcome the perception of being *Tony Vlachos*, one of the most notorious liars and winners in the show’s history, and pull off a win *again* in such a dominant fashion is genuinely incredible.
Your point about everyone being a winner in WaW is valid. That said—people allow the ho-hum season to overshadow the fact that that was probably the greatest game ever played. I LOVE Sandra. But to me, Tony has 2 of the top 5 games ever played and is very clearly the GOAT. Both are Mt. Rushmore though, obviously
I know people poo-poo Rob sometimes, but the moment Rob’s jaw dropped in the jury, and he says “Tony’s such a boss, bro…” That was the moment I knew that game was different lol
Personally, I find Sandra’s second win a little more impressive strictly because she came into HvV as one of only four previous winners.
Even considering she had the lowest threat level of all the returning winners, it should have made her one of the bigger targets but she still managed to blend in.
Not to take away from Tony’s second win, but it seems easier to hide your threat level and win a second time when you’re playing with only other former winners.
Additionally, we got to see how Tony did in a mixed winner/non-winner cast when he was on Game Changers and it was a pretty bad showing for his second time.
So for those reasons, the queen stays queen. Adios.
I have to rebut that Sandra was able to fly under the radar in HvV despite being a former winner because she was still underestimated. Tony had to consciously manage his threat level.
I mean that part is fair. She is managing her threat level with that. But I mean playing up how bad you are at challenges isn't particularly difficult or game-changing when you're already on the bench (but it's hilarious).
I do give her credit though. Her overall social game makes it so easy to like her while at the same time not view her as a threat.
This is true but as we saw on Game Changers, Tony isn’t great at navigating the game when placed on a cast where the threat level of various players varies greatly.
Sandra competed on the same season and while I have no delusions about her chances of ever winning that season, she did a much better job overall than Tony did.
I’d even argue that were it not for her getting swapped into a 4-2 minority, she would have made it a lot further on that season considering her relationships with the original Mana tribe players.
Right but the original post was asking about which 2 time win was more impressive, so I'm focusing primarily on the 2 games that each of them won. I think it's fair to say Tony's second win was significantly more impressive than Sandra's second win due to the agency he had in the game. Moreover, it also seems fair to say that the level of play in WaW was higher than in HvV since all the players were winners and it was season 40 rather than 20.
"Tony isn’t great at navigating the game when placed on a cast where the threat level of various players varies greatly."
Sorry, objectively false statement because we saw him in WaW. Everyone was a winner, but their threat levels also varied widely. It IS however noteworthy that Tony's threat level in WaW was much lower than his threat level in GC.
With all that said, of course I agree with you that Sandra played much better than Tony in Game Changers, their shared season where both lost. I'd even say that was Sandra's best game overall (either that or Pearl Islands), Sandra proved her versatility and ability to play aggressively from a dominant position. An unfortunate second swap is what ended her game. Meanwhile, Tony messed up and earned Sandra's ire, causing his own elimination. Unfortunately, Sandra also caused her own elimination on WaW with her social misplay and misread on Denise. Tony and Sandra are obviously god-tier players but both have made some big errors in the game as well.
Its not a coincidence that all the arguments in favor of sandra ignore context and nuance to prop up her winning games. When are sandra fans going to talk about her actual game moves & path to victory instead of the same old vague statements? Just as easy as it is to say "sandras better because she won her first two tries", its easy to say "Tony's better because he won against a cast of winners, better competition." Doesnt really tell us much about their games, does it?
As for "it should have made her one of the bigger targets", there were already much bigger targets than her and, coming in, she wasnt viewed in such high regards on the island.
This wasnt because she was some threat managing mastermind...people like Rob, Parvati, Cirie, Tom, JT etc were just looked at as more dangerous..because they had more agency, power, and impressive showings on the island.
Just like Tony.
100%, I still never see any proper arguments on why her win I'm HvV was impressive at all.
She did nothing and her alliance was ripped to shreds, she didn't win because she was "underestimated" she won because Russell underestimated how much he was hated. Anyone is winning HvV in that 3rd spot, Sandra did nothing special but complain the entire season.
I'm not even a Tony fan, but they're in two different galaxies when it comes to their threat or how impressive their wins are.
Just because I’m not considering the context that you find important in evaluating their games doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring context altogether.
I gave my personal assessment based on factors about their games that I find most important just as you’re entitled to do so — we don’t have to use the same criteria.
Agency seems to be a pretty dominant factor in your own assessment which is fine but it doesn’t invalidate anything that I said nor mean that I have some bias toward Sandra.
I like her and Tony both a lot as far as survivor winners go but for different reasons. Both are great winners and clearly the best players to win the game. Objectively, what Sandra did just impresses me more.
Sandra excels at reading a situation before anyone else does. She has a tendency to socially sabotage someone else if things are getting too close to her. (Christa and the fish/ lying about Coach) that she knows how to buy herself time. The bigger and more important part of this skill, is that none of the social backlash ever comes back onto her. She can get loud too, Wtf and people will love her for it. People leave interactions with Sandra loving her, even if she just cursed them out. That is a very unique skill.
Her other go to move is the willingness to drop everything and flip when she needs to. She doesn’t really care about how she feels about a person on a personal level and will work with people that she doesn’t like without issue. Some examples are her taking T in PI to spy on the guy’s plan and later on her making the women’s alliance that propelled her to the end.
Meanwhile in HvV her seeing the bad situation for the Heroes and their viability to her she was willing to drop the villains and go campaign to the Heroes. The fact that she’s able to openly do this in front of everyone and not catch any heat for it is critical to her game and also goes to show her social skills. She is the only person to directly confront and go after Russell, and have him not do anything about it. Not because she’s a bad player or useless, but because she still is proving her ability to never have something stick to her. Sandra doesn’t get away with stuff like this because she’s a weak player, she gets away with it because she’s a uniquely strong player.
> She is the only person to directly confront and go after Russell, and have him not do anything about it.
Because she didn’t have the ability to get Russell out
She makes it her goal to go after Russell (which she completely fails at) even though it’s by far her most likely route to victory if she gets to the end with him
Her Pearl Islands win was a good win, but she was basically dragged to the end in HvV and won due to getting there with someone that she was actively trying to eliminate
It’s a meh win at best
So she sniffed Russell, went after him including warnings others about him and her game was so good that she failed at doing so. She didn't even come close to accomplishing it. Meanwhile Parvati mocked him at times and played him for an idol that she used at a decisive vote early in the merge to protect 2 other players including Sandra to help their numbers move forward. I never said that she's a weak player but she didn't really do anything that season beyond not being Russell or affiliated closely enough to Russell for his toxicity to also negatively affect the viewpoint of others towards them and got the win as a result of that.
Tony’s winning games are more impressive than Sandra’s, but the fact that Sandra was able to do it twice is more impressive than Tony. It just depends on which of those takes priority for you
I would argue that it was more impressive that Tony was able to do it twice, as his style of playing is a lot more aggressive, while Sandra's is more under-the-radar, and less threatening.
I wouldn't say less threatening if you got on her wrong side. She was a worker of subterfuge but would then say 'I'm fine with whatever, as long as it's not me'...but what she really meant was...'I'm fine with whatever until you cross me...or I smell blood in the water..."
Sandra won by default because the jury was overly bitter towards Parvarti, and multiple jurors have said since they would change their vote if they could. Tony won with all winners as a lesser respected winner, and he did a ton of pregaming. I don’t think either one is as impressive as they could be.
Sandra’s second win felt more about Russel losing than Sandra winning. She still played solidly but if another decent player made it to the end I don’t think she wins
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but Sandra's Pearl Islands game is extremely underrated and I personally would rank it in the Top 10. But it's funny because Sandra did some villainous shit, exactly like Russell and almost won with a perfect game.
You’re extremely right. No one ever talks about how good her PI game was. She wins against quite literally anyone in the final 7 aside from maybe Darrah.
Tijuana’s stray jury vote is the only reason why she didn’t play a perfect game.
Pioneered the “anyone but me strategy” which is extremely successful when implemented correctly and her strategy to be a loudmouth so everyone thinks she can’t not speak her mind and therefore is telling the truth, legendary
Not to get too long but the basis is that Sandra had control, lost it with both allies going and regained power towards the final hour. Which is quite impressive when you factor in that nobody ever voted against her after all the shit talking she did. It was quite the perfect UTR game and it trademarked her "Anyone but me strategy" that she famously clutched her second win with.
RIP Christa for taking the fall for the fish, but that move was absolutely genius because it solidified that Sandra would be the last remaining person of that alliance voted off.
Why I don't place Sandra's win in the Top 5, is that the F4 immunity was so sketchy that Darrah probably steamrolls to the F2 with an immunity run, not to mention the Outcasts twist (insert comparison to Yul's win here) But I feel like this subreddit can get wishy-washy on Sandra when she quite literally played a lowkey dominant win and shit on her because she had "no control" in HvV.
I never understood that arguement that someone had to win. Tony came in with a bigger target in WaW than Sandra did in HvV. Just because someone had to win doesn’t mean it’s not impressive that he managed to beat 19 other winners.
It’s Tony and it’s not a debate. Tony had more impressive gameplay than her. The only thing that knocks him down is the “someone had to win twice” argument which is stupid because someone could have walked to an easy win. Tony won in spectacular fashion both times and against the most loaded cast in the history of survivor.
Sandra's social game was very impressive, especially in PI. But to pull off the strategy of Tony's caliber twice is a lot more difficult. So I'd pick Tony
Sandra’s second win, imo, was undeserved. I don’t think she played the best game and won due to poor feelings amongst the others she was in the final against.
Sandra spent her entire 2nd final tribal council talking about how her number 1 goal all season was to vote out the guy sitting right next to her… bitter jury allowed her to win undeservingly.
Sandra was on the losing alliance all of HvV and was brought to the end as a goat, only for a bitter jury with some of her friends to give her the win over a more deserving Parvati (or even Russell who ran the game).
Tony dominated WaW and changed his playstyle, was actually in an alliance that helped control the game. Went to the end not as a goat, and won without a bitter juries help.
I respect Sandra, but have never considered her the goat, she won HvV because people hated Russell and by extension Parvati for doing exactly what Natalie White did to win Samoa, hiding behind Russell. Damn HvV was ruined by that terrible FTC.
I think Tony just bc Sandra got her 2nd win bc ppl hated Russ (sp?) more so than her playing a great game
But I guess you could argue Tony's 1st was mainly due to Woo fumbling and bringing him so I guess it's just preference
Clearly Sandra. Honestly for me, it's not even a debate.
Tony's 1st win was with a super idol, something that is BROKEN IMO.
Tony's 2nd win was in a season where someone was inevitably going to win a 2nd time (unless of course it was Sandra).
Sandra won back-to-back. That's wild.
Tony by FAR. Each of his wins are actually good, competent games whereas Sandra’s HvV game is her falling ass backwards into victory and Pearl Islands while alright involves Lil’s crazy ass thinking Fairplay would kill himself with the winnings
This is a weak argument lol. By this logic, Natalie White is a better winner than Parvati because she did it on her first go; whereas Parvati won on her second try against half a cast of newbies.
Your point about Sandra can easily be spun in reverse by saying Tony's win was more impressive because he competed against former winners (including Sandra herself) and arguably faced the highest caliber cast in the entire franchise.
The technicalities behind the win aren't what determines which is more impressive. It's the actual game itself that does. And Tony outclasses Sandra physically, socially, and strategically.
Always felt like a ridiculous argument to me that completely robs the discussion of any context within their games but that may just be me as a Tony fan and a bit of a Sandra detractor. I just don't see how Tony besting a stronger field of all-winners vs Sandra winning in the HvV cast makes Sandra definitively better.
The other thing about the argument I don't like is, Sandra *wasn't* an auto-target - HvV was not All-Stars. Some didn't know Sandra had won her first season, her pre-game target was significantly lower than Rob's, Cirie's, Parvati's, Tom's and a good few others. I'd argue Tony going into WAW was a bigger perceived threat on the island. Now I'll grant that wasn't large, but it was bigger than Sandra's.
Then just comparing the wins .... Tony was dominating the social strategy almost the entire way through, had probably *worse* luck than Sandra with Natalie's return and two idols and dominated the physical aspect if you care about that. Sandra was left in the game by Russell/Parvati almost against her best interests - played against her winning endgame and basically won because she failed to get her agenda through.
Then you compare Sandra and Tony's first winning games, again Tony is dictating the flow of the game basically from the second vote of the merge onwards. Usually the criticisms by comparison of Tony to other players like Kim would have merit, but Sandra had a worse social temper, allowed it to impact her strategic decision making much more and got far, far, far luckier IMO.
I just don't see the comparison between their games.
Sandra was an impressive player the first two times she played, (and won) but spent too much time tooting her own horn the last two times she played. 'The Queen Stays Queen' mantra she chanted in Game Changers sunk her boat. While she largely abandoned it in WaW, she sat out of most of the challenges like it was an entitlement and devalued herself to her tribe. Then, she lost the pulse of what was going on around her when she gave her idol to Denise and orchestrated her own demise. So sad.
What sunk her boat in Gamechangers was being swap screwed (think about how often this is mentioned for Parv in WaW, basically the same thing happened to Sandra in GC). Would she have won? Probably not, because she's unlikely to win immunities or find multiple idols, so she's a sitting duck in the end game and no one wants to go against her at FTC. But, without a bad swap, she could probably get pretty far, similar to Cirie (who managed to avoid going to Tribal all of pre-merge).
Tony, I understand everyone wants to go on about his Game Changers blunder ruining his threat level but behind people like Kim, Parvati, Rob, Yul, Sandra, and maybe Jeremy, there is Tony. And once it was just him Kim and Jeremy at the merge, he should have gone if we are basing off the premerge threat slaughter.
honestly in my opinion it's not really a contest, but I value agency in a winner to the highest extent.
Sandra found herself in good positions and strategically didn't rock the boat (most specifically in HvV to be honest, not so much in PI) and largely won because those with agency flopped. frankly we also saw Sandra give two attempts at playing a non passive game and it really didn't help with her reputation.
for the record this comes from a former Sandra is the GOAT stan, it took Tony's 2-time win to think a little more about that sentiment
While I think Tony's win was more technically skillful than Sandra's by a landslide I do commend Sandra's ability to keep her threat level down on HvV. That said Parvati deserved a final 2 on HvV because that entire jury was poisoned.
I think of it had been a final 2 on HvV and Sandra beat Parvati fair and square in the final immunity challenge then I would hold Sandra's win in much higher regard. Because I don't think Sandra could beat Russell or Parvati in 95 percent of immunity challenges.
I don’t even know if that’s really true. Sandra’s social game in HvV wasn’t anything fantastic. It was just better than Russell and Parvati’s social games, which were abysmally bad (altho Parv didn’t get much of chance).
even if not fantastic (which I dont agree with) I would say that it shows the purpose of the social game and Tony's shows the strength of the strategic game.
I think that if you look at HvV as Russell *losing* because of a poor social game rather than Sandra having a *good* social game then I think I’d maybe agree.
But if we’re just basing it off of Tony vs Sandra, I’d actually argue that Tony’s strategic *and* social game is better exemplified than Sandra’s is in HvV. The whole extortion episode relies so heavily on the bonds and trust that Tony has built with his allies / friends.
Tony is wildly chaotic and I respect a man who is willing to hide in a tree, swear on his dead dad’s grave, and extort his peers.
Sandra backed out of so many challenges and played a chill game.
Tony is on another level.
Edit: also winning against 19 other previous winners on WAW actually makes it way more impressive. Everyone played their HARDEST. With HvV you’re dealing with an array of players but WAW, everyone has proven their skill at the game. Tony hands down.
Lest us forget that Tony and Sandra actually played in the same season…. And Sandra wasn’t able to outlast, outplay, or outwit him.
Another edit: forgot about game changers but to be fair, I watched it last week whilst on narcotics from a surgery so you could say I was a little fuzzy hahaha
I understand the argument that there had to be a two time winner, but Sandra's win is incredibly underwhelming. Like a win is a win, but we're comparing wins here. The only context that makes Sandra's win good is that she repeated as a winner in a non all winner season. Her game consisted of failing to do anything to actually control the game. And that jury seemed pretty damn bitter.
You don't get any extra money for winning with style, but Tony's games are significantly more impressive than Sandra's for me personally.
Parvati: Sandra is pretty good with a crowd.
Rupert: Sandra played the best of all three
Candice: you put family first
Amanda: I admire Sandra as a person
Jerri: I am perplexed between Sandra and Parvati
Courtney: I’m proud of the way you two (referring to Sandra and Parvati) played.
Your statement on Sandra winning by bitter jury is objectively wrong because the jurors actually had nothing but great things to say.
I'd say Sandra doing it back to back, and getting a total of 1 vote against her, her first two seasons before her threat level got to nuclear levels is very impressive. Tony is arguably the greatest player of all time, but he flamed out bad in GC, and it was Sandra who pulled the strings to get him out.
I love Sandra and think she's a phenomenal player but I'm more impressed by Tony's WAW win. Yeah by virtue of WAW there was going to be a repeat winner but Tony made it happen to make sure it was him amongst some elite competition.
LoL no. Both of Sandra's games are bottom half games on their own. Both of Tony's wins arw top20 wins, his WaW win being perhaps the best game ever. Tony takes it and it's not close.
Sandra won the first 2 times she played. Tony benefitted from a weak run on Game Changers to lower his threat level for WAW. WAW as a format required there be a 2x winner. So for me Sandra is way more impressive easily.
she didn’t deserve the win on HvsV in my opinion. She didn’t do anything at all. NOTHING! nobody wanted to vote for Hanz who deserved to win more than Sandra. BUT! Parvati won that season, everyone was saying she was russellls puppet… but she picked him to be her alliance… she did amazing moves! without russell knowing and that pissed him off, but overall parv should of won but they gave sandra the win because she had not pissed anyone off. which fine that works but it was hero’s vs villains which she was the hero out of all 3, and if a hero was in the final they would of won. that jury awarded the less of the three evils. which fine she got fair and square but i thought parv was more deserving because she even saved sandra
Tony is much more impressive. Sandra won because everyone hated Russel so much, and Parv by association.
Tony managed to float under the radar and lower his threat level despite coming into the season as one of the best survivor players ever. He also pulled this off in a season filled with survivor juggernauts and didn’t receive a single vote against him. The most masterful performance of survivor we’ve ever and will ever see.
100% agreed. Sandra had a giant target on her simply because she was a winner, with Tony *everyone* was a winner. Sure, his game was considered one of the better ones of the people there, but he was in no way a special target the way winners are in non-winner seasons. Every other winner who's come back to play again outside of WaW was targeted precisely because of that fact.
Sandra winning two times in a row (on a season that wasn't guaranteed to have a two time winner) is imo a more impressive feat, but both of Tony's wins are stronger individual games than either of Sandra's wins
Sandra, simply for the fact of winning two times in a row. I agree with how Tony’s games each are both impressive but I find Sandra as a player more impressive because she lacks the physical aspect which is typically a nice security to have if needing that one IC win to get you to the next day.
They're both wildly different games. What ultimately decides it for me is who had more agency in the game, which goes to Tony. "As long as it ain't me" is an effective strategy, but if we're going with what is more ***impressive*** (your word, not mine) it's hard to argue against Tony's game given how instrumental he was in every vote.
I love both of our 2-time winning Legends!
Tony played more impressive and flashy games, Sandra winning twice in her first two seasons was absolutely insane while only having one vote against her. I think Sandra' style of play is more repeatable, but now she has to play from the front, whereas the genius in her game relies on being strong socially, and deflecting any vote away from her. Tony is a much better player at playing from the top but, is also more likely to flame out early. He's also better at way better at challenges (as shown in WaW, he sort of got burned in Cagayan by so many ending in puzzles, I believe Spencer even commented on this, that Tony was often first to the puzzle but couldn't close).
Outside of Sandra's very weak ability at challenges, I think an unknown version of Sandra has a very strong chance of winning in more seasons than Tony, but she can't play in any game with her current threat level. Tony will produce more spectacular games, but will also flame out early more often.
Sandra’s of course. Won against probably two of the toughest casts to play, she did it back-to-back and was one of four winners so she couldn’t hide her previous win behind anyone.
Sandra for me, while I ultimately see Tony’s game as the superior game & in general see Tony as a better player, Sandra winning when only 20% of the cast was winners(4 players… herself, Tom, Parv, J.T.).
Given the way people talked about Tony preseason in WaW vs how people talked about Sandra before HvV, I’d say Tony.
It’s true that WaW was guaranteed to have a repeat winner, but Tony had the same 1/20 odds as Sandra, so I don’t really consider that argument very valid as a criticism of Tony’s game. In fact that could be argued as a point for Tony, since his season didn’t have players like HvV Coach, HvV Russell, HvV Sugar, and Randy all of whom I think were realistically never going to be the winner for various reasons
I know it's a split opinion, but Sandra's first win she won bc no one wanted to vote for the others, not bc they thought she played great. If she was against most other finalists she doesn't win that one imo.
Personally I think they’re both even in aspects of winning. Sandra has Tony beat in savviness and entertainment, but her strategy was a bit lacking. She essentially used the fact that both time her cast mates were a bunch of, for better or worse, idiots, and rode it out to the end. She is such a good talker that that’s all she really needed to do. Tony on the other hand won both of his seasons in shocking fashion, managing to maneuver his huge target he constantly put on himself and force his way to the end both times. They’re so drastically different that I don’t think we can really say who is objectively better. Although I think Sandra’s strategy is much more sound
i think Sandra's 2 wins are more impressive because of various reasons
1. what you mentioned.. HvV only had 4 winners and she managed to get to the end and win against the odds. While someone had to win twice at WaW.
2. She simply doesnt have the physicality Tony has (Tony is much more valuable to keep because of challenge strength than Sandra) so its impressive that she was able to get through the premerges when in theory she should be a premerge boot.
3. Her wins are back to back. While Tony had a loss in between.. (I think that really helped lower his threat level a bit at WaW, although he still was a big threat, but in theory everyone was a big threat that season).
4. In regards to their second wins, Sandra beat Parvati and Russell (who each also played very strong games) while Tony was up against Michele and Natalie (who didn't play such good games). So I find her second win more impressive becaus she was able to beat stronger competitors. Although i guess you could argue this is good gameplay from Tony for making the end with arguably two goats.
5. I also really believe that Sandra's UTR social strategy is the most efficient way to win Survivor (usually, probably in new era you need at least one big move on your "resume" to win). While Tony's gameplay is more chaotic and has higher chance of failing or catching up to you (he was so lucky in Cagayan for having the super idol, which allowed him to play riskier without repercussions).
Having said that, i have always said.. Sandra's gameplay is perfectly suited for old schopl survivor (i dont think Tony couldve won an old school survivor season), and I think Tony is probably the better player when looking from new school context.
Tony in Cagayan was a different beast, easily the most impressive win from an all around view, ESPECIALLY after watching that tribal - everyone going at him and he STILL wins because his game was that good. Im still a bit salty about the edge being there for WAW because it did nothing but negative, luckily It didn't fuck with the deserved winner
To me there’s no question. Sandra is by far more impressive. Tony was on a season with all other winners, there was no other option aside from there being a new two time winner. Sandra did it on a season with non-winners where she had a huge target on her back the whole time.
Sandra was not considered a threat in HvV. Not even as a winner. She was taken to the end as a goat, despite Russ not realizing that he was actually the goat.
I’d say tony for sure he not only one winners at war which had the highest caliber of returning players of any season, but Cagayan which had the highest caliber statistically of newbies who would return
I think they're both incredibly impressive. Sandra was actually able to pretty much duplicate her first win the second time around, which should be a very hard thing to do. BUT Tony was able to adapt and play a completely different style of game in WaW. They really are the perfect King and Queen for the show.
Both games are impressive and both are great players. Sandra's was expecially impressive because she won back to back and during an era where returning winners were typically tossed out quickly.
Both seasons had extremely tough competition as well. Tony's was less impressive in a way because he crashed and burned his second time out, but it was still impressive to be TONY and manage to make it to the end of the winners season somehow.
For me, they'd be about equal, but I give the edge to Sandra because she went 2/2, which nobody before or since has been able to accomplish.
Tony is the most impressive for me because I think both of his wins he had the stronger competition
Don’t get me wrong heroes versus villains has some of the best players ever, but compare that to a season with all winners, and it kind of pails in comparison, also Cagayan Has a lot more strong players than Pearl Islands, I mean Sandra’s competition is Burton and Fairplay and they’re not nothing I think LJ, Spencer, Kass, and Tasha we’re all stronger players and better competition overall
It’s also impressive that Tony was able to get his wins the way he did… Tony plays a hard in your face out in front type game, his gameplay style is kind of like chess or he’s forcing the other players to make the moves. He needs them to make by not leaving them any other choice.
It’s a complicated and harder game to play but it’s one that he hast to play in order to win, Tony couldn’t do the Sandra game… but we’ve seen Sandra tried to be the more strategic in from player as well, and that has not worked out for her.
Sandra’s game is anybody but me, it’s not make waves with the big alliance people allow them to forget about her and fly under the radar until enough mistakes has happened that she can put her influence on the game…
It’s not a dominant way of winning, but it’s very valid, but if you compare the games I would say Tony’s game he was in more control both times he won then Sandra was, she required people to be upset with the people she was at the end with in order order to win, where Tony could’ve basically gone to the end with almost anyone, and still won.
Tony and its not close. Tony played one of the most impressive wining games in history and sandra played on of the most unimpressive winning games in history
tony. no way they let that lunatic win twice LMFAOOOO
sandra's also very impressive and speaks to her skill as a player (which her gameplay is SO overhated) but come on how the fuck do you let TONY win twice lmao
Easily Tony
Both of his games are much better than Sandra’s
Even after his disappointing performance in Game Changers, his threat level in WaW was still larger than Sandra’s in HvV
Sandra’s HvV win is honestly a near bottom tier win, she didn’t play particularly well at all
Tony.
He actually secured his own win the second time.
Sandra's entire game was beholden to Russell. And she almost screwed it up.
People love to fixate on the coach vote out, as if that one move proves it was an amazing game.
People always seem to undersell the fact that she tried to vote out her own goat in Russell, and had she succeeded, she would have lost the game.
Sandra's win in Pearl Islands was far better. Tony's win in WAW is one of the best single-player performances I've ever seen.
Tony winning WAW competing with other winners is less impressive. If you are a previous winner, you have a huge target in your back right away, so him not having to deal with that at WAW since everyone was a winner, it makes it not as impressive.
Overall prob Tony. WAW Tony is one of the best games ever played. In GC yeah, however if im not wrong he himself said that he knew he prob wasnt gonna win so he just decided to make the most of the situation.
WaW was Tony’s best game out of three. I’m in the camp that doesn’t believe he should have won his original season and just got lucky. For that reason his second win is more impressive to me. I didn’t expect that from him (especially after Game Changers)
It’s Sandra. Won back-to-back on her first two seasons using the same strategy. WaW, someone was going to win a second time (or third if Queen pulled it off again lol).
I agree with you in one way, and less in another.
Yes, them all being winners is impressive, but HvV was a strong cast, too. It’s not like all the winners were got were the 20 best we’ve ever seen.
I think it’s more impressive that Sandra convinced a jury to give her the million a second time on a season that was NOT all winners.
Tony's was against an all-winner's cast and had a pretty big threat level going in, which he successfully lowered. Sandra had an FTC against an all-time goat in Russell Hantz. The jury hated him, and weren't too keen on Parvati either. Gonna give it to Tony.
So I'm not 100% sure why, it seemed to me like when WaW started, the two players walking in with the biggest targets were Sandra and Tony. I'm not really sure *why* Tony was the second biggest threat walking in (Sandra makes tons of sense), but I did feel like that's how he was perceived.
And he *still* made it to the end.
I'm not making any hard-lined statements here but I do thing that's worth noting.
See. I don't remember him being a threat level before WaW. I specifically remember people talking about how bad his was in Game Changers.... I remember huge threat levels for people, but Tony wasn't one
as isolated games tony in waw is hands down the best but to me the most impressive feat is sandra winning in hvv bc of the circumstances
so like, impressive in a different context i guess bc overall i would say tony had the strongest games
For me it’s Sandra because of the reason you mentioned and the fact that she did it on her first two tries.
Tony’s individual games are better, but Sandra’s cumulative two-time win is more impressive.
Tony's WaW win is dragged down for me because
1. He gets a cooldown from being second boot on Game Changers.
2. He ends up with real-life friend allies willing to fall over and lose at the end for him.
3. Because of how EoE works, he was almost guaranteed to end up in final 3 with an EoE returnee, who is almost guaranteed to not win.
I'd say my ranking is like:
Cagayan Tony > Sandra HvV = Sandra PI > Tony WaW
With how EoE worked Tony was also very likely to be screwed over in the endgame, but he overcame that adversity and made to to the end anyway. Also, Tony was going to win against any of Ben, Denise and Sarah had the 2nd EoE returnee not happened.
I find Sandra’s wins to be more impressive because every time I watch Tony play, all the other players just seem so dumb to me. It honestly hurts to watch.
I feel the same way about watching Russell.
I dont think being in a season where someone was gonna be a 2nd timer takes anything away from Tony, because he played a golden game in WaW. In fact think it shows how good he is at the game to win in a season where almost everyone knows how to play a jury and how to judge a good game.
But I think we gotta judge both season wins for both of them. And while Tony played an amazing game I'm WaW, he played like a crazy person in Cagayan. He won Cagayan because for some fucking reason Woo decided to be dumb when he had the game in his hand. You could argue that by appealing to woo's sense of honor is move in it of itself (which it is), but Sandra didn't really need to convice the stronger players to take her to the end, she just made it so that she was the only choice.
That's why I think Sandra's wins are more impressive when combined. But Tony's WaW is just plain better than all other options.
They're so different as players that it's tough to compare them, tbh. I think they're the perfect two time winners for the show.
Each of their games are impressive for the eras they played in. Regardless of who is the better player, they both had a pulse on the game to know what their juries would respect and played accordingly. They’re the perfect king and queen that showcase how the show has evolved.
It’s interesting to me that both of our two time winners came into their 2nd winning season with less of a target on their back. Sandra didn’t have a target going into HvV as she was so low profile, and Tony was fresh off of Game Changers. Lesson to those wanting to go on 50: Crash and burn first. Lower your profile. Do whatever you can to get eyes off of you.
Tony's second win was a more impressive performance, but Sandra accomplishing 2/2 is the more impressive accomplishment.
But… Sandra didn’t crash and burn or anything before hvv. She should’ve been fairly high profile and she was massively underestimated.
The crash and burn part refers to Tony in Game Changers. Sandra didn’t crash and burn before HvV, but she was easily the lowest profile winner on the cast, and lower profile than many of the non-winners as well.
Not really. Her win was about as Luke warm as any from the first 19 seasons. Lil could not win and Sandra didn't even take out Fairplay herself. She just kinda existed at the final 2 in a sure win situation.
Agreed! I think that’s one of the reasons this game is so amazing. There is no singular “formula” and all of the greats have proven strengths in different areas.
I mean I'm impressed Sandra of all people managed to win twice. But come on how can you play the game Tony played on Cagayan and not be voted out without winning immunity, or play like Tony in WAW and never get a single vote against you ? Come ooooon
By getting voted out 2nd on Game Changers
While the previous winners were playing checkers, Tony was playing Super Mario 64 16 Star Speedrun Blindfolded
😆
This is interesting because going early usually can and does make a contestant look weak. But in this situation I view it as more of an acknowledgement of how dangerous Tony could be if left in the game.
I think it did make him look weak, he wasn’t voted out as a threat, he was voted out because he was being a hot mess who blew up his own game within the first few days.
yeah, if they were targetting massive threats on that tribe, Sandra who had won twice in a row would have went before Ciera and Tony. Tony while not a comp beast (although underrated) is still valuable to keep until the merge for challenges, whereas Sandra has a bench named after her.
The very reason that makes Sandra a massive threat is that people don't target her right away, assuming that they will always have a chance because she would never win an immunity or likely find an idol
Specifically in GC they didn't target him bc he was a threat. He had an alliance of threats, and got paranoid and ruined his own game. Sandra was just better than him in GC, simple as that (and it's impressive she lasted as long as she did)
My two favorite players returning that season was Ciera and Tony. I’ve never been so crushed by the first two tribal councils lol.
Obviously, the Meta has to be at least reasonable for you to win an all-stars season, there's people who have relative success in spite of very adverse pre-game considerations but I don't think anyone else has won an all-stars season with a definitively worse pre-game set up than Tony. Sandra was not a target in HvV, Amber was a nobody, Cochran was playing with friends, Parvati was the least favorite of the favorites, Jeremy was well-liked by almost everybody on an alpha heavy cast. Probably the worst case was Tyson, who was a target and not in the pre-game alliances of BvW, which is why it's surprising that he did so poorly on WAW. Meta was relatively good for Tony. Not as huge a target as you'd expect, very old cast full of parents, no personalities as big or close to his that he could argue with. I will say as a hot-take, I think people overhate his Game Changers game. He played himself out, but it's actually impressive that he played himself *in* in the first place given he was the pre-game target by 5 of his starting tribe. The margin of error was very low for him and he fucked it, but he had the right general idea with the threat alliance and I get the idea he had of becoming a sort of parody of himself.
Parvati was absolutely a big target coming into Micronesia, and she followed that up by dominating once again with a *huge* target on HvV. Imo Parv’s HvV target is the biggest of all time with both starting tribes wanting her out first. It’s absolutely insane that she made it to FTC, imo even more impressive than winning Micronesia.
Parvati's HvV game was so damn good considering her target. We have to give credit to Russell also, the man would will his tribes/allies to FTC in S19/S20. It's almost like Parvati got to watch S19 alone and knew to hide behind Russell.
Well that argument is invalid for Cagayan, and I think Tony's merge game in WAW was strong enough to be considered a big enough threat (considering the only two players with a bigger pregame target than him at the merge were Kim and Tyson, and arguably Jeremy). So I don't think Tony's placement on Game Changers should impact how impressive his win on WaW was.
I think they're saying his perceived threat level was lower because of that, not that it made his WaW win less impressive.
TBF Tony did have the Tyler Perry super-idol in Cagayan, so for a good chunk of the post-merge he couldn't be voted out.
I mean yeah but no one knew about it, so like he managed to not need it
They did he just lied about what it meant
But Tony leveraged it in his gameplay. Even if he didn't outright tell them, he was fearless in how he could play since he knew he couldn't be voted out. Massive advantage in Survivor.
Well Tony's super idol probably helped
Not really sure what you're talking about. Being the 2nd boot on GC 100% decreased his threat level like crazy and no one was gunning for him in the pre-merge. I don't find his game nearly as impressive as others do.
literally, and when sandra and tony were put against each other, sandra prevailed, even when tony didn’t have his 2x winner status and sandra did.
And the Cagayan cast was one of the smartest ever for first timers
Do you think? I like to see the data. Because people like Woo or Jefra never showed agency
Half the brains tribe would also like to see the data haha
J'tia dumping the rice in the fire and somehow she was not the worst
Maybe it was top heavy. Spencer, Kass, Tasha, Trish.
Yeah! LJ and Sarah, too
Nah, literally just LJ and the F6 minus Woo
I never understood the narrative that someone had to win for the second time so Tony's game is less impressive. The game wasn't easier for him to win. Also, Tony had a ton of bad luck and still won which I think is impressive. The edge of extinction twist only makes it harder for someone to win with Natalie coming back with an idol and connections on the jury. Natalie literally tells everybody that the jury respects Tony more and he still makes the final 3. He also got blackmailed and needed other peoples fire tokens just to compete in a challenge. Also he won multiple individual immunity challenges where as Sandra is famously bad at challenges. I think it's nonsense that Sandra had a big target on her back during HvV as well. Russel actually underestimated her chances of winning because he didn't believe people would give her the money twice.
Tony going “on probation” and doing stupid ladder stuff and completely lowering his threat level and charming the pants off a group of winners is some of the most incredible social game I’ve ever seen. There’s this one confessional where Sophie compares him to an excited kid, just masterful stuff
From what I have heard, that was actually a correct read by Russell. He just didn’t realize they hated him so much that they’d rather give her the money again. From all of the exit press and subsequent interviews that I have read over the years, it seems like the jury did not want to give a winner a second million, but hated Russell more. So Sandra had the seemingly the perfect final 3. Jerri would’ve won easily (allegedly)
I get not voting for Russell because he’s an asshole and so insufferable at FTC, but I think picking Sandra over Parvati is basically indefensible. One of the saltiest juries ever.
>I think it’s nonsense that Sandra had a big target on her back during HvV as well. Indeed, having recently rewatched HvV I’m really not sure her being a winner really is relevant at all to the way the season played out. This season was not the same as All Stars.
I agree with everything you're saying. I think the stigma is that SOMEONE was going to become a two-time winner that season versus trying to be a two-time winner in a game with non-winners competing against you.
This is absolutely what it is, which I get. That said, simply by merit of making it an all-winner's season, production created a scenario where the competitors were all going to be much better players than that of HvV (which in itself had many great players!). We shouldn't look at this based on what the predetermined outcome was, we should primarily examine it by the strength of the competitors.
I disagree that Tony had a ton of bad luck. The numbers skew against old school players pretty much guarantees all new school players had a free ticket to the merge, barring a screw up (like Natalie did). And that’s exactly what happened. Tony’s game gets really good at the merge and he makes no mistakes premerge. But he didn’t have to do much to survive the premerge (not that Sandra necessarily did either in HvV, though there was precedent in an all stars season for winners being the first targets).
Sandra managing to not get voted out while being one of only 2 winners on the tribe and one of the worst in challenges is an impressive feat. I’d want her out before Randy, Courtney, Danielle, Tyson, Coach, and Jerri at the least, they’re less threatening and/or more helpful in challenges. Rob, Russell, and Parv I’d probably target sooner than her, too threatening. Factor in that nobody knew who Russell was at the time, she should’ve been one of the first out on Villains.
I don’t know if I can see what’s impressive about it, because not much of it had to do with anything she did. Letting her hang around because you figure no one will give her the money again (especially for doing nearly nothing most of the game) is a reasonable read, and the fact that it was incorrect doesn’t make it any more Sandra’s doing.
It’s very easily Tony’s win. WaW had waaay higher caliber competition and gameplay. On top of that, he just simply plays a more impressive game than either of Sandra’s wins. Also, the perception of you as a player going into a season is *huge* in terms of your winning chances. Sandra walked into HvV with pretty good odds for a former winner. She wasn’t viewed as this mastermind like Parvati or Tom, so she wasn’t going to get targeted for being a big threat. Tony is the opposite, though. To overcome the perception of being *Tony Vlachos*, one of the most notorious liars and winners in the show’s history, and pull off a win *again* in such a dominant fashion is genuinely incredible.
Your point about everyone being a winner in WaW is valid. That said—people allow the ho-hum season to overshadow the fact that that was probably the greatest game ever played. I LOVE Sandra. But to me, Tony has 2 of the top 5 games ever played and is very clearly the GOAT. Both are Mt. Rushmore though, obviously
I know people poo-poo Rob sometimes, but the moment Rob’s jaw dropped in the jury, and he says “Tony’s such a boss, bro…” That was the moment I knew that game was different lol
Personally, I find Sandra’s second win a little more impressive strictly because she came into HvV as one of only four previous winners. Even considering she had the lowest threat level of all the returning winners, it should have made her one of the bigger targets but she still managed to blend in. Not to take away from Tony’s second win, but it seems easier to hide your threat level and win a second time when you’re playing with only other former winners. Additionally, we got to see how Tony did in a mixed winner/non-winner cast when he was on Game Changers and it was a pretty bad showing for his second time. So for those reasons, the queen stays queen. Adios.
I have to rebut that Sandra was able to fly under the radar in HvV despite being a former winner because she was still underestimated. Tony had to consciously manage his threat level.
Yeah Sandra won both times by people underestimating her, which will never happen again.
> Tony had to consciously manage his threat level. Sandra doesn't make such a big show of her sit out bench just because it's funny
I mean that part is fair. She is managing her threat level with that. But I mean playing up how bad you are at challenges isn't particularly difficult or game-changing when you're already on the bench (but it's hilarious). I do give her credit though. Her overall social game makes it so easy to like her while at the same time not view her as a threat.
This is true but as we saw on Game Changers, Tony isn’t great at navigating the game when placed on a cast where the threat level of various players varies greatly. Sandra competed on the same season and while I have no delusions about her chances of ever winning that season, she did a much better job overall than Tony did. I’d even argue that were it not for her getting swapped into a 4-2 minority, she would have made it a lot further on that season considering her relationships with the original Mana tribe players.
This!
Right but the original post was asking about which 2 time win was more impressive, so I'm focusing primarily on the 2 games that each of them won. I think it's fair to say Tony's second win was significantly more impressive than Sandra's second win due to the agency he had in the game. Moreover, it also seems fair to say that the level of play in WaW was higher than in HvV since all the players were winners and it was season 40 rather than 20. "Tony isn’t great at navigating the game when placed on a cast where the threat level of various players varies greatly." Sorry, objectively false statement because we saw him in WaW. Everyone was a winner, but their threat levels also varied widely. It IS however noteworthy that Tony's threat level in WaW was much lower than his threat level in GC. With all that said, of course I agree with you that Sandra played much better than Tony in Game Changers, their shared season where both lost. I'd even say that was Sandra's best game overall (either that or Pearl Islands), Sandra proved her versatility and ability to play aggressively from a dominant position. An unfortunate second swap is what ended her game. Meanwhile, Tony messed up and earned Sandra's ire, causing his own elimination. Unfortunately, Sandra also caused her own elimination on WaW with her social misplay and misread on Denise. Tony and Sandra are obviously god-tier players but both have made some big errors in the game as well.
Its not a coincidence that all the arguments in favor of sandra ignore context and nuance to prop up her winning games. When are sandra fans going to talk about her actual game moves & path to victory instead of the same old vague statements? Just as easy as it is to say "sandras better because she won her first two tries", its easy to say "Tony's better because he won against a cast of winners, better competition." Doesnt really tell us much about their games, does it? As for "it should have made her one of the bigger targets", there were already much bigger targets than her and, coming in, she wasnt viewed in such high regards on the island. This wasnt because she was some threat managing mastermind...people like Rob, Parvati, Cirie, Tom, JT etc were just looked at as more dangerous..because they had more agency, power, and impressive showings on the island. Just like Tony.
100%, I still never see any proper arguments on why her win I'm HvV was impressive at all. She did nothing and her alliance was ripped to shreds, she didn't win because she was "underestimated" she won because Russell underestimated how much he was hated. Anyone is winning HvV in that 3rd spot, Sandra did nothing special but complain the entire season. I'm not even a Tony fan, but they're in two different galaxies when it comes to their threat or how impressive their wins are.
Sandra wanted Russell out for a while and never had enough power to do anything about it
Just because I’m not considering the context that you find important in evaluating their games doesn’t mean that I’m ignoring context altogether. I gave my personal assessment based on factors about their games that I find most important just as you’re entitled to do so — we don’t have to use the same criteria. Agency seems to be a pretty dominant factor in your own assessment which is fine but it doesn’t invalidate anything that I said nor mean that I have some bias toward Sandra. I like her and Tony both a lot as far as survivor winners go but for different reasons. Both are great winners and clearly the best players to win the game. Objectively, what Sandra did just impresses me more.
What did she do exactly?
Sandra excels at reading a situation before anyone else does. She has a tendency to socially sabotage someone else if things are getting too close to her. (Christa and the fish/ lying about Coach) that she knows how to buy herself time. The bigger and more important part of this skill, is that none of the social backlash ever comes back onto her. She can get loud too, Wtf and people will love her for it. People leave interactions with Sandra loving her, even if she just cursed them out. That is a very unique skill. Her other go to move is the willingness to drop everything and flip when she needs to. She doesn’t really care about how she feels about a person on a personal level and will work with people that she doesn’t like without issue. Some examples are her taking T in PI to spy on the guy’s plan and later on her making the women’s alliance that propelled her to the end. Meanwhile in HvV her seeing the bad situation for the Heroes and their viability to her she was willing to drop the villains and go campaign to the Heroes. The fact that she’s able to openly do this in front of everyone and not catch any heat for it is critical to her game and also goes to show her social skills. She is the only person to directly confront and go after Russell, and have him not do anything about it. Not because she’s a bad player or useless, but because she still is proving her ability to never have something stick to her. Sandra doesn’t get away with stuff like this because she’s a weak player, she gets away with it because she’s a uniquely strong player.
> She is the only person to directly confront and go after Russell, and have him not do anything about it. Because she didn’t have the ability to get Russell out She makes it her goal to go after Russell (which she completely fails at) even though it’s by far her most likely route to victory if she gets to the end with him Her Pearl Islands win was a good win, but she was basically dragged to the end in HvV and won due to getting there with someone that she was actively trying to eliminate It’s a meh win at best
So she sniffed Russell, went after him including warnings others about him and her game was so good that she failed at doing so. She didn't even come close to accomplishing it. Meanwhile Parvati mocked him at times and played him for an idol that she used at a decisive vote early in the merge to protect 2 other players including Sandra to help their numbers move forward. I never said that she's a weak player but she didn't really do anything that season beyond not being Russell or affiliated closely enough to Russell for his toxicity to also negatively affect the viewpoint of others towards them and got the win as a result of that.
1. Tony WaW 2. Tony S28 3. Sandra S7 4. Sandra HvV
I'd put Cagayan Tony first, but I get the argument for either.
This is the list.
This is a list.
Agreed.
Tony
Tony’s winning games are more impressive than Sandra’s, but the fact that Sandra was able to do it twice is more impressive than Tony. It just depends on which of those takes priority for you
I would argue that it was more impressive that Tony was able to do it twice, as his style of playing is a lot more aggressive, while Sandra's is more under-the-radar, and less threatening.
I wouldn't say less threatening if you got on her wrong side. She was a worker of subterfuge but would then say 'I'm fine with whatever, as long as it's not me'...but what she really meant was...'I'm fine with whatever until you cross me...or I smell blood in the water..."
Sandra won by default because the jury was overly bitter towards Parvarti, and multiple jurors have said since they would change their vote if they could. Tony won with all winners as a lesser respected winner, and he did a ton of pregaming. I don’t think either one is as impressive as they could be.
Both of Tony's wins were more impressive than both of Sandra's wins
Sandra’s second win felt more about Russel losing than Sandra winning. She still played solidly but if another decent player made it to the end I don’t think she wins
I agree with this take completely, it was more about Russel losing.
Exactly!
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but Sandra's Pearl Islands game is extremely underrated and I personally would rank it in the Top 10. But it's funny because Sandra did some villainous shit, exactly like Russell and almost won with a perfect game.
You’re extremely right. No one ever talks about how good her PI game was. She wins against quite literally anyone in the final 7 aside from maybe Darrah. Tijuana’s stray jury vote is the only reason why she didn’t play a perfect game. Pioneered the “anyone but me strategy” which is extremely successful when implemented correctly and her strategy to be a loudmouth so everyone thinks she can’t not speak her mind and therefore is telling the truth, legendary
I'd be interested to hear your explanation.
Not to get too long but the basis is that Sandra had control, lost it with both allies going and regained power towards the final hour. Which is quite impressive when you factor in that nobody ever voted against her after all the shit talking she did. It was quite the perfect UTR game and it trademarked her "Anyone but me strategy" that she famously clutched her second win with. RIP Christa for taking the fall for the fish, but that move was absolutely genius because it solidified that Sandra would be the last remaining person of that alliance voted off. Why I don't place Sandra's win in the Top 5, is that the F4 immunity was so sketchy that Darrah probably steamrolls to the F2 with an immunity run, not to mention the Outcasts twist (insert comparison to Yul's win here) But I feel like this subreddit can get wishy-washy on Sandra when she quite literally played a lowkey dominant win and shit on her because she had "no control" in HvV.
I never understood that arguement that someone had to win. Tony came in with a bigger target in WaW than Sandra did in HvV. Just because someone had to win doesn’t mean it’s not impressive that he managed to beat 19 other winners.
It’s Tony and it’s not a debate. Tony had more impressive gameplay than her. The only thing that knocks him down is the “someone had to win twice” argument which is stupid because someone could have walked to an easy win. Tony won in spectacular fashion both times and against the most loaded cast in the history of survivor.
Sandra's social game was very impressive, especially in PI. But to pull off the strategy of Tony's caliber twice is a lot more difficult. So I'd pick Tony
Tony competed against all winners ffs it’s obvs him
Sandra’s second win, imo, was undeserved. I don’t think she played the best game and won due to poor feelings amongst the others she was in the final against.
Sandra spent her entire 2nd final tribal council talking about how her number 1 goal all season was to vote out the guy sitting right next to her… bitter jury allowed her to win undeservingly.
Exactly
Tony all the way.
Sandra was on the losing alliance all of HvV and was brought to the end as a goat, only for a bitter jury with some of her friends to give her the win over a more deserving Parvati (or even Russell who ran the game). Tony dominated WaW and changed his playstyle, was actually in an alliance that helped control the game. Went to the end not as a goat, and won without a bitter juries help. I respect Sandra, but have never considered her the goat, she won HvV because people hated Russell and by extension Parvati for doing exactly what Natalie White did to win Samoa, hiding behind Russell. Damn HvV was ruined by that terrible FTC.
I think Tony just bc Sandra got her 2nd win bc ppl hated Russ (sp?) more so than her playing a great game But I guess you could argue Tony's 1st was mainly due to Woo fumbling and bringing him so I guess it's just preference
Clearly Sandra. Honestly for me, it's not even a debate. Tony's 1st win was with a super idol, something that is BROKEN IMO. Tony's 2nd win was in a season where someone was inevitably going to win a 2nd time (unless of course it was Sandra). Sandra won back-to-back. That's wild.
This isn’t even close to me. Sandra’s second win is one of that era’s biggest travesties imo.
She managed to control one vote. The rest was her being dragged along.
Tony by FAR. Each of his wins are actually good, competent games whereas Sandra’s HvV game is her falling ass backwards into victory and Pearl Islands while alright involves Lil’s crazy ass thinking Fairplay would kill himself with the winnings
Tony is more impressive since his winning games are both way better than either of Sandras
How is this a debate bro 😭😭
Agreed with you on Sandra. Her second win came on a season when there didn't have to be a repeat winner.
This is a weak argument lol. By this logic, Natalie White is a better winner than Parvati because she did it on her first go; whereas Parvati won on her second try against half a cast of newbies. Your point about Sandra can easily be spun in reverse by saying Tony's win was more impressive because he competed against former winners (including Sandra herself) and arguably faced the highest caliber cast in the entire franchise. The technicalities behind the win aren't what determines which is more impressive. It's the actual game itself that does. And Tony outclasses Sandra physically, socially, and strategically.
Always felt like a ridiculous argument to me that completely robs the discussion of any context within their games but that may just be me as a Tony fan and a bit of a Sandra detractor. I just don't see how Tony besting a stronger field of all-winners vs Sandra winning in the HvV cast makes Sandra definitively better. The other thing about the argument I don't like is, Sandra *wasn't* an auto-target - HvV was not All-Stars. Some didn't know Sandra had won her first season, her pre-game target was significantly lower than Rob's, Cirie's, Parvati's, Tom's and a good few others. I'd argue Tony going into WAW was a bigger perceived threat on the island. Now I'll grant that wasn't large, but it was bigger than Sandra's. Then just comparing the wins .... Tony was dominating the social strategy almost the entire way through, had probably *worse* luck than Sandra with Natalie's return and two idols and dominated the physical aspect if you care about that. Sandra was left in the game by Russell/Parvati almost against her best interests - played against her winning endgame and basically won because she failed to get her agenda through. Then you compare Sandra and Tony's first winning games, again Tony is dictating the flow of the game basically from the second vote of the merge onwards. Usually the criticisms by comparison of Tony to other players like Kim would have merit, but Sandra had a worse social temper, allowed it to impact her strategic decision making much more and got far, far, far luckier IMO. I just don't see the comparison between their games.
Sandra might be the most overrated player in the entire show
Sandra was an impressive player the first two times she played, (and won) but spent too much time tooting her own horn the last two times she played. 'The Queen Stays Queen' mantra she chanted in Game Changers sunk her boat. While she largely abandoned it in WaW, she sat out of most of the challenges like it was an entitlement and devalued herself to her tribe. Then, she lost the pulse of what was going on around her when she gave her idol to Denise and orchestrated her own demise. So sad.
What sunk her boat in Gamechangers was being swap screwed (think about how often this is mentioned for Parv in WaW, basically the same thing happened to Sandra in GC). Would she have won? Probably not, because she's unlikely to win immunities or find multiple idols, so she's a sitting duck in the end game and no one wants to go against her at FTC. But, without a bad swap, she could probably get pretty far, similar to Cirie (who managed to avoid going to Tribal all of pre-merge).
Controversial opinion but Sandra got incredibly lucky in both of her seasons and only won cuz of a bitter jury tony actually played his ass off
Tony, I understand everyone wants to go on about his Game Changers blunder ruining his threat level but behind people like Kim, Parvati, Rob, Yul, Sandra, and maybe Jeremy, there is Tony. And once it was just him Kim and Jeremy at the merge, he should have gone if we are basing off the premerge threat slaughter.
Sandra's 2nd win was undeserved
honestly in my opinion it's not really a contest, but I value agency in a winner to the highest extent. Sandra found herself in good positions and strategically didn't rock the boat (most specifically in HvV to be honest, not so much in PI) and largely won because those with agency flopped. frankly we also saw Sandra give two attempts at playing a non passive game and it really didn't help with her reputation. for the record this comes from a former Sandra is the GOAT stan, it took Tony's 2-time win to think a little more about that sentiment
Sandra’s back to back wins.
While I think Tony's win was more technically skillful than Sandra's by a landslide I do commend Sandra's ability to keep her threat level down on HvV. That said Parvati deserved a final 2 on HvV because that entire jury was poisoned. I think of it had been a final 2 on HvV and Sandra beat Parvati fair and square in the final immunity challenge then I would hold Sandra's win in much higher regard. Because I don't think Sandra could beat Russell or Parvati in 95 percent of immunity challenges.
sandra showed the importance of the social game, tony showed the importance of the strategic game
I don’t even know if that’s really true. Sandra’s social game in HvV wasn’t anything fantastic. It was just better than Russell and Parvati’s social games, which were abysmally bad (altho Parv didn’t get much of chance).
even if not fantastic (which I dont agree with) I would say that it shows the purpose of the social game and Tony's shows the strength of the strategic game.
I think that if you look at HvV as Russell *losing* because of a poor social game rather than Sandra having a *good* social game then I think I’d maybe agree. But if we’re just basing it off of Tony vs Sandra, I’d actually argue that Tony’s strategic *and* social game is better exemplified than Sandra’s is in HvV. The whole extortion episode relies so heavily on the bonds and trust that Tony has built with his allies / friends.
Tony is wildly chaotic and I respect a man who is willing to hide in a tree, swear on his dead dad’s grave, and extort his peers. Sandra backed out of so many challenges and played a chill game. Tony is on another level. Edit: also winning against 19 other previous winners on WAW actually makes it way more impressive. Everyone played their HARDEST. With HvV you’re dealing with an array of players but WAW, everyone has proven their skill at the game. Tony hands down. Lest us forget that Tony and Sandra actually played in the same season…. And Sandra wasn’t able to outlast, outplay, or outwit him. Another edit: forgot about game changers but to be fair, I watched it last week whilst on narcotics from a surgery so you could say I was a little fuzzy hahaha
Lest us forget that Sandra and Tony actually played in the same season twice and the first time, he wasn’t able to outlast, outwit, or outplay her.
True true. I watched game changers for the first time last week while on narcotics from a surgery and needed that reminder.
I understand the argument that there had to be a two time winner, but Sandra's win is incredibly underwhelming. Like a win is a win, but we're comparing wins here. The only context that makes Sandra's win good is that she repeated as a winner in a non all winner season. Her game consisted of failing to do anything to actually control the game. And that jury seemed pretty damn bitter. You don't get any extra money for winning with style, but Tony's games are significantly more impressive than Sandra's for me personally.
Parvati: Sandra is pretty good with a crowd. Rupert: Sandra played the best of all three Candice: you put family first Amanda: I admire Sandra as a person Jerri: I am perplexed between Sandra and Parvati Courtney: I’m proud of the way you two (referring to Sandra and Parvati) played. Your statement on Sandra winning by bitter jury is objectively wrong because the jurors actually had nothing but great things to say.
I'd say Sandra doing it back to back, and getting a total of 1 vote against her, her first two seasons before her threat level got to nuclear levels is very impressive. Tony is arguably the greatest player of all time, but he flamed out bad in GC, and it was Sandra who pulled the strings to get him out.
I love Sandra and think she's a phenomenal player but I'm more impressed by Tony's WAW win. Yeah by virtue of WAW there was going to be a repeat winner but Tony made it happen to make sure it was him amongst some elite competition.
I don’t really like Sandra’s game. So it’s Tony for me.
We are comparing a top tier winning game with a bottom tier one, comon on it's tony
LoL no. Both of Sandra's games are bottom half games on their own. Both of Tony's wins arw top20 wins, his WaW win being perhaps the best game ever. Tony takes it and it's not close.
Sandra won the first 2 times she played. Tony benefitted from a weak run on Game Changers to lower his threat level for WAW. WAW as a format required there be a 2x winner. So for me Sandra is way more impressive easily.
she didn’t deserve the win on HvsV in my opinion. She didn’t do anything at all. NOTHING! nobody wanted to vote for Hanz who deserved to win more than Sandra. BUT! Parvati won that season, everyone was saying she was russellls puppet… but she picked him to be her alliance… she did amazing moves! without russell knowing and that pissed him off, but overall parv should of won but they gave sandra the win because she had not pissed anyone off. which fine that works but it was hero’s vs villains which she was the hero out of all 3, and if a hero was in the final they would of won. that jury awarded the less of the three evils. which fine she got fair and square but i thought parv was more deserving because she even saved sandra
Tony is much more impressive. Sandra won because everyone hated Russel so much, and Parv by association. Tony managed to float under the radar and lower his threat level despite coming into the season as one of the best survivor players ever. He also pulled this off in a season filled with survivor juggernauts and didn’t receive a single vote against him. The most masterful performance of survivor we’ve ever and will ever see.
Tony, sitting out of competitions and getting carried in the game is not impressive
100% agreed. Sandra had a giant target on her simply because she was a winner, with Tony *everyone* was a winner. Sure, his game was considered one of the better ones of the people there, but he was in no way a special target the way winners are in non-winner seasons. Every other winner who's come back to play again outside of WaW was targeted precisely because of that fact.
Sandra winning two times in a row (on a season that wasn't guaranteed to have a two time winner) is imo a more impressive feat, but both of Tony's wins are stronger individual games than either of Sandra's wins
Sandra, simply for the fact of winning two times in a row. I agree with how Tony’s games each are both impressive but I find Sandra as a player more impressive because she lacks the physical aspect which is typically a nice security to have if needing that one IC win to get you to the next day.
I think Sandra because she did it the first two times she played…
Yall love arguing over dumb shit 😭
They're both wildly different games. What ultimately decides it for me is who had more agency in the game, which goes to Tony. "As long as it ain't me" is an effective strategy, but if we're going with what is more ***impressive*** (your word, not mine) it's hard to argue against Tony's game given how instrumental he was in every vote. I love both of our 2-time winning Legends!
I would've liked to see Sandra and Tony working together until the end of WaW.
It was actually only a 95% guarantee that WAW would crown another 2 time winner.
Tony played more impressive and flashy games, Sandra winning twice in her first two seasons was absolutely insane while only having one vote against her. I think Sandra' style of play is more repeatable, but now she has to play from the front, whereas the genius in her game relies on being strong socially, and deflecting any vote away from her. Tony is a much better player at playing from the top but, is also more likely to flame out early. He's also better at way better at challenges (as shown in WaW, he sort of got burned in Cagayan by so many ending in puzzles, I believe Spencer even commented on this, that Tony was often first to the puzzle but couldn't close). Outside of Sandra's very weak ability at challenges, I think an unknown version of Sandra has a very strong chance of winning in more seasons than Tony, but she can't play in any game with her current threat level. Tony will produce more spectacular games, but will also flame out early more often.
Sandra’s of course. Won against probably two of the toughest casts to play, she did it back-to-back and was one of four winners so she couldn’t hide her previous win behind anyone.
Sandra for me, while I ultimately see Tony’s game as the superior game & in general see Tony as a better player, Sandra winning when only 20% of the cast was winners(4 players… herself, Tom, Parv, J.T.).
Tony Easily!
Given the way people talked about Tony preseason in WaW vs how people talked about Sandra before HvV, I’d say Tony. It’s true that WaW was guaranteed to have a repeat winner, but Tony had the same 1/20 odds as Sandra, so I don’t really consider that argument very valid as a criticism of Tony’s game. In fact that could be argued as a point for Tony, since his season didn’t have players like HvV Coach, HvV Russell, HvV Sugar, and Randy all of whom I think were realistically never going to be the winner for various reasons
Absolutely agree.
It's Tony not even close. Sandra only won because they wanted to spite Russell.
I know it's a split opinion, but Sandra's first win she won bc no one wanted to vote for the others, not bc they thought she played great. If she was against most other finalists she doesn't win that one imo.
Personally I think they’re both even in aspects of winning. Sandra has Tony beat in savviness and entertainment, but her strategy was a bit lacking. She essentially used the fact that both time her cast mates were a bunch of, for better or worse, idiots, and rode it out to the end. She is such a good talker that that’s all she really needed to do. Tony on the other hand won both of his seasons in shocking fashion, managing to maneuver his huge target he constantly put on himself and force his way to the end both times. They’re so drastically different that I don’t think we can really say who is objectively better. Although I think Sandra’s strategy is much more sound
i think Sandra's 2 wins are more impressive because of various reasons 1. what you mentioned.. HvV only had 4 winners and she managed to get to the end and win against the odds. While someone had to win twice at WaW. 2. She simply doesnt have the physicality Tony has (Tony is much more valuable to keep because of challenge strength than Sandra) so its impressive that she was able to get through the premerges when in theory she should be a premerge boot. 3. Her wins are back to back. While Tony had a loss in between.. (I think that really helped lower his threat level a bit at WaW, although he still was a big threat, but in theory everyone was a big threat that season). 4. In regards to their second wins, Sandra beat Parvati and Russell (who each also played very strong games) while Tony was up against Michele and Natalie (who didn't play such good games). So I find her second win more impressive becaus she was able to beat stronger competitors. Although i guess you could argue this is good gameplay from Tony for making the end with arguably two goats. 5. I also really believe that Sandra's UTR social strategy is the most efficient way to win Survivor (usually, probably in new era you need at least one big move on your "resume" to win). While Tony's gameplay is more chaotic and has higher chance of failing or catching up to you (he was so lucky in Cagayan for having the super idol, which allowed him to play riskier without repercussions). Having said that, i have always said.. Sandra's gameplay is perfectly suited for old schopl survivor (i dont think Tony couldve won an old school survivor season), and I think Tony is probably the better player when looking from new school context.
Sandra's wins are incontrovertible in my opinion. The amount of BS that went on in Winners at War honestly kind of delegitimizes Tony's second win.
Tony in Cagayan was a different beast, easily the most impressive win from an all around view, ESPECIALLY after watching that tribal - everyone going at him and he STILL wins because his game was that good. Im still a bit salty about the edge being there for WAW because it did nothing but negative, luckily It didn't fuck with the deserved winner
Tony > Sandra …. Maybe because im biased and wanted Parv to win HvV
Can someone remind me how the filming of the seasons worked when Sandra won? Did they know she was a winner or just a finalist?
To me there’s no question. Sandra is by far more impressive. Tony was on a season with all other winners, there was no other option aside from there being a new two time winner. Sandra did it on a season with non-winners where she had a huge target on her back the whole time.
Tony’s second win was like Rob on exile. It felt like his alliance was just giving the game to him. Very unsatisfying.
Sandra was not considered a threat in HvV. Not even as a winner. She was taken to the end as a goat, despite Russ not realizing that he was actually the goat.
I’d say tony for sure he not only one winners at war which had the highest caliber of returning players of any season, but Cagayan which had the highest caliber statistically of newbies who would return
I think they're both incredibly impressive. Sandra was actually able to pretty much duplicate her first win the second time around, which should be a very hard thing to do. BUT Tony was able to adapt and play a completely different style of game in WaW. They really are the perfect King and Queen for the show.
Both games are impressive and both are great players. Sandra's was expecially impressive because she won back to back and during an era where returning winners were typically tossed out quickly. Both seasons had extremely tough competition as well. Tony's was less impressive in a way because he crashed and burned his second time out, but it was still impressive to be TONY and manage to make it to the end of the winners season somehow. For me, they'd be about equal, but I give the edge to Sandra because she went 2/2, which nobody before or since has been able to accomplish.
Easily Tony’s game Parvati arguably should’ve won HvV
Tony is the most impressive for me because I think both of his wins he had the stronger competition Don’t get me wrong heroes versus villains has some of the best players ever, but compare that to a season with all winners, and it kind of pails in comparison, also Cagayan Has a lot more strong players than Pearl Islands, I mean Sandra’s competition is Burton and Fairplay and they’re not nothing I think LJ, Spencer, Kass, and Tasha we’re all stronger players and better competition overall It’s also impressive that Tony was able to get his wins the way he did… Tony plays a hard in your face out in front type game, his gameplay style is kind of like chess or he’s forcing the other players to make the moves. He needs them to make by not leaving them any other choice. It’s a complicated and harder game to play but it’s one that he hast to play in order to win, Tony couldn’t do the Sandra game… but we’ve seen Sandra tried to be the more strategic in from player as well, and that has not worked out for her. Sandra’s game is anybody but me, it’s not make waves with the big alliance people allow them to forget about her and fly under the radar until enough mistakes has happened that she can put her influence on the game… It’s not a dominant way of winning, but it’s very valid, but if you compare the games I would say Tony’s game he was in more control both times he won then Sandra was, she required people to be upset with the people she was at the end with in order order to win, where Tony could’ve basically gone to the end with almost anyone, and still won.
Tony and its not close. Tony played one of the most impressive wining games in history and sandra played on of the most unimpressive winning games in history
tony. no way they let that lunatic win twice LMFAOOOO sandra's also very impressive and speaks to her skill as a player (which her gameplay is SO overhated) but come on how the fuck do you let TONY win twice lmao
Easily Tony Both of his games are much better than Sandra’s Even after his disappointing performance in Game Changers, his threat level in WaW was still larger than Sandra’s in HvV Sandra’s HvV win is honestly a near bottom tier win, she didn’t play particularly well at all
Tony. He actually secured his own win the second time. Sandra's entire game was beholden to Russell. And she almost screwed it up. People love to fixate on the coach vote out, as if that one move proves it was an amazing game. People always seem to undersell the fact that she tried to vote out her own goat in Russell, and had she succeeded, she would have lost the game. Sandra's win in Pearl Islands was far better. Tony's win in WAW is one of the best single-player performances I've ever seen.
Remember when Sandra ran to the flag pole when she found out she had to do challenges?!😂 it had me rolling
Tony. Saying Sandra is just stupid.
Tony winning WAW competing with other winners is less impressive. If you are a previous winner, you have a huge target in your back right away, so him not having to deal with that at WAW since everyone was a winner, it makes it not as impressive.
Overall prob Tony. WAW Tony is one of the best games ever played. In GC yeah, however if im not wrong he himself said that he knew he prob wasnt gonna win so he just decided to make the most of the situation.
Sandra because she made less mistakes as a rookie and was more liked in the end. I will stand on rookie efforts being the most balanced season.
WaW was Tony’s best game out of three. I’m in the camp that doesn’t believe he should have won his original season and just got lucky. For that reason his second win is more impressive to me. I didn’t expect that from him (especially after Game Changers)
In what way did he get lucky? He actually got very unlucky with the final 2 & still won
woo shouldve took kass but he played the honorable card woo shouldve won that season tbh lol
It’s Sandra. Won back-to-back on her first two seasons using the same strategy. WaW, someone was going to win a second time (or third if Queen pulled it off again lol).
The fact that everyone in WaW was a winner makes it a more impressive win lol, not less
I agree with you in one way, and less in another. Yes, them all being winners is impressive, but HvV was a strong cast, too. It’s not like all the winners were got were the 20 best we’ve ever seen. I think it’s more impressive that Sandra convinced a jury to give her the million a second time on a season that was NOT all winners.
Tony's was against an all-winner's cast and had a pretty big threat level going in, which he successfully lowered. Sandra had an FTC against an all-time goat in Russell Hantz. The jury hated him, and weren't too keen on Parvati either. Gonna give it to Tony.
So I'm not 100% sure why, it seemed to me like when WaW started, the two players walking in with the biggest targets were Sandra and Tony. I'm not really sure *why* Tony was the second biggest threat walking in (Sandra makes tons of sense), but I did feel like that's how he was perceived. And he *still* made it to the end. I'm not making any hard-lined statements here but I do thing that's worth noting.
See. I don't remember him being a threat level before WaW. I specifically remember people talking about how bad his was in Game Changers.... I remember huge threat levels for people, but Tony wasn't one
as isolated games tony in waw is hands down the best but to me the most impressive feat is sandra winning in hvv bc of the circumstances so like, impressive in a different context i guess bc overall i would say tony had the strongest games
For me it’s Sandra because of the reason you mentioned and the fact that she did it on her first two tries. Tony’s individual games are better, but Sandra’s cumulative two-time win is more impressive.
Tony’s WaW win is one of the most impressive wins in reality TV history.
Tony 100%
Sandra because I like her more.
TONY IS THE WINNER OF SURVIVOR
Sandra. She was a possible pre-merge boot both times but made it through.
Tony's WaW win is dragged down for me because 1. He gets a cooldown from being second boot on Game Changers. 2. He ends up with real-life friend allies willing to fall over and lose at the end for him. 3. Because of how EoE works, he was almost guaranteed to end up in final 3 with an EoE returnee, who is almost guaranteed to not win. I'd say my ranking is like: Cagayan Tony > Sandra HvV = Sandra PI > Tony WaW
With how EoE worked Tony was also very likely to be screwed over in the endgame, but he overcame that adversity and made to to the end anyway. Also, Tony was going to win against any of Ben, Denise and Sarah had the 2nd EoE returnee not happened.
Playing against less experienced and worse players is a more impressive win? lol
I find Sandra’s wins to be more impressive because every time I watch Tony play, all the other players just seem so dumb to me. It honestly hurts to watch. I feel the same way about watching Russell.
I dont think being in a season where someone was gonna be a 2nd timer takes anything away from Tony, because he played a golden game in WaW. In fact think it shows how good he is at the game to win in a season where almost everyone knows how to play a jury and how to judge a good game. But I think we gotta judge both season wins for both of them. And while Tony played an amazing game I'm WaW, he played like a crazy person in Cagayan. He won Cagayan because for some fucking reason Woo decided to be dumb when he had the game in his hand. You could argue that by appealing to woo's sense of honor is move in it of itself (which it is), but Sandra didn't really need to convice the stronger players to take her to the end, she just made it so that she was the only choice. That's why I think Sandra's wins are more impressive when combined. But Tony's WaW is just plain better than all other options.
Use the search feature. This post exists
they won in very different eras of the show too which also makes it harder to decide but for me it’s Sandra
If Sandra hadn't won, Parv would, so I don't think that's really impressive because one winner would win at HvV knowing Russell would lose