For Scripted TV and Movie Podcasts and Blogs, Visit Our Sister Site at

Richard Hatch on the Shifting Balance of Power on Survivor

Richard Hatch on the shifting balance of Power on Survivor Caramoan

Andrea went from on top to being in the dog house.

Listen to the Podcast:

After a double eviction episode of Survivor Caramoan, Rob brings in the Survivor legend and winner of the first ever Survivor season, Richard Hatch.

Rob starts off by talking with Rich about the surprising elimination of Andrea Boehlke and what Rich thought about that move. Rich thought it was a good move by John Cochran to take out Andrea since she was some of his biggest competition in the game.

Rich did not think that Erik Reichenbach made the right move and doesn’t think that Erik is a very good player at all. Rich says that Stephen Fishbach was wrong to compare Erik’s game this season to the game Richard had played on Survivor All-Stars. Richard also had a lot to say about the alliance started by Malcolm Freberg with Eddie and Reynold, the three amigos. Rob spoke with Richard about the alliance he created in the first Survivor season.

Later in the show, Rob takes a number of voicemail questions from the listeners and discusses the latest in Survivor social media.

Listen to This Week’s Exit Interviews

Watch This Week’s Episode of “Survivor Know-It-Alls”

Rob Cesternino

Rob Cesternino is a two-time Survivor player and reality TV aficionado. Rob gives his thoughts on his favorite Reality TV shows as the host of "Rob Has a Podcast" More From Rob Cesternino »

Become a Patron of Rob Has a Podcast

  • JES

    Rob, none of the links are working to listen to the podcast

  • Michael Norris

    Amanda might also be pretty close to Russell in number of episodes played in a row.

    • Mike Magas

      I would have to think tied as she made the finals both times as did he, unless the seasons had a different episode count.

      • Michael Norris

        That’s what I’m saying. One of Amanda’s seasons had only 16 people, while both of Russell’s had 20. I know there were double eliminations and recaps, but there might be a total difference of one or two episodes.

        • Mike Magas

          Well just for our own fact checking, 13 for china, 14 for FvF

          14 for Samoa and HvV

          Russell wins by an episode

          • Michael Norris

            Great, just what his ego needs.

          • damnbueno

            Are you sure?

            Amanda made the finals in her first two seasons, just like Russell did. So after two seasons, Amanda had 27 episodes, and Russell had 28.

            But Amanda lasted longer in HvV than Russell did in R.I. Amanda made it past the merge, while Russell was the first one booted from his tribe.

            Amanda had 11 episodes in HvV, but Russell only had 4 in R.I.

            That would mean Amanda has 38 straight episodes without being voted out, while Russell has 32. And since Russell left one episode after being voted out and sent to R.I., his count might actually be 31.

          • Mike Magas

            i think we were refering to the back to back double season otherwise we may have other contenders

          • damnbueno

            Who else would qualify?

            Stephenie & Bobby Jon missed most of the post-merge Palau episodes.

            Boston Rob’s run in All-Stars to HvV.
            Ozzy — Fiji to FvF
            Parvati — FvF to HvV.
            Danielle — Panama to HvV.
            Sandra — Pearl Islands to HvV.
            Phillip — R.I. to FvF 2
            Malcolm — Phillipines to FvF 2

            I don’t think any of them hit Amanda’s 38 straight episodes without being voted out.

          • Mike Magas

            Parvati may that is back to back finalist along with Sandra also a back to back finalist (and winner of course). You are I would assume correct with Amanda having the longest run of not getting voted out (She’s first person I can recall Probst saying hit 100 days though Parvati was not far behind)

            Though I’m not sure what records mean in survivor, I say this because I tend to view each season through a different looking glass in many respects.

          • damnbueno

            Parvati did pass Amanda’s “Days played” record, but Boston Rob passed Parvati in R.I.

            I don’t think any of these records really mean anything. Amanda, Parvati and Boston Rob’s episode count doesn’t mean they’re any better or worse a player than Yul who only played one season. I choose to look at how a person plays instead of just the numerical stats.

            Amanda largely stayed alive because she had an exceptional partner (Todd & Cirie) making most of the strategic plans for her. She didn’t have any such partner in HvV, and had to think for herself most of the game. The results pretty much speak for themselves.

            But yes, each season is different, and must be evaluated on it’s own merits. As the game evolves, so must the way we evaluate it.

          • Mike Magas

            In even more ways than that. For example challenge performance is always a hard one to guage because some seasons, say Panama (which had multiple College athletes) being stronger than say China (which had most of their strong males out by the final 7).

            Each season is a unique combination of players and circumstances, makes them really hard to compare.

          • damnbueno

            I totally agree.

            It’d be almost impossible to compare this season’s challenge athletes to other seasons because this season hasn’t had any puzzles at all.

            The closest one I can think of was the “Push Oversized Lettered Crates,” but the tribes were so uneven when that was run that new Bikal with Corinne, Cochran, Dawn, Phillip, Julia, Matt & Michael didn’t have a chance. Gota could take their time in that one.

            I just watched this week’s Challenge Preview, and its the “Hold a rope and lean” challenge first used in One World — the one Kat and Kim battled each other to the end.

            This season hasn’t had any puzzles or trivia questions yet, so how could you compare, say Reynold to Boston Rob or Ozzy?

          • Mike Magas

            I think even if there were, we’re shown often edited challenges. For example the swim and smash challenge used this season has been used before but in this season Eddie seemed just as Fast as Ozzie in the Cooks but we don’t see the whole swim to even use.

            The only thing I have is looking at the background of the players. For example for all their flaws as players Grant and Ashley from RI were pro athletes, it can be somewhat inferred they are amongst the stronger athletic competitors.

            As for puzzles, i don’t really know what you can use. I mean profession maybe cept Boston Rob was a construction worker lol.

          • damnbueno

            True, Grant dominated the pre-merge challenges, and he and Ashley both won 2 Individual Immunities, but Boston Rob — with the huge advantage of experience — won 4.

            But Survivor has become much less about physical dominance in recent seasons. You just don’t have to be good at challenges to win the game. More and more players (Malcolm last season, Sabrina, possibly Erik this season) have realized the value of sandbagging it early on because they know the social and strategic game is what gets you the million. Standing out as the best athlete is almost equal to asking to being voted out — just like being the most likeable, or seen as “too smart” to compete against.

            So when you get players sandbagging it so much, how can you compare them to someone like Ozzy or Pilot Terry who live to compete hard?

            For all the talk Reynold and Eddie did about how valuable their strength was, Eddie has largely sucked in the physical challenges — especially when he had to think and strategize while doing something physical. Reynold is a lot closer to Ozzy than Eddie is.

          • Mike Magas

            Agreed with Reynold and Eddie. I said it really quite repeatedly, Eddie is a team challenge guy where he has someone else to think for him and his muscle comes into play.

            In individual challenges, he has at best average balance, weak hand eye, and a brain that misfires lol. Very few individual challenges don’t involve one of those 3.

          • damnbueno

            Have we discussed Eddie’s team challenge performances before? I don’t want to repeat myself, but he didn’t do nearly as well as Shamar and Reynold did in those challenges.

            After the swap his team was so strong that his weaknesses weren’t exposed.

          • Mike Magas

            We have, I don’t agree he was as bad as you do but let’s not debate.

            I’m not as much looking at results as much as skill set. He is for example clearly strong, good swimmer and runner these are team skills that come in very handy pre merge. But they are also skills that become less key in individual challenges, not useless of course, many challenges involve some running and swimming, but are rarely brute force based and tend to include more agility, balance and hand eye elements that so far Eddie has sucked at.

            So I wouldn’t mind having him on my team from a challenge stand point, but to be honest, I wouldn’t see him as a huge threat. Again a case of I see muscles syndrome from the rest of the cast.

  • Michael Norris

    I’m glad this Doug guy said the same thing about Erik flipping as I did. I don’t even think this is the first time Erik has blown an opportunity like this. I don’t know where the idea that Erik is such a great player is coming from either. People were saying that about Carter last season too.

    • Narborg

      I think people like Erik, and want him to do well, so are crediting him with a much better game than he’s playing.

      • Trixie02

        The converse is true as well. Many people dislike Erik and cannot fathom that he can think. He must be so paranoid after being naive last time around. I don’t think he can be cutthroat, so for him, flipping and being cautious IS a good game. He seems self-aware in his confessionals, but you cannot expect him to turn into a leader who blindsides people. That said, he has decided which person goes home by being a number.

        A lot of people *cough Penner cough* play great games but get voted out. Erik is stealth and he has 6th place or higher–not bad.

        • Maciek Roszak

          Penner and great game? When? He played 3 times and all we can say after we watched him three times that he is a BAD player. Entertaining YES, but with pretty crappy social skills (and bitter juror)

          • Jeremy Morton

            Penner doesn’t strike me as a bitter juror. I think he just recognizes that this is a television program, and since it is, there needs to be fireworks at the final tribal or it’s going to seriously hurt the quality of the last episode. Often when analyzing seasons, Probst comments on the final tribal. For example, Survivor Marquesas was a great season imo, but Probst downgraded it in his rankings due to a boring final tribal.

          • Mike Magas

            Also was the first jury that came off as bitter and also had an uninspiring winner so I can see why it gets hate

          • damnbueno

            Penner definitely didn’t much care for Ozzy in Cook Islands.

            Yul told Rob in an interview on this site that one day he and Penner watched Ozzy, Parvati, Adam and Candice make jokes about people who had a lot of body hair. Yul pointed out their insensitivity to Penner — who replied that his wife has a lot of body hair. Penner voted for Yul.

            That makes me think Penner was a little bitter in Cook Islands.

            And last season, we know Lisa and Skupin were responsible for booting Penner right after he stupidly turned down their final 4 offer. In his most recent Podcast with Rob C., Penner openly admits his stupidity at that moment, but at the time he was questioning the finalists, he was pretty mad at Skupin and Lisa.

            Does that mean he was bitter last season too? I’m not sure, because Denise was by far the better player. But there’s something to be said about how angry he was when he was voted out (“You can all suck eggs”) and how he described Lisa and Skupin as “Oxen being led to slaughter pulling the cart into the stadium, thinking the cheers are for you.”

            Yes, Penner is an actor, and he knew this was probably his last moment in the Survivor spotlight, but if he was NOT bitter, he probably wouldn’t have ripped into them as much.

            The Oxen comment sure wasn’t a sign of respect.

          • Jeremy Morton

            I don’t think Penner was bitter toward Ozzy. If I remember correctly, he based his vote on who he thought would do more for the world with the money. Yul being the amazing human being he is was an obvious choice over the self-entitled Ozzy.

            I think there’s a better argument for him being bitter last season, but even then I think he legitimately believes they could’ve beat him or Carter, while they had no shot against Malcolm or Denise. Based on the voting, it seems as though he was right, neither Skupin or Lisa would’ve won if he changed his vote.

          • damnbueno

            You should look up last year’s Podcast with Yul. There didn’t seem to be a doubt in Yul’s mind that insulting his wife made Penner bitter at Ozzy, Parvati, Adam and Candice. Yul believed it was a big part of the reason he got Penner’s vote. Penner told Yul at that moment “I’ll do everything in my power to make sure one of them doesn’t win.”

            There’s no doubt in my mind that the “body hair” comments affected Penner’s vote.

          • Jeremy Morton

            Even if that’s the case it doesn’t mean he’s bitter because he was voted out. It means he doesn’t like any of those people because they are shallow and insulted many people including his wife.

            The only way Penner could have been considered bitter would be if he voted against Yul. Yul was in control of the alliance. Therefore, Ozzy was not the one who decided to vote him out, it was Yul. When I think of bitter jurors, I think of people like Jane from Nicaragua, or Dave Ball from Samoa. People who disregard how well someone played, and get butthurt at final tribal because the dominate person decided to vote them out at some point. That’s why I said I think there’s a better argument for him being bitter in Phillipines.

            In my opinion Yul played a much better game than Ozzy in Cook Islands, and I think he deserved to win. A bitter jury would have voted for Ozzy to win imo. Since Penner voted for the “right” person it’s hard for me to consider him bitter.

          • damnbueno

            We’ve got totally different definitions of the word “bitter.”

            I think any juror has the potential to be bitter at any finalist. It seems like you’re telling me that it simply wasn’t possible that Penner could have been bitter at Ozzy or Becky.

            6 people decided to vote for Penner, not just Yul. Ozzy, Becky, Sundra, Parvati and Adam all wrote his name down, and Penner was very well aware of how much Adam and Parvati worked against him during the game.

            Jane had the most compelling reason to be mad at Chase. They bonded because they were both from North Carolina, and became very close friends during the game. Yet Chase left her behind on a Reward trip, then helped vote her out. You’re calling Jane bitter, yet she voted for Chase to win the million. That vote alone proves she was NOT bitter at Chase. Jane had a personal reason to withhold her vote from Chase, but didn’t. During questioning, she made it pretty clear she didn’t want to give the money to Fabio because he’d just party it away. And Sash pissed off almost everyone on the jury as badly as Russell did. He was just too blatant with his lies and false promises.

            Dave Ball definitely was bitter at Russell, but I consider that to be 100% Russell’s fault. One vote earlier, Russell had convinced Dave that Shambo was leading the push to vote Dave out because of their fight over how to cook the chickens. Dave bought it completely, and thought Russell was totally on his side when John was voted out. But at the next vote, Dave saw Russell laughing at him when his torch was snuffed. Dave immediately realized Russell played him for a fool, and was gloating about it. That’s when Russell lost Dave’s vote.

            It sounds like you’re defining “bitter” as “A player who votes for a player different than the one Jeremy thinks is most deserving.”

            I say a “bitter” juror refuses to vote for a player because of personal reasons instead of game-related reasons.

            Yul vs Ozzy was about as close a matchup as you could ask for. Ozzy is easily the game’s best physical player — in challenges and in camp (finding food, building shelter etc) — and that is a huge part of the game. Yul is easily one of the smartest strategists ever. It can be accurately said that neither one could have reached the finals without the other’s contributions. If Ozzy doesn’t win all the Individual Immunity challenges, Yul has to play his Idol at some point, and would be vulnerable for at least one vote.

            But it all comes down to whatever THAT particular jury values most. Some players prefer strategists, some prefer athletes, others prefer those who make personal connections with them. What you or I consider to be the “right” person is meaningless because we don’t have a jury vote.

            Yul was smart enough to work his jurors for votes DURING the game. He made deals with Adam and Parvati to get their votes if he got Jonathan voted out before them (Parvati broke that deal). Yul got Jonathan’s vote by pointing out how insensitive other players were. Ozzy waited until the finals to plead his case.

            The “most deserving player” is the one who makes it to the finals and figures out what THEIR jury will base their votes on, and appeal to them in THEIR terms better than the other finalists.

          • Jeremy Morton

            Although I recognize your sound reasoning, and do see where you’re coming from, were going to have agree to disagree here. You seem to be in the camp of, “whoever wins final tribal deserved to win survivor that season”. I disagree with this assertion, and think certain players have been screwed by bitter juries. Those people include Russell (Samoa), BR (All Stars), Sash, Parvati (HVV), and Stephenie (Guatemala). In my opinion, all of these players deserved to win, and were robbed by bitter juries.

            I think your definition of bitter is flawed, as you do mine. People always bring personal, non-game-related reasons along with their final tribal vote. Why do you think rich survivors don’t want news of their wealth getting to the other players? Why do you think Jim Rice didn’t want the others to know he owned a dispensary?

            Jenna M stated that someone’s financial situation
            in real life has a ton of influence on her vote. Does that make her a bitter juror, since she would bring non-game-related reasoning into her choice given the chance? You say Jane’s not bitter, yet in the same breath claim she refused to vote for Fabio based on non-game-related reasoning. Therefore, making her fit your very definition of a bitter juror. Penner stated that he voted for Yul (I’ll take Penner’s firsthand account over Yul’s secondhand account), because Yul would do more for the world with the money. Is he a bitter juror due to this?

            In my opinion, what makes a bitter juror is not when a survivor brings non-game-related reasoning into their final tribal decision; it’s when a survivor resents the person who was responsible for their vote out so much, that they refuse to vote for them in the end.

            I believe Jane thought Sash was responsible for her vote out, and that’s why she thought he was a rat. That makes her bitter in my book.

          • damnbueno

            If you can show me a “Survivor Juror’s Handbook” in which rules that they agree to abide by forbid them from being “bitter” by any definition, then we can talk about which player(s) got screwed by bitter jurors.

            But as long as Jurors have zero restrictions on how and why they cast their votes, anyone who complains about one player being “robbed” of a victory usually just doesn’t want to recognize the mistakes made by the player they hoped would win.

            Do you believe that Boston Rob, Russell, Parvati, Sash, and Stephenie didn’t make any mistakes that cost themselves Jury votes? I can break down each player’s mistake and specifically tell you what they did wrong that cost them those votes with every juror.

            How about Boston Rob? Rob called Big Tom a liar during All-Stars. Anyone who watched the Africa season, or spent any time actually listening to Tom during All-Stars would have known that he places a HUGE priority on maintaining his integrity. His word is everything to him. There’s simply no way he was ever gonna give a million dollars to someone who called him a liar. It was tremendously stupid of Rob to do that.

            How about Alicia? Rob made a final 2 deal with her because he was afraid Amber would be voted out. Alicia saw through that deal the moment it was made. At the time she was hoping Big Tom would turn against Rob and take her with him. That was the moment he lost Alicia’s vote. If Rob had read Alicia accurately, he never would have lied to her the way he did. He would have figured out a more effective way to get her on his side.

            We don’t even have to about talk where Rob screwed up with Lex, do we?

            Shii-Ann voted for Amber because she mistakenly thought Amber had played him for a fool and wasn’t really interested in him. She was wrong. It was luck that cost Rob her vote, not bitterness.

            If you piss off the Jury, you’re a moron if you think they’ll want to give you the money. Rob caused his own loss, as did Russell (twice), Stephenie, and Sash. I don’t think anyone who costs themselves a majority of the Jury votes deserves to win anything.

            The best players — like Kim, Earl, and Yul to name a few, find a way to remove the other players without angering or insulting them. They treat the other players with respect because they know that’s the key to getting their Jury vote. This concept was lost on those you considered “deserving.”

            Boston Rob finally figured it out after failing 3 times and acknowledged this in a recent podcast with Rob C., saying “You can’t bulldoze over people and expect them to give you the money.”

            Survivor always has been, and probably always will be a Social game. The Finalist with the best social skills will probably win every time. Its much less about who has control, pulls off blindsides or wins Immunities.

            When all is said and done, the ultimate challenge of Survivor is figuring out how to remove all but one or two of the other players while simultaneously making them want you to be the winner. You have to figure out why they will, or won’t vote for a winner long before Jury questioning begins. The players you mentioned all failed in this department. That’s another reason they weren’t “deserving.”

            If a “bitter” juror is defined by resentment, what do you do when the Juror resents all 3, like when Jean-Robert had to decide between Todd, Amanda, and Courtney? The bitter factor — by your criteria — is neutralized. His vote came down to which finalist handled him the best under questioning. Todd had the best social skills and knew he should appeal to J.R.’s ego. Amanda tried to lie to him, and Courtney didn’t care. Todd’s social skills got him that vote (and Jamie’s too).

            In season 1, Kelly W. said it best “Survivor is not about surviving the elements, its about surviving the people.”

          • Jeremy Morton

            Sorry, I can’t call winners who coasted to the end on the backs of others deserving, I don’t care how likable a person they are.

            Natalie was not more deserving than Russell. You’re never going to convince me she played a better game in Samoa.

            The problem is that some juries are bitter, and just don’t want to give credit where credit is due.

            I understand that these players all did something to their juries to make them bitter, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were defeated not by their gameplay, but by a bitter jury. I think survivor should be about who controls the game. In my opinion, any survivor jury who can’t take emotion out of the equation, and objectively look at who played the best game, then hand them the money, is a bitter juror. The difference between us, is that we have two very different definitions of what a good game is.

          • damnbueno

            Juries have no obligation to give credit to the player us viewers think are due.

            They’re free to choose whomever they want to win, for whatever reason they want. They just don’t have to base their votes on gameplay, or control. They don’t have to take their emotions out of the equation. They don’t have to be objective.

            Since everyone knows this before the game starts, its a 100% fair process. Piss people off at your own risk. Sherri lost any shot at getting Reynold’s vote long before the members swap. It doesn’t matter how well she plays the game, he can’t stand her, and won’t vote for her. That’s partly her own fault.

            Some fans think a Jury should always vote for the best challenge athlete. That’s how Coach based his 2 Jury votes. I’m guessing you would call him bitter too because he didn’t vote for the control Russell and Stephen had on the game?

            And I’m sorry, but Jurors are allowed to be bitter. The best players don’t make them bitter because they know it can cost them Jury votes. When you sit on a Jury, then you’ll be free to use your criteria and/or try to convince other Jurors to do the same. But until that happens, you have to accept the fact that Jurors can make up their own minds — at least until the Producers choose to write and enforce guidelines for them.

            Its not like these Jurors are in a court of law, and have to judge a murder case based on the legal definition of Murder. There is no existing legal definition of “Survivor Winner” they have to follow.

            I think Natalie, Amber, Fabio and Jenna were pure dumb luck winners. So what? I don’t get a vote. But they all deserved to win because they found a way into the finals, and got a majority of the Jury votes. They were all smart enough not to do anything to kill their chances at getting a majority of Jury votes.

            Not pissing off the Jury is the one thing Fabio DOES deserve credit for doing. He said that was his plan before, AND during the game. That alone could have been a million dollar decision. He sure as hell showed he was smarter about that than Chase or Sash.

            Russell verbally spit on just about every Juror he ever faced. Can you honestly say you’d give a million dollars to Russell if he called you a “dumbass” in front of the whole tribe (and on national TV) like he did to Rupert? John was the only Juror he didn’t mock or belitle, and he got John’s vote. Shambo liked Russell too, and (for whatever reason) couldn’t stand Mick. That doesn’t mean she was bitter at Natalie, it just means she preferred Russell.

            Danielle and Courtney based their votes on friendship. That doesn’t mean they were bitter at Russell, it just means they wanted their friend to win.

            How about if you’re a very religious person and Russell pretended to be as religious as you are — like he did with Laura. I wouldn’t give a million dollars to someone who mocked my religious beliefs, and neither did Laura.

            It just doesn’t matter how you or I define what a good game is until one of us has a Jury vote.

            It sounds like you’re expecting every Survivor Juror to vote according to how YOU want them to. That’s just never gonna happen. Complaining about it makes YOU the bitter person, not the jurors.

          • Jeremy Morton

            I’m not saying Survivors are required to vote by a certain rubric, they can base their decision on anything they want. All I’m saying is that, to me, a bitter juror is someone who refuses to vote for someone, regardless of gameplay, because they were responsible for their boot.

            If someone wants to vote for their friend, or the best challenge competitor, or who was most religiously compatible to them, obviously they can. I just think it’s stupid, and because people do vote for with non-game-related reasoning, sometimes the best player gets robbed. I believe that happened in the cases I mentioned.

            I never said I wasn’t bitter. :)

          • damnbueno

            Well, then by your definition, we as viewers all have to be mind readers then don’t we?

            In Samoa, Natalie, Brett & Laura were very religious people. Geez, Brett & Natalie were shown praying together before the start of one challenge. Brett might have voted for Natalie because of that connection. His vote may have had nothing to do with Russell at all.

            For all we know, Brett or Laura’s definition of “good game play” had to involve some praying. If that’s true, then by your definition they weren’t bitter at all. It might not be a case of them refusing to vote for Russell, but strongly preferring the religious way Natalie played.

            It’s almost impossible to get into each player’s head at the time they cast their jury vote unless they say something like Alicia said in All-Stars “Rob, when you made that deal with me, I promised I’d never write your name down. I’m keeping my promise.” Then she held up Amber’s name. Yeah, she was bitter. So was Big Tom when he offered Rob a handshake then pulled it back.

            But the same can’t be said about Shii-Ann with any certainty, can it? She honestly thought Amber played Rob for a fool. By her definition, Amber played the best game by fooling Rob into carrying her all the way.

          • Trixie02

            Thus the cough…it’s sarcasm. He is often praised for being entertaining…Erik not so much..

          • Mike Magas

            third time I don’t think he had bad social skills just immediate target as a returner then seen as a threat

            the first 2 times yes he really never got how he was percieved

  • LosPollosHermanos

    Eddie is playing a better game than Erik, not by any sense of strategy or volition, but because he has a much greater chance to win if he gets to the finals. Erik just seems to be there whereas Eddie is actively liked by many members of the jury. He could win with votes from Malcolm, Reynold, Michael, and Andrea in the right situation. Andrea says in her Ponderosa she hopes Eddie gets to the end. People love an underdog and he’s generally a very affable guy. Erik seems really standoffish and everyone says the same thing about him in interviews – he was sort of a blank slate and hard to talk game with.

    Sherri also said that Eddie is very likable when he isn’t with Reynold. So her vote is out there as a possibility for Eddie too.

    Brenda described Reynold as being arrogant and Dawn said he made her crazy, but no one ever has anything bad to say about Eddie!

    • LosPollosHermanos

      In fact, Eddie has to be seen as a greater jury threat than DAWN at this point. No one respects Dawn on the jury. See the secret scene of a crying, paranoid Dawn asking Andrea for the immunity idol as more evidence.

      It’s funny, before the season no one would have called Dawn as potential for a goat, people saw her as someone that would be a jury threat because of South Pacific. Just goes to show how every season is different and ANYONE can win or be a goat in the right situation.

  • LosPollosHermanos

    ‘I thought she was so influenced by Boston Rob. She saw Eddie as someone whose vote she had influence over and could beat in the end’

    Come on Rob. Enough with the Boston Rob non-stop praise. That’s basically Survivor 101, every player from the early seasons of Survivor on has known that this is part of the game. I thought she gave a good answer you this morning in her interview – her improvement this time was natural for a player returning and having played once moreso than learning anything specific from Boston Rob.

    • Jmz

      I agree! BRob gets credit for way too much! Like Hatch & Kim said @theRally, Hatch had the alliance within an alliance, Heidik & Chris took the goats (which even Colby S2 knew was the strategic move, though his heart got in the way); all BRob really introduced (after playing 10 years) was the BuddySystem, which is effective, but hard to emulate without 5 sheep who revere you.

      • Jeremy Morton

        Great breakdown. I agree that the buddy system was his only innovation, and it is yet to be duplicated, so it didn’t change the game at all.

        • Amanda Rabinowitz

          Whereas BRob is mostly given credit for his strategic understanding of the game, I agree that many of his strategic plays had already been successfully employed by others.

          What actually makes BRob a special player (in HvV and RI) is his social game. I think that Kim Spradlin is the only other player we’ve seen who can so clearly be the leader of an alliance, but still be well liked by everyone, and make all of her alliance mates feel safe and comfortable all the way to the end.

          In fact, this is where Andrea’s game went wrong. She basically knew what she needed to do strategically, but didn’t quite pull it off with the necessary finesse.

          • Jeremy Morton

            I think you’re only looking at Redemption Island when you say that Rob is one of, if not the only, player to be able to be well liked by everyone while dominating an alliance.

            In Marquesas he alienated a large part of his tribe, and ended up voting off Hunter as a result. He then went on to act like the biggest brat in survivor history, which directly led to the people on Rotu hating him quite a bit.

            In All Stars, he dominated the alliance, but did it in such a way that he received one of the worst public floggings in Survivor history at the final tribal. He was perhaps the most despised finalist in survivor history.

            On HVV, he initially dominated the alliance, and could have even recovered from the Tyson debacle if it weren’t for his brash, arrogant nature, which Jerri identified as the reason she switched to Russell’s alliance. Again his social game was his downfall.

            So, he really only had one great social season, Redemption Island. And that season was filled with so many dolts, they might as well have just handed him the money the second he smashed the egg that put him on Ometepe.

            Don’t get me wrong, BR is one of the greatest to ever play. He’s a triple threat in that he’s physical, social, and strategic, but I think you’re giving him way too much credit as a social player.

          • Amanda Rabinowitz

            He certainly was a brat in Marquesas, I won’t disagree with that. I can see what you’re saying about HvV– he still had the opportunity to hold on to the numbers if he could control Jerri and Coach, which he failed to do.

            I guess that even when I look at a season like AllStars, it’s clear that he has such a compelling personality that people want to like him and be liked by him. I think that’s even what poisoned the jury against him in AllStars, people liked him so much and wanted to think of him as friend that they were so hurt when he used them to his personal advantage in the game.

            It seems like he’s got that “charming sociopath” personality (at least within the game of survivor) that allows him to manipulate people very effectively. Sure, it took him a few seasons to hone that personality so that he could manipulate people and remain well-liked at the same time.

            I also sorta disagree when people attribute his win on RI to being placed on a tribe of zombies. We only think of those players as dolts and sheep because we saw them play with Rob. Andrea, for example, has proven that she can be very independent and strategic during this season. Also, he got rid of the people that he couldn’t work with early in the game.

            It’s totally possible that Rob could have endeared himself with Zapatera early in the game by being useful around camp and in challenges (two areas where he outclasses Russel). I sorta doubt that Zapatara would have found Rob nefarious enough to throw a challenge to get rid of him. If he found a way to survivor the first early votes, he could use that as an opportunity to get rid of the more independent thinkers on that tribe (what he did on Ompetepe), and then maneuvered a path to the end. It’s hypothetical, but not out of the question.

          • Jeremy Morton

            What poisoned the jury in All Stars wasn’t that they wanted to like him, and felt hurt by his gameplay. What poisoned the jury was that he had a pre-game alliance with Lex and Kathy. They were friends outside the game, and decided they would work together before the game even started. This led to Lex keeping Amber, because he thought nobody was a bad enough person to destroy real-life friendships for a game. Bringing real life into the game is what killed any shot he had at winning.

            Andrea played a much better game her second time around, but I don’t buy Andrea being a good player her first season. Everyone benefits considerably from a season under their belt, so I’m not suprised she improved her game. The only one who played a good game on Ometepe was Kristina imo.

            I agree that Rob would have faired much better on Zapatera. I highly doubt they would have thrown the challenge to get rid of him. That said, that group of 5 seemed very tight, and David was an individual thinker who I highly doubt would have blindly followed Rob. Tinfoil cap theory: I think that whoever was placed on Ometepe had an inside shot at winning the game, and Probst and Co knew it. Most likely production didn’t care either way, both BR and Russell were huge draws for ratings.

          • damnbueno

            “I think that Kim Spradlin is the only other player we’ve seen who can so clearly be the leader of an alliance, but still be well liked by everyone.” — Earl did it first. Yau-Man was much more popular with fans, but Earl (a 9-0 winner) was the leader of both of his alliances.

            Earl’s game is often overlooked because most fans dislike the Fiji season.

  • WhoReallyCares

    Shame it’s so close to the end of this season of Survivor. I would have loved a bonus episode of “Know it Alls” with Jake and Parvati.

  • Bertinho

    If you want an amigbro to win the challenge, you don’t make it a challenge that only one of the gals can win.

    • Jeremy Morton

      My thoughts exactly. If they really wanted the Amigbros to win they would have made it a physical strength challenge, not a balance challenge that they know Andrea and Brenda are great at. I mean I’m sure they remember when Andrea beat Matty, Grant, and Mike in a balancing challenge to return from redemption island.

      Also, I wonder if the footholds were proportionate to the size of each survivors feet. If they were not, then not only was the challenge in Andrea and Brenda’s wheelhouse, but it was unfairly geared toward people with small feet ie the women.

  • Jeff12

    It sounds to me like Hatch may have admitted he’s playing again..When he
    said “When I play Survivor I’m not playing with friends necessarily….
    you’ll have to watch see what happens in seasons coming up….”

    • Jeremy Morton

      Man I hope so. HVV2?

    • Matt Holtzclaw

      He expects to play again. Doesn’t mean he is.

  • Jeff11

    Rob really loves the Coch.

  • Kevin Wong

    Kid on the After Show was annoying.

    • Isaac Berman

      Ugh, he was so smug. It’s like congrats, you know trivial things about this season that anyone could answer.


        Yeah, and I honestly think that he was given the questions/answers ahead of time. He answered that Shamar one with such confidence without hearing the full question. There is no way in hell he would have been able to do that unless he knew what the question would be.

    • he was honestly the worst

  • I love when Rob asked Rich about the Erik comparison. The Giggle by Hatch was priceless!

  • LosPollosHermanos

    Great episode!

    Hatch is one of the best!

    • Jeremy Morton

      Agreed, these last two podcasts have been a dream. Penner and Hatch have such articulate, rational insight on the game. I love listening to them.

  • I would love a season with only the best challenge competitors! I feel like the strategy and gameplay would be awesome

  • Jeremy Morton

    One of these days you should ask Hatch how he feels about Rupert being hailed as the best “provider” in Survivor history, when he has been at least, if not more, successful in providing food. I mean who can forget when he bit the eel back!!

    • Alex Keisler

      It was a shark.

      • Jeremy Morton

        Oh ya my bad, I was combining two separate incidents.

  • Alex Keisler

    Can someone please explain to me why I can’t find Stephen Fishbach’s blog on this episode?

  • I disagree with the idea that Erik 2.0 is playing a similar game to Malcolm 1.0. I get that Stephen is saying that the similarities are circumstantial as opposed to approach to the game. However, I would say that Erik’s position and how he’s handling it is most comparable to Skupin. In s25 Skupin was consistently approached as the swing vote, he took this to mean that he was a power player and the jury would respect him for the control that he wielded in the game. In reality others perceived him to be a bumbling fool who constantly made ill conceived decisions. The same is true with Erik, he wishes to stay uninvolved, and then randomly finds himself as the swing vote, and again his motivations to which way he swings are questionable.

    • finsburysghost

      Eric doesn’t know what he’s doing.

      Skupin is a good comparison.

      Matthew from Rob’s season is also similar. Yes, Eric is being presented with voting options, but he’s only getting the information that the power players want him to have. He’s not coming up with the options on his own and following through. Eric is the last friendly link on everyone’s chain.

  • finsburysghost

    Agree on Eddie only getting Reynald’s vote IF he makes it to the end.

    Malcolm voted for Denise last season. If he was bitter or didn’t want to vote for the best strategist, and Malcolm is a fan of Survivor strategy, he would not have voted for Denise.

    Eddie is also going to have to articulate some reason for the jury to vote for him. I’ve seen nothing from Eddie to suggest he can articulate a reason.

  • Brian L

    “When I am playing this game, I am not necessarily playing with friends. You’ll have to watch in seasons coming up….” Did Richard hint he was coming back?!?!

    • Dave L

      just hearing that right now too… also I got the feeling that Rob might have been that friend that was referenced too.

  • $3058531

    Hey, Rob. Good job. I always look forward to hearing you discuss the game with Richard. However,…
    I know this interview was intended mainly as a recap of the most recent episode, from which both Phillip and Brandon were basically absent. But just like you made a case to Stephen in defense of Phillip’s Survivor career, it would’ve been nice to see if you could’ve won Richard over to the not-so-anti-Phillip camp. And because of Hatch’s background in psychology, I really wanted to hear his thoughts on Hantzageddon.
    I still enjoyed it, of course. Thanks.

    • Thats fair. I just knew that we only had a little over an hour with Rich this weke and I knew we had spoken so much about Phillip last week, so I decided not to get in to a Phillip debate this week with Hatch.

  • $3058531

    I know that alongside any of the Favorites, Eddie and/or Sherri seem like the ideal co-finalist(s). But in that case what if the Favorite jury members say, “We came into this game with a huge advantage, and despite the complete lack of fairness, a Fan was able to go the distance. For that reason alone, he/she deserves our vote.”


    I agree with Richard in that Malcolm would vote for Cochran over Eddie. Malcolm and Eddie may have been bros, but I think Malcolm will, as a juror, consider who played the best strategic game into account first. Reynold also said in the Ponderosa videos that he wants to vote for somebody who made moves and played a good strategic game, so I could almost see him voting for Cochran over Eddie as well, but I am more on the fence about that.

    • Mike Magas

      I think Malcolm votes for the best player, his ponderosa and exit interviews really do suggest he views this as a game. Reynold less sold on but even he I think doesn’t vote Eddie against Cochrane.

      People compare this the the Fabio win but kinda ignore how disliked Sash and Chase were and how people did NOT think they played a good game.

      • Narborg

        I also agree with this: i think that there’s more chance of Micheal voting for Eddie than Malcolm.

  • Matt Holtzclaw

    Jurors very seldom vote the way Hatch thinks they vote. It’s generally always just a vote for the person you like best

  • I will never play any reality game ever, but Hatch and Kirby are on my
    invite list of 5 people dead or alive dinner party. I adore Hatch and I
    think his brain is brilliant and I found this conversation fascinating.

    Arguing over potential Eddie votes is amusing, but he’s never ever going to make it to the end — the conversation about Erik’s suckfest of a game though was A+. Sorry Fischbach, he’s not playing a good game. And yes, I’ve watched his secret scenes and I’m not even convinced he’s playing. I mean, he’s clearly not playing to win, but is he even playing to make final 3?

    I dunno, playing once is something any random dummy could/would do. The odds are decent. But, I can’t wrap my brain around playing the game a second time unless the goal is to win a million bucks. That’s clearly not Erik’s goal and that is what makes him the worst returning player. If anything, he’s just a yawnfest with bad hair.

    • Michael Norris

      Speaking of secret scenes about Erik’s gameplay, Cochran has one where he basically refers to Erik as the illogical player he has to rein in, sort of like he’s Brandon Hantz to Cochran’s Coach, or Phillip to Cochran’s Boston Rob.

      • Mike Magas

        He may be that in this season but I have to imagine he’s much easier to reign in than those 2 lol

    • spot on

    • BigDan

      i havent actually heard this podcast yet but sarah freeman’s article from this week says he is indeed playing to win (based on one of his secret scenes). interesting.

  • Tom Polite

    The brain of Richard Hatch is a beautiful thing. Fantastic as always.

Next Post:

Previous Post:

Try the CBS All Access Pass for Free for 1 Week

Rob Has A Post Archive

Get Scripted TV Podcasts from Rob Cesternino at

Buy Survivor Seasons on DVD

Listen to the 1000th RHAP


The RHAP Original Web Series

Support RHAP by becoming a Monthly Patron