LAST EDITED ON 08-21-10 AT 06:19 PM (EST)

"BOTH times Sandra was casted on a stronger tribe who won more CHALLENGES and advanced to the merge that way...If she was casted on a tribe that lost alot of challenges she would have been cut lose early as the weakest link"

No, Drake and Morgan were tied 5-5 going into the merge as were the Villains and Heroes. And, if it was clear that Sandra wasn't a target early on in S20 (Randy, Parvati and Russell were), we also found out that she wasn't the target had Drake lost the first few challenges.

Now, maybe if she plays a 3rd time you'll get your wish but how many times does she have to win to show you that she plays this game pretty well?!!! Both Survivor and BB have flaws for sure but the game is about winning the final vote, not scoring challenge wins.
(Funniest thing is that, in the Survivor Fanatic thread, I'm arguing that she isn't the best winner ever but here you force me to defend her!!!)

In both BB and Survivor, the whole difference is in the "directly" and "indirectly" so you can't have it both ways. Benefitting indirectly is strategic, doing it directly is luck considering no one can train for and plan on winning those types of challenges. Someone who is smart can benefit indirectly from many players. Sometimes they don't even need that: For example, Tina wins even if Colby doesn't go on an immunity run. From my view, he rode her coattails!

I'll have you note that the challenge that mattered for Natalie was at F4. I was talking of the challenges before that, the ones at the stage where BB is presently. Anyway, if Russell had been smarter Monica or Shambo, not Brett, would have been there at F4. Natalie had to go with Russell's whims.