WWE storylines, generally, are not very good - neither in build nor resolution.
The best - well, worst - example concerned the recent programme between Dolph Ziggler and Bobby Roode which, ultimately, was completely pointless. Dolph, in tonally bizarre segments neither dramatic nor funny, cosplayed as various WWE stars and legends. There was no infuriating bait and switch, nor disrespectful portrayal designed to antagonise the audience into anything resembling a reaction. He simply played it entirely straight and moaned, as he is wont to do, about his own portrayal in the company. The debuting Roode narrowly won their underwhelming in-ring series, the strange mechanics of which hardly assisted Roode's sudden, incongruous and unflattering babyface role. Without any clear direction, it's little wonder Roode flubbed his lines in what devolved into an embarrassing promo battle on the post-Hell In A Cell SmackDown.
A cracking Two Out Of Three Falls match rescued the wider rivalry from those depths, but it might as well have not happened. Full 50/50 territory was invaded when Ziggler recently captured the United States Title from Baron Corbin in a Triple Threat match also involving Roode.
Who is the better man?
What was the point of the preceding two months?
Isn't WWE "Shakespeare", not a loose collection of wrasslin' exhinition matches?
Vince McMahon is probably better than an armchair critic at doing his own job - but complaining about a problem without providing a solution is called whining*...
*The onscreen firing of Shane and Stephanie McMahon, unfortunately, is much too unrealistic.