WWE Survivor Series 2016: 10 Reasons To Be Concerned

2. The Women's Elimination Match

Again, very little good can come of this.

Removing booking from the equation, the RAW Women's roster is significantly more talented than its blue brand counterpart. If they win, the result will only underscore the divide. If they lose, it will take a monumental performance from all ten women for it to ring true. This is a paradox WWE should have avoided when they divided the roster in the first place.

Unlike the other two elimination matches, both teams desperately need the win. The (perceived) failure of the Sasha Banks Vs. Charlotte Hell In A Cell main event has complicated matters. If it had succeeded - or had been perceived as successful - its novelty would have meant that the division's reputation could have withstood a loss on Sunday. A loss to the SmackDown team, who themselves can't lose, could unravel the great work WWE has done with women's wrestling in 2016.

That booking would be of the dreaded 50/50 variety, but the nature of the event excuses the tactic. One need look no further than Survivor Series 2006 - and the subsequent career trajectories of Mike Knox and Gregory Helms - for proof that squash and elimination matches are strange bedfellows.