10 Easy Ways Of Injecting Realism Into WWE
7. End The Rematch Mandate
When AJ Styles and Shinsuke Nakamura fought for the second time at Greatest Royal Rumble, it was fated to end as muddied as the Saudi Arabian money that made it possible in the first place; because we know WWE's post-Network Rule Of Three/Four remains firmly in place, it was impossible to fully immerse yourself in the action, which used to be the point. This was less a wrestling match than it was a contrived - there's that word again, the only constant in a WWE product so thoroughly lacking in continuity - exercise in plotting.
Styles won the first match cleanly, which should have put paid to the programme. But, since the rematch clause is now in effect even when there is no in-built narrative cause, they wrestled again - much too closely to the next pay-per-view to warrant a conclusive outcome. Stretched well beyond plausibility, this unrealistic approach is as to blame for the mitigated quality of the programme as Nakamura's physical deterioration.
The screwy finish in the first (or in this case, second) match is such a blindingly obvious machination with which to set up a sequel that it's difficult to suspend one's disbelief. The first match of a major WWE feud is not going to end cleanly, that much is now painfully clear. The only point left to debate is the nature of the contrivance: punch to the balls, a lame count-out, or Jon Stewart?
Other companies manage to present new and unique matches month on month - why is the biggest one in the world incapable of this? If WWE thrives with its own balls against the wall, why not implement a policy in which WWE creative challenges itself to harken back to 1997, in which a fresh raft of challengers was lined up for the Undertaker?
lol.