10 Times AEW Made The Critics Look Like IDIOTS
7. "AEW Doesn't Tell Stories"
This one was regurgitated quite a bit as the Bloodline saga reached its peak because there must always be some form of AEW Vs. WWE discourse - although the largely uninspired Revolution '23 build enabled some halfway good faith takes.
Now that WWE has missed the peak and nWo'd the story instead of finishing it, the discourse has turned somewhat.
The Bloodline saga rumbles on because WWE, ultimately, would rather prolong it than end something lucrative and acclaimed. It would have been far more dramatically meaningful and effective, had Roman Reigns lost the Undisputed WWE Universal title at WrestleMania 39. He didn't. The Usos acting scared about what happens when dad comes home feels less and less like the best story ever told.
Contrast it with MJF Vs. Bryan Danielson.
That feud was driven by a sports-centric premise, and that premise was fantastic. Danielson had to win a lot of matches to earn a crack at the AEW World title. He did that in an all-timer series of TV matches - highlighted by a strategy-heavy masterclass with Bandido and a phenomenal, different brawl with Rush. Danielson mastered two sub-genres of lucha before the emotional core of his PPV programme was established. The Revolution Iron Man main event was one of the best matches ever promoted on U.S. soil; both men laughed at the notion that a 60 minute match is tricky when everybody in the arena chanted "Fight forever!" 55 minutes in.
The programme was superb, particularly when Danielson really put across how much he wanted the belt, and more importantly, it actually mattered. Danielson lost. His defeat meant something. He had to change direction as a result of it. The loss had a seismic impact on his life, future and philosophy.
The storyline mattered.