W1siziisijiwmtqvmdgvmtavmtqvmzevmjqvmtuvdhjpcgxlx2guanbnil0swyjwiiwidgluesjdxq?sha=1440b150
Triple H
Paul Michael Levesque
  • Birthdate: 07/27/1969 (age 45)
  • Height: 6'4"
  • Weight: 255lb

Paul Michael Levesque was born on July 27, 1969...

Read More »

I don't understand WWE's recent match-making decisions.

Sure, this isn't a new issue, but I've noticed it more and more in recent weeks. WWE will match up someone who is in the midst of a singles push against another high-profile talent, and then have that person lose.

Don't get me wrong, the argument is always there for one-half of the equation. For example, Randy Orton defeated Dean Ambrose on RAW this week and then followed that up with a win over Chris Jericho on SmackDown.

As The Miz would say ...."really?"

I understand the mindset behind the decision. WWE wants Orton to be a strong contender when they match him up with Roman Reigns at SummerSlam, which is the reported plan for this year's summer pay-per-view extravaganza. This way when Reigns beats Orton, it means something because Orton's stock is up due to some recent high-profile victories.

My beef is this: why Ambrose and Jericho?

Ambrose is in the middle of his first singles push since joining the main WWE roster. He started off as the perceived "leader" of The Shield when the group was first formed, and based on the way WWE booked the split of that group, is actually the one who is struggling the most to establish his own individual identity. Seth Rollins is aligned with Triple H and the other top acts in the company. Roman Reigns is clearly WWE's future "golden boy," and is being booked as such.

Basically put, Ambrose shouldn't be losing television matches right now.

You mean to tell me there wasn't anyone else WWE could have put in that position? They really needed Ambrose to be the guy Orton beats to increase his stock?

How about Chris Jericho? In his first week back in WWE, he has already lost a match to Orton on SmackDown. His first week back, folks! Why?! Because he's only going to be around part-time? ...so what?! Brock Lesnar is only around part-time and he just ended Undertaker's undefeated streak at WrestleMania.

Rob Van Dam jobbed out to Rusev recently, another pairing that I found odd. I assume that's also because Van Dam is only on a part-time deal with the company. If you're going to spend the money and bring in a name, and give them a special part-time deal, wouldn't it be wise to actually use that person in a strong role?

Having a name from the past come in and lose to a bunch of guys and then disappear doesn't really do anything for anyone. These people should be brought back, re-established as legitimate high-level performers, and then put people over so that it actually means something.

Roman Reigns is about to enter his second straight pay-per-view main event, where he has the second opportunity to walk away with the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Because I don't see WWE putting the belt on Reigns and then have him drop it at the very next show to Lesnar -- which is reportedly the plan -- this means he's likely going to walk in to WWE Battleground with a chance to become the new champ, but will walk out empty-handed yet again.

But Matt, Reigns isn't in one-on-one matches for the title, so technically he's not losing. Sure, but technically he isn't winning either, and when you are pushing someone with the hope that he'll be the future mega-star that can carry your company, you shouldn't be having him come up short the first few times he chases the title.

If Roman Reigns is going to chase the title, he should win it. Period. Otherwise, he shouldn't be chasing the damn thing. He should be slowly working his way up the card, dominating everyone in his path, until the title and whomever holds it is all that remains. And then, Reigns challenges that person and tops off his run to the top by capturing championship gold.

How about Cesaro? I wrote an entire piece on the way WWE has been booking him as of late. He's lost twice in a row to Kofi Kingston, but then squashed Kingston after the match, thus doing nothing positive for him (because he lost) and nothing for Kingston, who beat him, because he gets the crap kicked out of him immediately afterwards.

It's pointless booking! It makes no sense, and I don't understand why it's happening more and more lately.

What do you guys think? Leave your feedback in the "Comments" section below. You can also hit me up on Facebook at Facebook.com/MattBooneWZR and/or on Twitter @MBoone420.