Welcome to another edition of eWN Round Table, where we gather some of the most active writers here on eWrestlingNews and share the platform to answer some questions surrounding a centralized topic, upcoming event, etc.
This is meant to showcase the potential for both a wide range of perspectives as well as how sometimes, there can be a group consensus no matter what your viewpoint is, so we also invite all of you to join in on the discussion by answering these questions yourself in the comments section below.
For this particular volume, we’ll be focusing on WWE Tables, Ladders and Chairs 2019.
Participants for this round = Anthony Mango, David Varnes and Richard Staple.
1) “Take any of the matches on this card and either add a TLC-related stipulation to it or change the current one to something else (ie, Rusev vs. Lashley in a ladder match instead of tables match). What do you pick and why?”
MANGO: The New Day vs. The Revival in a ladder match. No explanation needed. These two teams would kill it, based off their experiences, and that’s all anyone will care about in the grand scheme of things.
VARNES: Rusev v. Lashley should be made a full TLC instead of a tables match. Tables matches have always been perhaps the gimmickiest of all the TLC derived matches since it requires you to go through a table, and the most commonly screwed up. You never know when a table just might break or not break. So just turn this into a full TLC match and end this feud. Meanwhile, Roman v. Corbin needs to be downgraded. Or maybe made into a dog food on a pole match.
STAPLE: We have had to put up with some of the worst acting in the history in Lana talking and this horrible feud all for it to only pay off in a tables match? Screw that. This should have been something more, like say a ladder match with winner getting to stay married with Lana. There is pretty much no good outcome for this feud and anyone involved in the booking of it should be ashamed of themselves, but if you’re going to subject the fans to some horrible television, you had better make the pay-off well worth it, and a tables match is not the way to go.
2) “It’s been a year since WWE said they would really start to listen to the fans. Do you think that’s been true?”
MANGO: Absolutely not. I had zero faith in that message from the start. It was VERY clear WWE was only doing that to try to calm people down. False promises like that happen all the time. Look at how often we’ve been promised that the next event/show/match will be the best thing ever, only for it to flop and the story to become “Okay, but we promise the NEXT one…” WWE panicked and thought “this will shut them up” and had no intentions on actually taking the steps to improve. Like everything else in life, don’t trust people who continually apologize for repeatedly making the same mistakes, as they’re not learning from their lessons or trying to change.
VARNES: No. Far too often, we’re seeing the Same Ol’ S. We’re seeing the same out of touch, derived storylines, and the people pushed are the people Vince wants pushed, not the people the fans want.
STAPLE: A year ago I also said I wouldn’t spend nearly as much money on take-out food. Things don’t always pan out the way we want it, and as long as Vince is chariman of WWE, they will never truly listen to the fans.
3) “What’s the deal with The Miz vs. Bray Wyatt being non-title?”
MANGO: I truly feel there’s no justification for it within the story. The only explanation is when you start thinking about the company as fake. Then, you can try to argue that WWE wants The Miz to win, but not win the title. Even that, though, is just WWE writing themselves into a corner and not a valid excuse for something that makes no sense.
VARNES: Miz v. Bray being non-title I think is to allow someone to somehow have a competitive match with Wyatt without it being a red-lit, Fiend mask wearing abomination. That’s the only reason. And it preserves the slim, super-slim chance, that maybe WWE will go with a ‘two sides of Bray’ storyline and make Bray beatable, but the Fiend superhuman. If Miz picks up the win, expect that to be developed. Because right now, they know they’ve booked the Fiend so strong that Brock Lesnar with a chainsaw might not beat him.
STAPLE: Well, you got me there. Wyatt never got a rematch for the WWE Championship when he lost it to Randy Orton a couple of years ago, so I guess this is their way of making up for it? I think?
4) “Should Becky Lynch and Charlotte Flair win the women’s tag titles?”
MANGO: Absolutely not. If that happens, those tag titles or the Raw Women’s Championship will be pushed aside, as WWE won’t know how to focus on both at the same time. The Kabuki Warriors will have dropped the belts for no reason and it’s not as though Flair or Lynch need the rub.
VARNES: No. No, no, no, no (cue Steve Carrel gif here) no. Becky and Charlotte have held enough belts, enough glory. For god’s sakes, the Women’s Tag Team belts are pretty much only slightly more important than the 24/7 belt by this point. Letting Asuka and Kairi continue to raise their stock is essential. When the Kabuki Warriors drop the belts, they need to do it to a coherent women’s team. Too bad there aren’t any right now, but that’s WWE’s fault.
STAPLE: In a perfect world, no, but they probably will. This match is an indictment on the women’s tag team division and how incredibly thin it is. When you reach the point where you may have to put the tag titles on two singles superstars, much less two superstars who loathe each other, that tells you everything you need to know.
5) “Which superstar do you feel is the biggest omission from this lineup?”
MANGO: Take your pick, as way too many people aren’t booked. Brock Lesnar, Bayley, Rey Mysterio, Shinsuke Nakamura, and The Viking Raiders are champions without matches. There’s Randy Orton, Seth Rollins, Kevin Owens, AJ Styles, Drew McIntyre, Andrade, Ricochet, etc, too. While I fully expected Lesnar to just sit this out, I can’t feel the same about Bayley. There’s no reason why she isn’t defending her title. The same goes for Mysterio, for instance. Those are the biggest omissions.