RAW 22-2-2016 (FastLane Fallout)

Mr.Nice Guy · 23-02-2016 4:07am

briany wrote: »

Don't forget we may see a one sided beatdown, only for Taker to relent and lay down for Shane, sacrificing another WM win in order to vanquish the Authority.

No chance. Lay down? Like the fingerpoke of doom? That would bury both Taker and Shane. An ending like that would result in massive boos. People will want a decisive winner.

I have a question for those who are happy with this match-up: how do you want Taker to be booked? Out and out heel? Should he unashamedly pledge his support to The Authority?

Or should he not be turned at all, in which case how do you ensure that the audience stays on the side of Shane rather than go with the hometown legend?

It's a can of worms the more you think about it. I honestly don't see how you can avoid a massive swathe of the crowd going with Taker. And even if you can successfully convince most of the crowd to go with Shane, are you telling me that at the conclusion of the match, when the bell rings, that people are going to be happy in Texas seeing Taker on his back? Even if he endorses Shane afterwards? I don't see it.

And if you end up with a situation where Shane blows up and gets gassed, and then lumbers to a win over Taker that pisses off the audience, you then have the potential to kick off Raw with Shane in charge and many of those hardcore fans giving Shane a hard time. So you end up substituting one heel McMahon authority figure for another.

Taker in Texas needs to be the babyface and Taker in Texas WILL be the babyface, regardless of how they book him imo.

thebostoncrab · 23-02-2016 4:08am

I hate the idea of Shane vs 'Taker. The more I think about it, the more pissed off I get that we are wasting an Undertaker match.

Firstly, Shane isn't a wrestler. Not only is he not a wrestler, he hasn't been in a match in over 7 years. When Shane did wrestle, his matches all revolves around "the big bump" and how much we would let the other guy destroy him. Shane is a much older man now and isn't going to put his body through the same abuse (at least, I hope he doesn't), so the match is just going to falter.

Second, why would Taker accept the match? Is he a pawn for Vince? Because this doesn't seem like the kind of thing he would want to be a part of. If anything, this makes Undertaker act more as an after thought to the McMahon vs McMahon story. This is Wrestlemania in 'Takers backyard, he should not be playing second fiddle and he shouldn't be booked into a match to fight on the side of McMahon.

Third, you are wasting the opportunity to push a younger member of the roster. This was the chance to showcase the abilities of someone like Kevin Owens, who could at least have a competitive match, make the build be about the two men actually in the ring and use it to further propelle someone into the main event scene.

I love Shane, but fighting Undertaker is 100% the wrong choice. Have Vince pick his buddies in the Leauge of Nations, at least it makes sense that they would want to be on the side of Vince and plays into everyone's characters better.

OpenYourEyes · 23-02-2016 4:13am

Could Shane just be a placeholder - due to get a beatdown and get injured in a few weeks. If Cena is ready by then, he'll be his replacement - otherwise it'll be the Rock?

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 4:17am

That finish looked like a complete botch. Kane clearly talking to Ryback.

Itssoeasy · 23-02-2016 4:28am

martyos121 wrote: »

That finish looked like a complete botch. Kane clearly talking to Ryback.

Yeah as if ryback forgot to leave. Also did they mention big show being injured ?

J. Marston · 23-02-2016 4:35am

Ah, crap. No match for Becky at Wrestlemania.

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 4:36am

J. Marston wrote: »

Ah, crap. No match for Becky at Wrestlemania.

Pretty sure they'll go for the Triple Threat, somehow the Becky vs. Sasha match will end in a draw/no contest.

Furious-Red · 23-02-2016 4:54am

Could we see Rock as guest referee for HHH vs Reigns?

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 4:54am

This is a snooze fest, should've finished the show with Shane-O-Mac but I suppose they didn't want the surprise being leaked.

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 5:03am

Haha the crowd chanting YES in unison with Roman's head banging off the table, love it!

J. Marston · 23-02-2016 5:04am

Oh, blood. And lots of it.

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 5:05am

They've just created a new mega-face.

seandotcomm · 23-02-2016 5:06am

the Roman taunt into the crotch chop was gold. Crowd were loving that beat down... Vince won't be happy...

paconnors · 23-02-2016 5:06am

one busted nose i'd say

J. Marston · 23-02-2016 5:10am

When your top babyface is getting beaten to a bloody pulp and the crowd are loving it, it's time to re-evaluate some things.

johnnysmack · 23-02-2016 5:54am

J. Marston wrote: »

When your top babyface is getting beaten to a bloody pulp and the crowd are loving it, it's time to re-evaluate some things.

Yes he needs to be pushed even more!!

Chain Smoker · 23-02-2016 6:52am

J. Marston wrote: »

Poor Roman. The man is just a complete charisma blackhole.

Yeah, that's ultimately it. I think it was 2 years ago I settled on it, the guy himself is just an incredibly boring normal guy. Austin was intense as ****, with one of the craziest glaring pair of eyes this side of Roy Keane. Rock is a charismatic ****er and a complete weirdo to boot (look at any of his motivational post tweets), Hogan was a top notch manipulator for decades (getting crowds hanging on his every action, negotiating contracts, etc), Cena's a fair bit of a weirdo geek with crazy drive and has a level of self-assurance that is incredible...

Roman on the other hand is just some good looking dude.

It endlessly makes me stop and wonder what's happening when I see some set of WWE notepads or pencil cases or whatever in a shop and I see Roman with his big boring face front and centre.

As a placeholder until they know for sure Cena can't make it, I guess a Shane return is okay. He has a track record for silly bumps so it does have more value than your typical modern Hell in a Cell, Vince might make him break a few bones!

Rock Lesnar · 23-02-2016 8:47am

PTH2009 wrote: »

One thing that struck me was how Shane didn't look worried about facing a monster like taker inside a cell. Does he have a back up plan ???

From what i remember of his matches, he always had that look no matter who he faced

Moneymaker · 23-02-2016 9:55am

I doubt Shane vs Taker will happen. I think Shane is a placeholder until they make a final decision on whether Cena can make it or not. Shane can do it too i'm sure, but Cena is still their choice imo.

There are a lot of logic holes(why would Taker fight for Vince?) but it was a nice surprise to see Shane back.

Ambrose and Brock should be a crazy brawl. Looking forward to it.

I've ranted about Reigns forever. Nothing needs to be said. It's just sad now.

Loughc · 23-02-2016 10:27am

If they do go the route of Cena replacing Shane-O-Mac, I'm in, I'm sold.

It's not obvious who's going to come out on top giving the stipulation. Otherwise there's no way you can see Shane beating taker.

Unless the bullet club interferes and takes taker out but would that not turn Shane heel and whipe out the whole reason why we'd want him to win and have a face run Raw.

Yea it's been stated before in this thread the whole Face vs Face HITC makes no sense, unless they're making it a spotfest for Shane.

cgh · 23-02-2016 10:31am

if you take a step back and look at it from a business point of view,
Shanes doing quite well,
the WWE brand is suffering, Triple H is actually doing a good job with NXT,
but from the creative side and talent in the main roster is suffering.
I think Vince is actively looking at getting out,
with all that is going on Shane is the one to take it over,
I don't think Steph or Trips could manage the whole of the business.
Shane on the other hand is probably the right man for the job,
this is probably how hey will do it.
I'd say Shane has been groomed for this all along.

Loughc · 23-02-2016 10:35am

To be honest I don't see thing anything other than an angle. Shane doesn't want to run the business. Stephanie has been mouldered by Vince to take over from him with HHH. Steph does the business side of things HHH the wrassling.

Shane is successful in his own right he doesn't need the WWE. He's back short term to help his dad out and try to get a bump in ratings and subs. Nothing more nothing less.

CSF · 23-02-2016 11:10am

The Shane McMahon thing was looking so good until they went and booked him against the Undertaker. Makes no sense and the match itself won't be enthralling anybody in 2016. Shane McMahon's involvement should not be as a competitor.

Whosthis · 23-02-2016 11:22am

I think it's great that he's booked against Taker, the best thing to happen in the WWE in about 5 years happened last night. Its the first time I've really been excited about the product in a long time. All of us post here pissing and moaning about the state of the WWE and that it's boring and predictable. They give us something totally off the wall and true to form what are most of you doing? Pissing and moaning. Some people will never be happy and should just stop watching. I'm pretty sure that this story will develop further between now and mania. Until then, HERE COMES THE MONEY!!!!!!!

CSF · 23-02-2016 11:31am

Whosthis wrote: »

I think it's great that he's booked against Taker, the best thing to happen in the WWE in about 5 years happened last night. Its the first time I've really been excited about the product in a long time. All of us post here pissing and moaning about the state of the WWE and that it's boring and predictable. They give us something totally off the wall and true to form what are most of you doing? Pissing and moaning. Some people will never be happy and should just stop watching. I'm pretty sure that this story will develop further between now and mania. Until then, HERE COMES THE MONEY!!!!!!!

The problem is that I can't imagine this match being anything BUT boring. They're both old with their best days behind them, and given that I don't know which one people will want to win, people are just going to be confused.

Whosthis · 23-02-2016 11:37am

CSF wrote: »

The problem is that I can't imagine this match being anything BUT boring. They're both old with their best days behind them, and given that I don't know which one people will want to win, people are just going to be confused.

I know it's a long time since he's been in the ring and he must be pushing 50 now but can you point me in the direction of a boring Shane McMahon match?

Confused? Are you Vince McMahon? Pretty sure most people are capable of making the decision of who to cheer for all by themselves.

Moneymaker · 23-02-2016 11:37am

CSF wrote: »

The problem is that I can't imagine this match being anything BUT boring. They're both old with their best days behind them, and given that I don't know which one people will want to win, people are just going to be confused.

This is true but they can do a lot of smoke and mirrors and you're going to have a million people interfere as well so I think it can work.

Loughc · 23-02-2016 11:38am

CSF wrote: »

and given that I don't know which one people will want to win, people are just going to be confused.

This is my only problem with the match, who do we want to win, Shane the truth speaking McMahon who wants to end the Authorty's reign on Raw or Taker a man who might doesn't have many matches left in him and who was born and lives in Texas....

Put these two in different matches and they'd be the clear super over face in the match, but them against each other and ahhh... Go Taker.... Ah balls hello 30 minutes Steph/HHH promo tomorrow night.

Lord TSC · 23-02-2016 11:46am

I loved that opening. **** me, that came out of nowhere in the best way possible.

See worries about Shane vs Taker, but we're still 6 weeks off, so it's obvious there's going to be twists and turns. There is zero chance we get a 20 minute mat-wrestling match between the two; Shane was never that guy, and Taker's age means he won't be able to either. If the match goes ahead with those two, it's going to be heavily gimmicked. I know people want Sting vs Taker, but given the two need people to help cover their age and carry them in the ring, I personally think it would only disappoint. Shane vs Taker, with the story attatched, will have plenty to cover their failings. So, yeah, thats the first match I've looked at thinking "THIS IS WRESTLEMANIA!". Not sure what way it will go, but excited to find out.

Ambrose vs Brock will be fun.

HHH vs Reigns...when the crowd is cheering the "bad guy" as he beats the "good guy" to a bloody pulp, then there's something wrong. Whatever about booking it, HHH should have had the ability to call an audiable and cut certain parts; posing on the stairs with the belt held high was always going to elict way more cheers. At some point, when it was obvious the crowd weren't getting behind Reigns, HHH should have stopped and walked away at that stage. Not continue to solidify himself as a babyface with the reactions.

But overall, I enjoyed the Raw, mainly thanks tot he stellar opening segment. Always have loved Shane so thrilled he's back

CSF · 23-02-2016 11:53am

Whosthis wrote: »

I know it's a long time since he's been in the ring and he must be pushing 50 now but can you point me in the direction of a boring Shane McMahon match?

Confused? Are you Vince McMahon? Pretty sure most people are capable of making the decision of who to cheer for all by themselves.

It doesn't work like this. Wrestling works well when they book something well to get people over. A good story rather than people just randomly deciding preferences.

Shane coming back to take on Vince, right the wrongs of the WWE. Make things good again. Excellent story. How would anyone not cheer for Shane? Except that story doesn't work when he's fight in the Undertaker.

Surely like an NXT revolution would have been much better where he brings these guys through to help him fight Vince and his bunch of heels.

RAW 22-2-2016 (FastLane Fallout)

Comments