Ricky Steamboat was pinned by Ric Flair in it a few months before Hogan joined WCW on a spring time PPV. Both wrestlers shoulders were down the video analysis showed and so they redid the match which Flair won clean. Not watched any AEW. Feel it looks and sounds good from what I hear but not sure I want/can afford to shell out for that and the network.

Encouraging. It suggests that fan and media power has some (limited) influence. Hopefully it can encourage the premier league and players to actually do something positive.

The highlighted bits are why Wyatt struggled twice. Don't get me wrong I don't like the hocus pocus stuff either but at an even more simple level wins and loss and a clear direction matter even more. He faced Rollins way too soon with little build up, harming the character and momentum. The story felt rushed He then lost the title to someone most serious fans don't rate any more with equally little build up. Neither of which were the big deal they should be - other than rectifying the worst hell in a cell result ever... As an aside isn't it interesting the title win and loss both took place in Saudi. Without these shows there may have been a better storyline progression, with Bray raging about a title screwy finish at HIAC and getting redemption by destroying everyone in the Rumble Anyhow yeah the big problem for the current character is little storyline or rushed. Even the Miz Bryan angle could have run for longer as Bray played on the pairs animosity. That would have been a quality triple threat match slotted in as well. Then of course there's the win loss ratio. That killed his old character. Heck if he had just beaten either Reigns or Cena he would still be considered a threat. It's dead simple build people as monsters who can't be beaten and they matter and fans take notice. If not fans are understandably underwhelmed. Thing is both gimmicks/characters work, even with the hocus pocus. Remember the Taker and the power of the urn? Warrior getting power from the ropes. I didn't like it as was too cheesy but it didn't hold either character back. What doesn't work however is poor storylines and regular losses. On a separate point the rematch clause is fine. Nothing wrong with it. It exists in real sports like boxing. It's plausible and makes sense. Also if you got rid of so many of the same matches on Raw the odd rematch would be fine. More than fine in fact.

One of the problems has been that very few of the women have storylines/meaningful feuds outside of the title picture (and even then the storytelling isn't great). It's hard to be invested when the characters mean so little. That said, as a piece of action, for me I enjoyed it and thought it was good. Perhaps again not watching Smackdown helped me as I hadn't had chance to disengage from poor characters. Contrast this with NXT. The battle royal they had for the no 1 contendership set off another 3 or 4 matches Great discription. For me the boneyard match was too far from suspension of disbelief but you are right that this way way, way beyond that. Terrible and to think that took up 10-15 minutes on the greatest show of them all... Yeah. The lack of a crowd hurt but wouldn't have made either title match good. I mean it's not so hard to do a decent to good title match even with limited wrestlers. Hogan made a thing out of doing it. Just tell a bit of a sodding story even if the wrestling is basic. My mind goes back to WM7 and the 2 big matches from that. Hogan-Slaughter saw two very limited wrestlers but they told a solid story over 10-12 minutes or so. And didn't devalue their finishers in the process. Then Warrior-Savage match saw them throw all their stuff at each other and the kitchen sink. Only after that did Savage drop all his flying elbows which Warrior kicked out of. That's how you book a kicking out of finisher. In contrast to this the match and story telling in the Wrestlemania main event was terrible, crowd or no crowd. Agree. Especially Drew who hasn't had any others. Shame that as with many programmes the potential is there but they just don't pull it off.

Well @Miller11 have to conceed you were right. Agree with 99% of what you say. Agree the Ripley v Flair match was excellent. My worry is bounce-back-ability after a loss to Charlotte. No shame in losing, and no harm necessarily, but Asuka never quite recovered from her loss. Hope Ripley isn't the same. Black v Lashley wasn't worthy of a PPV as the angle could have been done anywhere. Likewise the tag championship match. I mean when both challengers aren't even from Raw and it is not an invasion angle so there was zero chance of them winning and zero storyline. Get why they did it for Bianca but again could have been done anytime. Ziggler-Otis agree. It would have been much better with a crowd present though. Went from good to decent without a crowd reaction. Women's 5 way match. I quite liked this actually. Some good wrestling, logical narrative to the match. Right order of eliminations, leading to almost some uncertainty in who won, and long term storyline progression. Firefly fun house. Agree, garbage. Ok was quite amusing and as a vignette or part of the build up on Raw the novelty could have carried it. At WM as an epic confrontation it was just poor. Edge-Orton. First and last 10 minutes fantastic but the problem was there was about 15-20 minutes in the middle that dragged. Cut the march by a third or half and it would have been excellent. As it was it was solid. World title match - call me old fashioned but there's a school of thought title matches can be good. You know, more than 5 minutes, involve more than 3 moves, more than just repeated finishers, more storyline depth than a Topsy and Tim book. When Lesnar has his working boots on he has great matches. When phoning it in, then his matches are poor. This was the latter and another really poor WM main event. Even Drew lifting the title wasn't that good without an audience. So yeah. Should have postponed. Should have cut the filler. Would have been miles better in front of an audience. Most frustrating is they could have had a very good WM on their hands. Keep in the women's title matches from both nights, Rollins-Owers, put Taker-AJ in a proper match (or Fiend-Cena instead, Taker may be getting past it), take 15 minutes of Edge and Orton, have Otis-Ziggler and the Drew Lesnar matches in for crowd reaction and boom. Good WM on our hands. Even without a crowd that would have been a solid event. As it was there was a lot of filler, match timings weren't quite right and the things included to wow a crowd, understandably didn't.

Is anyone surprised footballers aren't behaving well? We treat them above the law in all.matters prior to this from drink driving to wage demands to their sexual ethics. Why on earth would a global pandemic see them behave any differently?

Yeah from the guild hall to headlining Wrestlemania - that's some turn around. Likewise glad he has made it. The multiple venues was an experiment that didn't work. Commentary was hurt badly and it forced a number of matches onto the card that otherwise shouldn't have been on, to represent each venue. Yeah no doubt these are current problems. Having Raw each week for 3 hours is the biggest challenge of keeping things fresh as it's a lot of time to fill. NXT and Smackdown do better with 2 hours although it is still a bit of a problem. Also it's not just the lack of build it's the constant chopping and changing of direction. Take the Rusev Lana Lashley angle. Whatever you thought about it the casual fan was into it but there was no blow off match, no consequences to the couple of matches they had, and that was one of the more developed storylines. So yes, see your point entirely. It's a shame because as you say the athleticism is on another level. Not going to argue with you on postponement. Even though I may judge the show at a higher quality - there's still a clear gap from what it should be, even if you didn't change a single performance/things. Great things are looking good, good average and so on, and am not sure that is healthy for anything requiring viewers in the long run.

Agree. Vince really doesn't get the organic and fan led thing whatsoever. Agree that the call ups are shoddily handled. Perhaps it doesn't help by having an overly large roster (one of the benefits of NXT becoming more prominent is people can stay in the brand) but even so the majority of call ups are handled appallingly. Look at Ricochet, the guy had it all and did some stuff which was literally incredible, and yet he is just lost in the shuffle.A guy who can do it all, and on top of that can do some high flying things no one else can do, and he's stagnating. Terrible. Or the Viking Raiders, or should I say experience. The natural successors to Legion of Doom, and they've done hardly anything. Likewise AOP. Even Black is only doing ok due to lack of meaningful feuds. It is worrying that those who do less well in NXT of late, do better on the main roster. Heavy Machinery or War Raiders, Alexa Bliss or Asuka, it's all a bit odd really. That said, when Vince, finally hands over, things should be incredible with the level of talent they are producing/attracting and the quality of NXT. Yes, it is a farce that sadly, as you said, matters. It's a farce that destroyed the world championship at Wrestlemania this year, so it's a costly and damaging farce. They could have used her losing the streak to drive her to show that she is the best, or go crazy heel, or mow through people and get a shot at redemption. Lots of ways a loss could have been played successfully but it was horribly botched. Perhaps because I don't watch Raw it felt more fresh to me. But yes, they massively overplayed their hand on this one. Still a good match imo, especially when taken at face value, but the 329 tag matches they've been involved in together can only have devalued it. Terrible ending to Michaels vs Tatanka, and the rest of the show, bar the Steiners (who were incredible imo) stunk. I think given where the company was that year, and sandwiched between 2 strong manias, it really should have done better. No great matches, lots of terrible results and finishes - a poor show all round. Would say that the Rollins-Owens, ladder match, possibly the tag match and the all too brief Bazler-Lynch match were all better than the majority of WM9. .That said the product has come on leaps and bounds so it's very hard to compare eras. Interesting as a kid, watching WM2 I liked it. Looking back with a more critical eye, I can see it's flaws, and there are some stinkers on there, but at the time it was something I enjoyed.. Mind you I appreciate a 7 or 8 year old isn't that discerning! I actually think there's some better quality and variety in WM2 then WM1. Funnily enough it was a lot later when I watched WM1, so perhaps it wasn't a fair comparison. On WM2, I thought the battle royal, the Bulldogs title victory, Steamboat-Hercules, the Funks tag match and the cage match all were solid in capturing the interest and a decent showing. If WM1 gets a pass in terms of product for being experimental, I feel WM2 should get some leeway too. Agree these are the two I am most looking forward to. There's the bonus from the Fiend-Cena match that the winner isn't a forgone conclusion (although going with The Fiend). In front of a crowd Lesnar-MacIntyre would be pretty good too. Am quite a fan of MacIntyre's work since he returned to the company. Incidentally I went to a house show six years ago. If you'd have told me then that two 3MB would be world champions I would not have believed you. That said, the house show was good and they were part of it. But yeah, wouldn't have clocked that 3MB would produce world champions.

Bit harsh that when you consider the quality in some of the first Wrestlemanias! Of course nowhere near current standards but then a lot of that imo is down to a lack of crowd. Thought you were a bit harsh on a number of matches tbh including rhe ladder march and Rollins v Owens so nowhere near the worst Wrestlemania. Mind you that speaks volumes of a number of them as much as it defends this one. Was it 26 or 27 which Miz v Cena "main eventer?" That was a terrible one. Wrestlemania 9 was also a spectacularly bad one which couldn't have been worse if they tried. So comparatively having a few decent-good matches keeps it well.off the bottom for me. That said I also wasnt a fan of the boneyard match (deffo had a GCSE script writer I thought) and the screeching was something else in the women's tag. So with you on those points. With the latter point the tag match I thought was solid but the screeching did distract from it.

Has to be a rematch. Otherwise that has to be the shortest push ever. Thing is I really loved Bazler in NXT, and her dominance plus the help of the other horsewomen really wound me up and got me invested in the can anyone beat her. It what made Ripley beating her so good and made some of the matches with Sane and Io so good. Wrestlemania means that storyline and vibe is way off. Great points. Yeah, Elias is a natural heel and works so much better that way (why change him?) Think you are right about Corbin too - the desire for comeuppance only grows and gets invested in as a storyline if it doesn't happen. Another who was golden in NXT. Does Vince actually pay attention to how fans react? Actually I know the answer on this one - NXT is an evil necessity to keep hardcore wrestling fans from going elsewhere in his view. Agreed. Wouldnt be surprised to see it happen. Agreed. Even when it is harder to mess it up... Repulsive is the word. The big issue is it's a nostalgia trip of poor quality. Goldberg would never have got the title had it not been in Saudi. Would the Fiend be going to WM as world champion ? possibly not but there would have at least been a champion with some credibility and quality. The shows are poor. Really poor. In fact that's why I think they do so many title changes there to force people to tune in to otherwise highly skippable events.

Yes if you follow NXT then the finish is unsurprising. Or it should have happened after another 30 seconds or so of Becky being in the hold. Bret Hart was best at this move. WM8 Vs Piper and Survivor Series v Austin - both were classic matches ended with this move, with Bret outsmarting his opponent. (Showing my age now!) It didn't go long enough for a need to outsmart as oppose to overpower for starters and wasn't on long enough either. Bazler losing to trickery is ok in my book if they either a) come up short in an epic battle where they look a beast or b) come back dominant - for example attacking Lynch after the bell. Neither of these were the case. Think you are a bit kind to them on character worm too! Corbin could be the annoying cocky heel everyone longs to see walloped and invest in that story but since he never looks that dominant even with a faction, and has lost 3286 times to Reigns it:s not a story you can invest in. Add in Strowman hasn't looked dominant of late and there's no story to it either. Or heck even a reason why Strowman should be the number 1 contender and it's even worse. Good thoughts. Yeah I get why not but the story still needed fans for it to work - more than other storylines too. I read Zayne had surgery 6 months ago so may be they are just wanting him to heal up. (No pun intended although...) More revenue. I think it could work. There's so many ways they could do this story. They could have Cross as the heel too getting obsessive or playing to her crazy gimmick. I don't mind long story lines but they do need to hint and build up things with storyline advancement otherwise it just fizzles out and is nothing. The Saudi Arabia shows are a joke. It's only because of these shows we had Goldberg as a champion. What made it worse was his first match out there stunk.

Thanks ? You forgot the world title match. In fairness it was utterly forgettable. To treat a world title like that... Agree with you about the filler. One of the reasons I think the Takeovers work well is that there are 4 to 6 matches and they all mean something.

Interesting thoughts. For me I was also pleasantly surprised but despite this it still clearly wasn't Wrestlemania as we know it. The crowd is such a huge factor and the absence makes it even more.obvious. My disappointments from the night: - Lynch v Bazler: I really liked the match and thought it was just getting going. Really enjoyed what they did but 10 mins wasn't enough. - Elias v Corbin. Someone said the crowd reaction would be no louder of fans were actually present. I agree. They even had the help of a storyline of Elias being hurt from the fall on Smack down but the storytelling and selling was poor. - Goldberg-Strowman. As expected brief and poor. Whilst brevity was a positive it still was utterly poor and disappointing to see a world title treated like this. - Boneyard match. Much better shot than previous out of arena matches but still poor imo. No tension, poor storyline and so far into fantasy as to be incongruous with a sports entertainment event. Well produced mind - Bryan v Zayne was disappointing. Could have had a classic but they didn't and without an audience the story they were telling also felt flat. Positives - Bazler v Lynch was great in the limited time they got. With a crowd and longer they could have a great match. - Rollins v Owens - good match, crazy bump, gutted they didn't have a crowd to make the storytelling and performance as great as it should be. - Ladder match - for a match that wasn't supposed to happen this stole the show. Great match and worked well even in an empty arena. - The women's tag title match was pretty good too. Overall a decent night's wrestling. Some good stuff on there, which would have been even better with a crowd. The duds would have been duds anyway. A normal match between Styles and Taker would have also been better (but can see why they didn't do this with the lack of an audience) and a crowd would have enhanced 3 or 4 of the other matches making it a very strong showing. As it was it was pretty solid and although that's not great in the circumstances it's pretty impressive. One other thought splitting over 2 nights is good. 3 hours is much more watchable in 1 sitting.

Too true. Could have walked it - or made it a lot more comfortable with these guys fit all season. The difference being we had a ton of other quality players then but 3 from the Souness team was a huge hit.

Rev we totally disagree on the non football thread but your posts on this topic in this and the other football thread are bang on the money imo. They say the crisis highlights the best and worst in people and it is certainly highlighting the monstrosity that is the premier League.

I think that Souness team was very unlucky with injuries and what might have been. Gresko, Jansen and Thompson all looked utter quality before getting injured. Losing those 3 them becoming or continuing as top performers could have helped us kick on well and truly. Maybe Souness wouldn't have lost the plot.

I really hope there is an in ground and on TV boycott after the way the PL and PFA are behaving. It won't happen but more than ever they are a sewer that needs cleansing. Shame it won't happen because the PL and PFA are playing a blinder showing how corrupt they are.

Yeah. Likewise Shame as this year has some good matches. (Some duds as well) but was genuinely excited to see Edge-Orton, Lynch-Bazler, Drew Vs Lesnar and the Fiend-Ceba matches. Also thought Styles could have made Taker have a decent match, the Bryan-Zayn match has great potential and a pre virus ladder match should have been good as well. A lot of this will be lessened by the lack of a crowd which is a shame as it was a good card. Am even more gutted it kiboshed the Takeover though.

My thoughts exactly! Hope it gets the bugger out of a job. Read somewhere that along with clubs using the government scheme to furlough non playing staff whilst still paying obscene wages, this could be the biggest PR disaster for the Premier League. I kind of hope it is so that football is brought back under control but I doubt that is going to be the case.

Load of rubbish. James in there. Longevity and quality are not the same thing. De Gea for all his brilliance was unconvincing at the start and for the last season or so. But hey, play for a big.club and in you get. There was a few keepers, not least Brad, who should.have been in that list.

Is it not how good they were for Rovers? As in Salgado was an excellent right back but was comparatively only good for us rather than one of the best in the world. So wouldn't be Rovers greatest ever RB. If that is the case Daily and Matteo weren't that good for us and Mulgrew made a much bigger contribution to us.

Hmm you may be right. That said with Hendry, McKinley etc around I think Mulgrew would be protected and flourish. Think we'd see the best of his passing and set pieces in this team. Also Mulgrew looked good in the championship in the relegation season. He was better than a league 1 player before his legs went.

See this is my issue! It may be me over thinking it but is it: A) The best 11 players we've had in terms of quality when at Rovers b) A variation on that whereby they have to genuinely work as a team. For example I may want Jansen, Shearer and Bellamy but along with 2 wingers it doesnt give me a workable formation in practice. C) My favourite 11 in which case quality goes on the backseat a bit more. Interestingly the only players to get in all 3 versions for me would be Friedel, Berg, Duff and Shearer. (And Tugay although objectively speaking I think he sneaks into the B criteria on nostalgia a bit.) The rest change depending on which criteria are used.

A lot of my favourite players were Scottish. Seemed to produce a tough as nails, never say die attitude, grit and steel type players: McKinley, Hendry, Gally all of whom I regarded very highly. Loved how fiery they all were and willing to put their bodies on the line. If we had those 3 in the team now we'd be in the top 2 no doubt. (Them in their playing days obviously...) Also Rhodes and Mulgrew need to be in there as both scored a lot of good goals. Rhodes carried the team at times whilst Mulgrew captained us to promotion and got a daft number of goals that season. Mind you we've had a few duds too and at cost Daily, Ferguson and not at cost Greer.

Not sure. The advertising still says on the WWE site, that the Network is the only place you can stream it for free. Given that's their advertising I can't see them not having it on the Network. That said whether WM goes ahead is a different matter in the current climate. NXT is the other main thing for me. The tape library is also excellent, but NXT consistently delivers, especially their Takeovers. There's much better story lines,matches and the general product feels better too. I also watch NXT UK although that is admittedly a step down from standard NXT. Their Takeovers are still great though. Yep, agree the main event meant the show ended on a low note. Swapping the chamber matches round would have been a huge win as the tag team one was excellent. (To be pedantic I think it was the 2nd ever tag chamber match, sorry.) But it was a quality match and would have let things go on a high. Still didn't rate the show that highly. For starters the women's match was poor - and that's difficult to do in a Chamber match. The nukber of participants, random entries and the environment all give the match a boost. I get that it was meant to make Shayna look a monster but there are still much better ways of doing it then what was produced. A higher calibre of opponents and some double teaming for starters. I'm always reminded of the Sting-Vader matches where Sting made Vader look a monster, yet the match still be engaging. (Am sure there are other examples too,) This however was just a boring squash. Add in the fact that the Prophets - RollinsMurphy match was just solid, the handicap match boring, the lack of main champions defending the belts (the top 3 belts weren't defended) and the lack of grudges/long term story lines in the show and it would struggle to get above a 6 for me. The men's chamber match was good and I really liked the Bryan-Gulak match (albeit it had an obvious ending) but overall that's not enough for a PPV in my opinion. Contrast this to the Takeovers, which (generally) provide excellent matches and better developed stories, and yeah, it just wasn't enough. To me there's been a number of shows where the main event just hasn't delivered. Hell in a Cell being another one which started off strongly, with an excellent Cell match between Banks and Lynch, and another strong match, before slowly fading into mediocre, and then utter farce at the end. There's been a large number of main events which have felt flat to me (HIAC from the year before that also immediately springs to mind) which suggests that WWE have a real issue on delivering on what they promise. It's a shame as the main roster can produce excellent matches, as evidenced by the men's chamber match.