Re: Who would have benefited the most from 'Breaking the Streak'?
I believe the biggest hype for breaking the streak really began in 2005 at Wrestlemania 21. Sure it was mentioned sooner, but this is when feuds really centered around the streak. From the list of wrestlers facing Undertaker from 2001 on, only two are still technically active competitors in the WWE, and that may not be true if Henry really doesn't come back. With Edge, Batista, HHH, and Shawn Michaels all retired, having any of them break the streak would be bad in hindsight. Looking at it at that point, HHH and Michaels were already legends, so they didn't need it. Edge and Batista were already top guys and this was a World title feud for both of them, so it would be hard to elevate either guy higher than what they already were, the number 2 face and the number 2 heel.
That leaves Mark Henry and Randy Orton. At the time, Henry was in his silverback gorilla gimmick, which was a far less charismatic and entertaining version of his hall of pain gimmick. He was slow at garnering reactions and felt forced into a feud with Taker. It really should have been Taker vs. Angle instead. Randy Orton was at a point in his career in which he was already a World Champion, but his favor backstage was dipping due to personal issues. A report came out at the time that said Triple H was disappointed in Orton and was tired of hoping he would recover from him immaturity. Beating Taker would have propelled Orton up, but he may have not been ready. Hindsight shows that he truly didn't need it.
So I truly believe no one should have broken the streak from the past matches, but if anyone really would have benefited from it, it would have been Mark Henry. He's the only one from the list that has yet to be a consistent main eventer. He wouldn't have been the right choice, but he would have gained the most.
Bears - Bulls - Braves - Blackhawks - Bulldogs - America
"One small step for man, one great montage for mankind."