[Bagelalmond]

Why didn't WWE tried to do a Cena vs Taker or Orton vs Taker feud back in 2009 or 2010? Orton and Cena were the top stars during those times. Either feuds would've been interesting and money as well since both Cena and Orton had their own programs with Taker before they were main eventers. In my opinion, WWE missed such HUGE opportunities that could've been done in one of those two years; doing them now is a little too late.

 

[Łegend Ќiller]

Because it's WWE.

 

[Ratedr4life]

Because it's WWE.

BINGO

WWE doesn't think long-term, Cena/Taker at WM26, WM27, WM29 all made sense to do, but they chose not too and now Cena/Taker doesn't have the same impact.

 

[TheTwelfthSon]

That probably would of been one of the worst points in Taker's career to do either one of those because they'd only feel like a third-wheel and not as big as they should be. Those two years were all about Shawn's obsession with the streak. Everything else either man did those two years is irrelevant in comparison to that feud and the two legendary matches.

If they were going to do Taker-Cena it should have been the year after the second (technically third but second in the storyline that included Shawn) HHH match.

 

[Simply Flawless]

The Orton/Taker feud was boring to fuck and dragged on for NINE long fucking months. And Randy only ever won like twice

 

[Łegend Ќiller]

The Orton/Taker feud was boring to fuck and dragged on for NINE long fucking months. And Randy only ever won like twice

Orton will be gone till 2017... i will cry man

 

[Stone Hot]

Shawn Michaels

 

[Chrome]

They already did Orton/Taker and they lacked the balls to do Cena/Taker.

 

[AlternateDemise]

You are aware that Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker happened at that time, right?

 

[Bagelalmond]

But what about the last two years? Those wrestlemania matches could've filled Orton and Cena for each one yet they decided to waste them with Lesnar and Wyatt.

 

[Bagelalmond]

And like HHH had to wrestle undertaker two times because they couldn't find a good opponent for taker for wrestlemania 28... Again, Cena and Orton were there...

 

[The Pied Piper]

WWE didn't do Orton/Taker or Cena/Taker at 2009-2010 because Taker was busy with Michaels.

 

[Drago]

Not enough cojones for Taker/Cena with the streak at stake.

 

[ste1592]

Not enough cojones for Taker/Cena with the streak at stake.

I'd say not enough cojones to put Cena in a situation where he would have been booed out of the building.

 

[The Caped Crusader]

They didn't do Orton/Taker, it's because it would suck. Their first feud was lacklustre, and Orton was far from one of the top stars during that period. They don't even put him on the poster of WM26 (which has WWE's five biggest stars at the time, and of 2005 onwards, on it).

Cena/Taker was a matter of timing. WM25 was going to be Cena/Batista headlining, but Batista ended up injured. After that, they were planning on doing Hogan/Cena, but Hogan fell through around February of 2009. This is why Cena was randomly inserted into the Edge/Big Show feud. As for WM26, they went ahead and did Cena/Batista like they were planning on doing the year before. Batista was on his way out, and they went with what made more sense at the time.

WM27 began The Rock/Cena rivalry which lasted until WM29 so Cena/Taker was never an option those years. WWE had a much bigger feud in Rock/Cena and made the most of it.

WM30 was actually an ideal time to do Cena/Taker. They could've done Batista/Brock, and Bryan/HHH along with Shield/Wyatts. The timing was perfect, but Vince obviously sacrificed the streak that year, with the intention of putting Reigns over as the next big thing eventually.

I think Cena/Taker is more interesting without the streak anyway. WWE would've never had Cena break the streak so who gives a shit really if it was intact? It just made the outcome obvious. As it is right now, the winner between Cena/Taker is actually unpredictable. WWE could have either guy win.

I'd say not enough cojones to put Cena in a situation where he would have been booed out of the building.

Except they've put Cena in that situation dozens of times, and he even closed two WMs back to back to a chorus of boos.

 

[751161]

BINGO

WWE doesn't think long-term, Cena/Taker at WM26, WM27, WM29 all made sense to do, but they chose not too and now Cena/Taker doesn't have the same impact.

It hasn't ever since Brock broke the streak, same with the Sting match. Whilst Cena/Taker and Sting/Taker wouldn't have been amazing match-wise more than likely, Taker being undefeated at 'Mania would have made those match-ups huge, especially Cena IMO. Who had a very good chance at breaking the Streak like Brock, and it would have been interesting.

Whilst the atmosphere would still be interesting for a potential WrestleMania 32 bout between Cena/Taker, it won't be as exciting as it could have been if they do it.

 

[CareerKiller]

I wouldn't have wanted to see it in 2009 because it's doubtful the match is better than the Michaels match we got that year, but I'd have been fine with it happening in 2010. There was no need for a Michaels rematch (or the two straight Triple H matches that followed it.)

The real problem is WWE didn't do it between 2011 and 2014. For a stretch in the latter half of 2010 (around the time when he stopped jobbing to Swagger and started getting top face-strength booking for the only time in his career), Orton was the most over guy on the roster (deny it all you want, you can watch the tapes for his entrance pops at the time, the pops confirm it); and then that all got pissed away to put over Miz (who was eventually pissed away and fed to Cena.)

Any year after 2011 could have safely delivered a Cena/Taker streak match because the WWE had a hot enough face to transition to if they'd had the guts to do so; Orton was there at the peak of his face popularity in late 2010 for WM 27, Punk was there for WM 28 (you could have even turned Cena against The Rock that year); Punk and Bryan were there for WM 29, Bryan obviously at WM 30.

I'd say it should have happened at WM 29 or WM 30, because that "Twice in a Lifetime" bullshit robbed us of Rock/Brock II and a Cena/Taker streak match. You also could have done Bryan/Lesnar or Lesnar/Batista or something else like that the next year if a Cena/Taker streak match was happening there.

 

[outtanowhere]

I wouldn't have wanted to see it in 2009 because it's doubtful the match is better than the Michaels match we got that year, but I'd have been fine with it happening in 2010. There was no need for a Michaels rematch (or the two straight Triple H matches that followed it.)

The real problem is WWE didn't do it between 2011 and 2014. For a stretch in the latter half of 2010 (around the time when he stopped jobbing to Swagger and started getting top face-strength booking for the only time in his career), Orton was the most over guy on the roster (deny it all you want, you can watch the tapes for his entrance pops at the time, the pops confirm it); and then that all got pissed away to put over Miz (who was eventually pissed away and fed to Cena.)

Any year after 2011 could have safely delivered a Cena/Taker streak match because the WWE had a hot enough face to transition to if they'd had the guts to do so; Orton was there at the peak of his face popularity in late 2010 for WM 27, Punk was there for WM 28 (you could have even turned Cena against The Rock that year); Punk and Bryan were there for WM 29, Bryan obviously at WM 30.

I'd say it should have happened at WM 29 or WM 30, because that "Twice in a Lifetime" bullshit robbed us of Rock/Brock II and a Cena/Taker streak match. You also could have done Bryan/Lesnar or Lesnar/Batista or something else like that the next year if a Cena/Taker streak match was happening there.

Pretty much this.

 

[ste1592]

Except they've put Cena in that situation dozens of times, and he even closed two WMs back to back to a chorus of boos.

Right, I should reformulate; they didn't want to put in a situation where his win would have caused a HUGE backlash.

I know they did it with Rock knowing that Cena would have booed out of the building, but it's not like they expect him to get booed against whoever he fights. The Streak has been the biggest achievement in the recent history of the WWE, can you imagine Cena winning against Taker? I think people would throw shit in the ring like in the ECW days.

 

[The Caped Crusader]

Right, I should reformulate; they didn't want to put in a situation where his win would have caused a HUGE backlash.

I know they did it with Rock knowing that Cena would have booed out of the building, but it's not like they expect him to get booed against whoever he fights. The Streak has been the biggest achievement in the recent history of the WWE, can you imagine Cena winning against Taker? I think people would throw shit in the ring like in the ECW days.

Cena was just going to the top around 2006, and WWE had him beat Triple H and HBK back to back at WM23. That was what I was referring to by closing the show to a chorus of boos. That was at a time when Cena wasn't cemented, and still in the process of becoming the top star. WWE isn't afraid of Cena being booed. It's become commonplace now. If they didn't give a crap back when Cena was just being cemented, and had him close the show back to back in 2006/2007, why would they care now?

Cena's been established for years, and keeping him away from Taker hasn't been because they were afraid of him being booed. The timing has just been wrong. Cena was occupied with The Rock in one way or another from WM27-WM29. At WM30, Vince clearly had other plans because he fed the streak to Brock in order to set up the next poster boy in Reigns.

In regards to there being a backlash if Cena would beat Taker. I'll answer this in two parts. The first is I don't believe Cena would have ever beaten Taker for the streak. Every streak match has been predictable since WWE started focusing on the streak around 2007 onwards. It was obvious Taker was never losing. It was so obvious every year, that it was actually a surprise that Brock beat the streak. No one even cared much prior to WM30 about this match, which only added to the surprise.

Why did Brock beat Taker though? Because Vince had his master plan of putting over Reigns. That's the reason, and we know that. In the case of Cena, Vince doesn't need to feed him the streak to make him a bigger deal. He's John Cena. Dominating Cena and Summerslam 2014 did more for Brock's character than breaking the streak did.

This brings me to whether there'd be a huge backlash if Cena broke the streak. The short answer is no, there wouldn't. I can't count how many times the mantra of "whoever breaks the streak is doomed to be hated by everyone forever" was repeated by smarks. Turns out, it actually doesn't mean anything. It was a whole lot of bullshit by smarks who bought into the corporate hype just a little too much.

Lesnar was received with indifference most of the time. After breaking the streak, and then beating Cena, he was slowly cheered by fans. The exact opposite happened with him.

With Cena, the backlash would only come from fans who don't like him as it is. We're talking the demographic that has hated him since mid-2005. Even if he managed to break the streak, nothing would change in his reactions. They'd be the same as they have been for a decade. Half the fans cheering him, half the fans booing him.

What backlash is there exactly? People overrated the streak's significance and important by buying into the WWE machine, and it looks even more foolish in hindsight. Turns out, fans didn't actually care that much, because they moved on pretty damn quickly.

This is exactly why storytelling reigns supreme. Daniel Bryan's problems with The Authority meant a lot more than the Undertaker's streak ever did. Artificial hype always means less. Organic storytelling on the other hand actually gains the fans investment.

The streak breaking was shocking, but fans ultimately didn't give a crap. How did it affect them aside from there not being a streak match every year now? It hasn't. It was a shallow spectacle that had already outstayed its significance after the repeated HBK/HHH matches. WM29 had fans cheering for a heel CM Punk to break the streak of all things.