Wrestling Forum banner

What prevented WWE from doing Orton v. Taker or even Cena v. Taker in 2009-2010?

2K views 23 replies 17 participants last post by  DesoloutionRow 
Well thought answer, my compliment to you. The only thing I'd highlight is the bolded part: everyone and their mothers know that Cena doesn't need the Streak nor anything else to be "cemented" more than what he already is; yet, every year they end up giving him rubs that he doesn't need at all, e.g being the first man to pin Rusev. I would be more concerned on the lack of logic by the WWE than on the necessity of Cena beating Taker at Mania.

Anyway, I've nothing else to say because you explained your point perfectly.
They've given Cena lots of bullshit achievements to be honest. It's all in an effort to keep him looking like the best. At least it's not as bad as it was between 2005-2008. Dark times.

He's been fed so much that you could job him out for a year straight, and it honestly wouldn't hurt him. It's ridiculous really. The worst thing they did with him in recent times was basically killing Wyatt's momentum. No superstar should feud with Cena before they're already established. It's all downhill after that because WWE never books you right against him unless they think you're worthy. And they don't have a plan beyond it either.

Rusev actually looked great at Fast Lane, but after the Cena feud, they had him losing to guys like Ziggler. It's just fucking pointless really. Why go through all that, then job them out to no name midcarders? You're kind of seeing it a little with Owens now. After all those finisher fests with Cena, he's now randomly losing matches he has no business really losing from a kayfabe perspective. It's only going to hurt him in the long-term.

WWE doesn't know how to book multiple stars anymore. They basically build certain guys up just to feed them to other stars for one time feuds, when they should be focusing on longevity so they don't undermine their own booking.
 
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.
 
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top