Five Petty Things That Were Annoying About Survivor Series 2017

Survivor Series is over and, despite the predictable "It's All About The Game" ending, the show was pretty enjoyable. But, because I am a cynical person who has grown jaded over the years and who always expects the WWE to somehow let me down, today I'm looking at the negatives.

But I'm not talking about the BIG negatives, like the fact that Finn Balor, Shinsuke Nakamura, Samoa Joe, and Bobby Roode were portrayed as afterthoughts to Triple H, Kurt Angle, Randy Orton, and Shane McMahon. I'm talking about the little things that annoyed me during the show.
So here we go.

John Cena Wore Green

Yeah, I said this was going to be petty. But WWE did a very good job of having all of the Raw guys wear red (even HHH, who wore a different shirt, but still a red one) and the SmackDown guys wear blue (even Nakamura, who typically wears red) and then they had John Cena come out in all green everything.

Unless this was done to show that Cena was a hired mercenary and not a loyal SmackDown competitor (and, if that was the case, it's actually great) it looked weird. And I don't have enough faith in WWE to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Or anywhere. Ever.

Heel Versus Heel Matches

I know this was "SmackDown versus Raw" but it's hard for the crowd to get into a heel versus heel match. For example, who were we supposed to cheer for when The Miz faced Baron Corbin? I know, the obvious answer is "The Miz" because Corbin is incredibly boring (fight me, Jay), but The Miz is an excellent heel and he should never be cheered. The same goes for The Usos versus The Bar. Both of these are heel teams. Yes, they're both entertaining, but heels are supposed to be booed and we can't boo everyone all the time. We need to conserve our booing for Roman Reigns. (I will fight you, Jay.)

Both of those matches had worse crowd reactions than the rest of the show because fans aren't used to cheering for any of those competitors. WWE had two title changes in the build-up to this show and they still gave us two heel versus heel matches. Why?

We Knew Lesnar Would Win

I mean, we always know Lesnar will win, but this was more obvious than usual. WWE made a HUGE deal about how it was 3-2 for SmackDown going into this match. We knew the only two matches left on the show were Lesnar/Styles and the men's elimination match, and it was obvious that we weren't going to go into the main event with a 4-2 SmackDown lead (which would have made the match even more pointless than it already was), so the Brock Lesnar victory could be seen from a mile away and it took something away from what turned out to be a very good match.

This show was a good example of modern WWE: Great matches, entertaining superstars, awful storylines and booking.

No Titles on the Line

I'm not counting the Cruiserweight Title because it was on the pre-show and I'm pretty sure Vince McMahon doesn't know it exists.

All of the company's major champions were on the show, and not one of them had anything on the line. So why should they try? I know there's pride and everything but, for example, a title reign should be more important than pride and proving you're the best champion.

AJ Styles knew going into the match with Lesnar that he was going to face Jinder Mahal for the title very soon (wasn't it supposed to happen on this week's SmackDown? Why is it now at Clash of Champions? Sigh.) so what reason did he have to give it his all against Lesnar, and risk injury, when he has an actual title match coming up? Doesn't it make sense to try to avoid injury in a non-title showcase match so that he stays healthy for a match when his title is on the line?

Which brings me to....

Nothing Was at Stake

I really like the idea of making Survivor Series a Raw vs SmackDown pay-per-view. It adds something special to the event, which it has certainly been lacking in recent years. However, it's weird that absolutely nothing was on the line.

If we're supposed to believe that pride is enough to fight for, since Raw and SmackDown hate each other so much, then they shouldn't have had the "Superstar Shake-up" in April. It's hard to believe that these two brands really hate each other when they switch sides all the time. If the intent was to prove who was the better champion, then why did both the WWE and SmackDown Women's titles change just weeks (or days) before the show? That devalues that concept.

Besides, if Raw and SmackDown are bitter rivals, why do they plug each other's pay-per-views and recap each other's shows? Why did SmackDown lend AJ Styles to Raw to face Finn Balor recently? Either treat the two brands like they're WCW and WWF, and they hate each other, or treat them like two sports conferences (like the Eastern and Western Conferences in the NHL, for example) and admit that they don't hate each other, they're just different parts of the same company. You can't have both.

Anyway, something should have been on the line at this show. Maybe the winning brand would get extra Royal Rumble entries, or a guarantee that it would get the 30th entrant in the Royal Rumble or the last match of the night at WrestleMania or something. Otherwise, the show felt more like an all-star game where everyone goes out to put on a show but the final score is ultimately meaningless.

And an "All-Star Game" would have been fine, expect the commentators just kept mentioning what the score was and how "critical" it was that each brand win. Why was it critical? Why was it so bad when Zayn and Owens attacked Team SmackDown if SmackDown didn't actually lose anything by losing the match? Even Bragging Rights had a dumb trophy...

Anyway, it was a good show and even the petty things I found to complain about were pretty petty so, I guess good job WWE. I'll keep waiting for future disappointment.

No comments

Powered by Blogger.