Would A More Competitive Roster Be Better?

[Unaffiliated]

Competitive in terms of people getting wins over each other, not just looking good in the match. With the repeated jobbing of Cesaro and Ziggler to Ryback and Cena, where is the excitement in watching the matches?

I think it would be better if they sort of merged the mid-card and the main event wrestlers in terms of ability level. Have a larger pool of wrestlers who look good enough to challenge for the top titles. Would Cena, Ryback, and Sheamus losing clean once out of every four matches hurt their popularity? I don't think so. All it would do is give their matches on Raw and Smackdown some unpredictability. Is there a general opinion in WWE that the only way to find the next real superstar is to have them win and win and win all the time?

[Deleted]

I'm of the opinion that WWE's doomed to keep exploiting every possible match combination with their core roster that it's always gonna be this way. Where everyone's fighting everyone and it's always of low consequence. It's amazing how much guys like Jericho, Lesnar and Rock benefit from being able to choose their own destiny because the more sporadic the wrestle the more special it feels.

WWE just has too much content to fill on a weekly basis to possibly create a situation for themselves where they can properly build up matches and talent without burning themselves and the audience out. It seems like an impossible task to factor in wins and losses of every match and tie it all in a coherent story when there are just so many matches.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

What WWE needs to do is build up the rest of their talent pool to a moderate level of credibility and overness and have them wrestling the top guys in competitive matches. Treat them as Jobbers to the Stars who lose spectacularly rather than simply as straight up jobbers who get squashed.

You can spread the stars further throughout the show AND not let them get stale, when they're not fighting each other every week. The fans pay to see the top guys regardless of who they're facing.

Let's face it, Dolph Ziggler is gonna flop like a fish out of water whether he's wrestling John Cena or Alex Riley.

The kids are gonna pay to see John Cena whether he's lifting The Big Show for the AA or hitting the Five Moves of Doom on David Otunga.

And haters are gonna keep hating on Miz and MizTV whether he's interviewing CM Punk or Johnny Curtis.

[Unaffiliated]

I think they already are, at least to some extent, trying to build up the mid-card wrestlers by having them lose after putting up a good fight. My question is more of, wouldn't it be better if they were a bit more than jobber to the stars, and actually won against the top guys once in a while (clean)? I mainly wonder what the fans want. If they come to see Cena and his AA or Five moves of doom, will they go "screw this crap" if he ends up losing clean instead?

[jjdash]

Absolutely agree that people should be on more of the same level.

The winner of the match doesn't matter as much if the match itself it top quality.

If one of my favourites gets squashed repeatably for no real reason it pisses me off and makes me not want to watch. If one of my favourites loses a competitive, exciting match then I shrug and say 'at least it was an enjoyable match.'

E.g. Cena last week squashed Cody = makes me mad
Cesaro loses to Sheamus in a great match = im fine with that because it was an enjoyable match.

The issue comes when people constantly lose to the same opponent, like when Ziggler was getting his head kicked off by Sheamus every week. Sure the matches were good but would it have hurt anyone for Ziggler to pick up at least one victory?

[BoilerRoomBrawler]

I think of it this way; in economics, you want to avoid monopolies and trusts because they stifle competition and thus innovation and thus the economy suffers as the monopoly/trust rests on its laurels because it is no longer subject to the demands of the consumer. When you have only a few top guys, you approach a monopoly on starpower. Fans will tune in for your big stars and switch when they're gone. Create a more competitive environment, and every quarter hour offers starpower; you have reason to stay tuned.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

Yes, because it would be a step away from their general top face booking strategy of "cheer this guy because he wins a lot."

[EP 54 is banned from Collision]

Yeah. It would help in building new stars too, instead of the current method of 'take midcarder, have him win MITB'.

US/IC Champions should be able to give the World champs a good match, with an upset a good possibility. In fact, in any multi-man no1 contender matches they should be in the mix.

[kamotengkahoy]

Yes, it would.

[Cronant]

I disagree. Ryback, Sheamus, and Cena shouldn't be losing clean. And if they do, it should be on PPV against somebody WWE is planning on pushing.

Randon clean wins against these guys doesn't help the heel, it just devalues those wins. Barrett beat Orton clean a few weeks back but that didn't do s*** for him because they didn't want to elevate him and he's losing to Bo Dallas. Even with his status falling, a clean win on Orton SHOULD be a career moment that propells a guy into the main event or close to it, but it was meaningless.

The solution to midcard guys not looking special isn't to drag the guys that DO look special down. Never.