Money In The Bank has become one of WWE’s better PPVs. In the last few years, it’s tended to be notable and not just because of the briefcase that’s on the line. However, with the brand split era meaning these Network Specials are becoming less and less unique, it’s tough to build up enthusiasm for events you don’t care about, and WWE’s booking sometimes suggests that they agree. Don’t let that put you off too much, though, as here are ten observations that we made about Money In the Bank.
It’s that time of year again. The time when multiple wrestlers climb into a ring and nearly kill each other for a cheap looking briefcase. I always feel split about these multi-man ladder matches. There is no denying that they are entertaining; but are they worth it? Does Damien Sandow feel like the risks he took in Money In The Bank matches were worth his time?
I’m a few days behind the rest of the world, but last weekend WWE put together a glorified house show and streamed it out to the rest of the world via the Network. With only a handful of matches announced beforehand, they bulked up the three-hour-long show on the night and delivered a show that while low on storyline worthy moments, was full of some cracking wresting.
Last Thursday I wrote in my Hell in a Cell Preview that you would be better off not bothering. Well, despite that advice here I am again, having put three hours of my life into a WWE PPV. I am indeed a glutton for punishment. My conclusion? Hell in a Cell once again proves that if WWE’s creative was half as good as their in-ring talent. This period of wrestling could be extraordinary. Here’s that, but in much more words.
Hell in a Cell. Once upon a time those four words meant something. A match retained for only the biggest of moments. The debut of Kane, the fall of Mick Foley and just a few years ago the end of an era when Undertaker and Triple H took to one at Wrestlemania. However, recent times has seen the cell devalued. Matches often flattering to deceive and a yearly PPV, stacked with feuds we don’t really care about.
Night of Champions is a strange PPV this year. On one hand it feels like a big deal. Seth Rollins will compete twice and Sting is fighting for the WWE Title, something we never thought we’d see. However, the rest of the card is same old, same old. Rusev and Dolph Ziggler are still plodding away in their never-ending feud and Neville will probably beat Stardust again. As usual, WWE are approaching the end of the year stuck in a bit of a rut. Which is probably not the way to entice you into reading this preview.
Battleground is very much a B + PPV. Coming just ahead of Summerslam, it is one of those classic middle of the road WWE shows, which is more likely to set up Summerslam than do anything spectacular itself. However, with rumours swirling last week about who might show their face. Battleground suddenly became a lot more interesting to a lot more people. So let’s have a look and see exactly what went down. Unsurprisingly, this will contain spoilers.
It’s hardly revolutionary to claim that WWE need to cut back on the number of PPVs they do (although with the Network they can’t really be called PPVs now), however Payback was one of those shows that reinforced that point. The post Wrestlemania season is always a bit flat in WWE, as they take the foot off the gas after the ‘Showcase of the Immortals’ and you can’t help but feel that the long-term implications of Payback are, well nothing.
Extreme Rules felt like a show from a jaded company that was stuck in a slump. Something which is almost impressive, considering it comes just a month after one of the best Wrestlemania’s of all time. Overflowing with unneeded gimmick matches and the kind of juvenile humour which only Vince could laugh at, it once again came down to a few of the WWE’s great roster, to save the show.