Kev

Not disputing this in any way, but just wanted to highlight how utterly bizarre it is that they’re seemingly gearing up to really get behind Seth (after a decade+ of him consistently being a borderline top guy at minimum). If we factor in some accounting for longevity (e.g. Jinder doesn’t count cos he was a quickly forgotten, failed 6 month experiment), I genuinely think Seth may be one of their worst main event guys ever.

Geordie here. All of this is fair, no complaints. I’ve always kind of hated Pac’s constantly in gear thing, it feels like such a silly unrealistic detail, particularly in the context of Death Riders. But until @SturmCRF mentioned it, I’d never made the connection between that and the always topless Geordie stereotype. Now, I think it may be genius. I’m quite down on Pac as a character, but if he could channel even a small % of that archetype into his work, he’d be one of the best acts on tv.

I think another little wrinkle to the Hangman run-in at the end is that it teases Page as a potential game-changer on the face side. Although he’s lost his way since Swerve, he’s always been one of those “heart of AEW” type guys. There’s still hints of righteous intent to his character; seeking vengeance for perceived wrongs. So it isn’t a huge stretch to think that he’d perceive his old enemy, Moxley, running roughshod over AEW as a wrong that he needs to right. We’re not there yet, but that feels like it should be a big moment they’re building to. It’s like they’ve got the option of logically inserting Stonecold into the nwo storyline (obviously, the AEW sides of that analogy are nowhere near as over as the originals). Although they continue to fail to thread the needle on a lot of details, I’m still hopeful on this Death Riders story and I like the increasing sense of chaos and interweaving of feuds. The addition of a few bigger names into its vortex is hopefully a step in the right direction.

@username mentioned that the Cole/Matthews match seems to have been quite widely negatively received online. I suspect some of that has to do with Cole so overtly being positioned in the role of defiant babyface overcoming the odds, which is typically associated with the type of non-workrate friendly top WWE stars that your stereotypical workrate-epic-loving smark (who presumably make up a sizeable portion of Cole/AEW’s fanbase) are predisposed to dislike. Now, I’d actually argue that this is consistent with how Cole has worked for a long time (excessive nearfalls and shows of resilience, etc.) but it was previously done under cover of ostensibly being a sneaky heel. Despite the obvious super-indie influences, Cole is a very WWE-ified worker in many ways. There used to be a criticism of WWE for booking moments rather than telling stories (before the current wave of ‘this is cinema’ positivity), and I think that kind of encapsulates Cole’s work. The Matthew’s match had the big moments (ignoring the doctor’s orders to fight on and then the big 1 count kick out to demonstrate that he’s not fragile/still has the old Adam Cole in him). But the moments felt unearned in the context of the story they built around them (and considering they blew through these in his first match back). Cole is largely terrible at the context and detail, a big part of that being that he doesn’t project credibility. And yes, that includes his physique. He doesn’t look physically imposing or even like an in-shape athlete. That, in itself, isn’t an issue if you can project credibility elsewhere (ZSJ being a good example of that). But, it’s never really clear why Cole is supposed to be a good wrestler; he’s not a flyer, he’s not powerful, he’s not a technician/tactician (which is what he should be), etc. He’s maybe supposed to be a striker, but all he has is a few kick variations that he spams, which mostly look shit (he doesn’t get full extension on his superkicks and the boom finisher should be a devastating killshot but usually looks like a floaty video game animation). The Matthews match kind of laid this bare as Matthews looked more credible in every way, but Cole basically just blew off all the work to beat him while never looking like he’s better than Matthews at any aspect of wrestling. I’d suggest this should have been an opportunity for Cole to build himself as a sympathetic, resilient, and resourceful face; sneaking out a win by outsmarting his opponent. Instead he just defaulted to his same old spots and relied on contrived big moments to do the storytelling for him. The whole botched devil angle is a good metaphor for Cole as a worker; the broad strokes kind of make sense, but it all falls apart if you’re paying attention to the details in between.

MJF/Ospreay kept me entertained, but I’d definitely share @Zimbra’s criticism. For a match that went an hour, I’m not sure there was much of a narrative weaved in there, it felt a bit stitched together. The arm selling was really well done in parts, but also largely inconsequential. I was a bit disappointed that we got MJF’s big match, proving he can hang with the workrate guys routine. I’d have liked him to lean further into sneaky, dastardly shit to really cement this latest turn. There was a line in his heel turn promo about him destroying his body for you people, so him still doing that with the big table spot felt like a missed opportunity. I’d have loved a fake out and something like a “I don’t do that shit anymore”. He should ditch any high spots that’ll pop the crowd, that’s what the babyface is there for.

That Naito-Mox match should be enough for TK to put the Forbidden Door concept on ice for a couple of years. I know little to nothing of Naito and I’m assuming he’s washed now, but whatever appeal he might have had is non-existent now. Him being the best they have to give the rub of the Mox win doesn’t reflect well on NJPW. AEW’s existence over the last couple of years has sort of negated the need for FD as a standalone show, and NJPW really don’t have enough stars with any buzz for it to be a ‘dream match’ show anymore. That said it was still a decent show. All the other singles matches delivered to some extent, although the multi-mans were skippable filler.

Yeah, all the wording suggests this isn’t going to be Punk-related, just something to link into the FTR match. So they’re not technically doing a bait and switch as they’ve never actually mentioned Punk (or even said something like ‘footage of the altercation’). But it will definitely feel like a bait and switch (and they’ll only have themselves to blame). I think this would have been a perfectly fine *wink-wink* heel bit for the Bucks if they did the tease during the show, a couple of minutes before showing the footage. But it feels like they’ve backed themselves into a corner doing it like this.

I don’t understand a lot of the American sports references above so I could be mistaken, but are commentators being conflated with pundits here? Because hot take artist/heel pundits definitely do exist in real sports and are largely insufferable. But they kind of make sense in punditry as opinion is the entertainment in that setting, so the heel role creates a conflict to play off. But punditry isn’t the same as commentary. In real sports, commentators are mostly neutral, they’re not the primary entertainment, their role is to serve the action. Which is why I’d argue the heel commentary role mostly doesn’t work, as it’s often a distraction from the actual entertainment and just comes off as the commentator trying to get themselves over. Established heel continuing their heel character on commentary is fine. Commentator being a heel for the sake of being a heel is largely crap. And Nigel is fine-good about 80% of the time. But, yes, his heel shtick with Danielson and Christian sounds completely forced. Maybe it’s just more obvious as a Brit, but that just isn’t how people from London talk. It’s totally learned behaviour from watching too much WWF/E.

I’ve got no particular desire to see Ziggler in AEW, but I think putting him on the same level as Sydal does him a disservice. His first post-WWE run is still fresh enough that it’s mildly interesting to see him in a different setting, and there’s some name value there to wring out of him; there could be some intriguing matches and a win over him could mean something for some younger guys. I like Sydal, but he has zero credibility at this stage. A win over him is meaningless, there’s no intrigue.

I think this is actually a good route to go down and opens up different avenues. Gunther becoming a double champ means you can sneakily merge his greatest IC champ reign into a world title affair, and I’d argue that would elevate the fairly meaningless Seth belt. If Roman wins at Mania then you can potentially build to a big showdown of the dominant double champs. If Cody wins then there’s another still mountain for him climb still.

No idea who came first. Ventura is the other standard though. I think an updated Heenan/Ventura is pretty much what every heel commentator since is aiming for, but they usually miss the key ingredient of already being a well-established character. It’s like the commentator equivalent of dudes doing 90s puro head drop, fighting spirit stuff without the context that really made that meaningful.

Oh I get it all, it’s just incredibly hacky. I think I’ve mentioned here before that part of my issue is that, as a Brit, I’m overly conscious of other Brits doing such overtly Americanised schtick as it feels hugely forced and inauthentic. And I’d stand by the point that heel commentators are generally an outdated concept. Heenan is usually held up as the standard, but that made a lot more sense as it was an extension of his heel manager character. Nigel doesn’t have that wider role to play up to so what purpose is the heeling serving? I think the ideal modern variation is the heel sympathising commentator, like Taz. He can add heel psychology, explain motivations, etc. while still sounding like a real human and not putting too much attention on himself over the actual wrestlers.

This moment was good. But as a counterpoint, Nigel’s heel schtick is awful. It stinks of toxic WWE commentary from 2018-21ish. There’s no need for a commentator without any storyline background in the company to be making himself such a character. He’s so much better just doing straight colour with the occasional dad joke thrown in. (As an aside, heel commentators generally feel like a relic). I’m slightly more sympathetic if this is leading to a Danielson match. But if that is happening, I presume it’d be at Wembley with him as hometown hero, so the aggressive heeling seems counterproductive. Also, why the fuck has he insisted on running with ‘clam digger’ as an insult? (I’m being semi-rhetorical, I think I get it, it’s just terrible).

I think a variation on this could work, if they want to drag out the story while Cole (and maybe MJF) heal up until a payoff might actually be on the cards. Reveal Brit as the devil tonight with the Cole-adjacent goons, but don’t have Cole directly involved. Then you can transition to a ‘Is Cole in on it?’ arc for a bit.

I noticed that. I think Nigel was actually trying to rein him in. He’s quite good at actually engaging with JR’s grumpiness and forcing some storytelling explanation from it. And it would have made perfect sense here as MJF lost the advantage as he took too long playing to the crowd. But JR just refused to take the bait and quietly seethed instead. Speaking of Nigel, he’s a massive hit and miss for me. Doing straight colour, I think he’s excellent at adding to the in-ring narrative. But I hate his heel commentator schtick, it feels extremely dated and very WWE. As a Brit, I think I’m extra conscious of other Brits doing what feels like very Americanised character work, it comes off completely inauthentic.