My Payback prediction

Ambrose is about to win, Kane goes to hit Rollins with a chair, hits Ambrose inadvertently, Rollins retains

Either that or just turn Reigns - Ambrose is so over that he doesn't need a heel turn!

I don't understand what WWE marketing is doing at all, the announcement of Elimination Chamber just before this PPV gives me the impression that WWE want me to forget Payback ever happened before its even happened.

I think there's some potentially really bad stuff in there. The women, Ryback vs Wyatt (which may be so bad no one cares if the Wyatt family reform) & Axel + Mandow vs The Ascension, which I think is purely for the entertainment of Vince.

Barrett vs Neville and Ziggler vs Sheamus just sound like Raw matches, they could be good, but they could also be 10 minutes that we've seen before.

I'm interested in the Rusev vs Cena match purely to see whether there is anything left of Rusev worth investing in after this.

The New Day vs Kidd & Cesaro. Not so much a fan of the 2 out of 3 falls, but that can't stop me not looking forward to this.

Fatal 4-way. I really hope that Kane becomes the champ. Because in a short space of time since Mania, WWE has pretty much done all it can to ruin the good work of building up the title last year. Putting it on Kane is as low as they could go, so everything after that would be an improvement. Umm Orton to win.

I just think WWE have got to the position now where it's simply not worth watching unless Lesnar is around, they don't seem to make any effort in booking the show well unless it involves Lesnar.

It's been months now of a Kane-centric show. I don't even mind Kane, but come on! I just think WWE is at a real low right now. They've got a talented roster but no idea who to use it and no idea how to make main event stars any more.

You two need therapists. You seem to watch WWE to pick out negatives

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:You two need therapists. You seem to watch WWE to pick out negatives

That's not true though. In the same way you look at me and assume I must just be picking out negatives, I look at you and assume you must be picking out the positives. I do think there are slithers of good stuff right now, but WWE isn't worth watching. I watch highlights so I know what's going on in the podcast and so that I can actually decide whether it's worth picking up again but other than that I just can't sit and watch it all. It's incredibly repetitive and there isn't enough innovation.

I also think there is a real lack of star quality, the main event of Payback would have been a mid-card match at Wrestlemania and I don't buy any member of The Shield currently as main eventers. Cena is in the mid-card. Bryan is practically on the verge of retiring. Sheamus hasn't main evented for three years. I just think it's crazy how WWE could go from John Cena, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Edge, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Batista, Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy in 2010 to their main roster now. They have made no new main event talent in that time, I don't see Seth Rollins as a main event talent and I'm not sure what we've been given to suggest that we should. I don't see Roman Reigns as main event talent, but will admit that as a Rumble winner WWE has backed him. Dean Ambrose certainly isn't a main eventer and it's insulting to the viewer, to throw him in the main event and expect people to get behind it.

I think if WWE were a TV show that wasn't wrestling, it would have been cancelled long ago. It's not good enough. I WANT to enjoy it, I love it when WWE gets things right, which is why I follow it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to scrape together the positives. But neither do I search out the negatives, I want to enjoy it, I want to be excited for every pay per view, but it simply doesn't happen. When they do do things properly, I am a huge mark for it. They just don't seem to do it often enough any more for me to want to put in the effort to even watch it.

I'm looking forward to the show tonight, especially the tag title match which has the potential to be brilliant.

I agree that WWEs booking has been less than inspired but their roster is so damn talented it'd be very difficult to put together a card that isn't at least watchable.

Moans WWE haven't made new talent.
Moans new talent in main event.

Wrestling fan logic.

Nail on the head Hero. 

Some people on here would probably moan if they won the lottery.

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:I'm looking forward to the show tonight, especially the tag title match which has the potential to be brilliant.

I agree that WWEs booking has been less than inspired but their roster is so damn talented it'd be very difficult to put together a card that isn't at least watchable.

To combine Dolph's post and this. I did pick the tag titles as a match I look forward to. But, the best of 3 falls stipulation could spoil it, if there are 2 quick falls (and it goes to 1-1 surprise, surprise). And there are 7 matches on the card, I don't see this going over 15 minutes, which again will be to the detriment of this.

We've seen Ziggler / Sheamus, Barrett / Neville, Cena / Rusev how many times now? Doesn't mean they won't be great matches, because House is right, everyone in WWE (except many divas) can wrestle. But these aren't for me matches that create buzz and excitement. And given the number of posts about this PPV till a few minutes ago, I'd say there's a silent majority who believe this too.

But I'll hold out that the booking of the champion and championship since Mania has been atrocious, and I'd say TV figures indicate I'm not alone on that either.

Hero wrote:Moans WWE haven't made new talent.
Moans new talent in main event.

Wrestling fan logic.

I don't think there is an inconsistency in my argument though. They have thrown people in the main event who they have not built up and have not made them believable as main event talent. There is a huge difference between being in a main event and being a main eventer.

Anyone able to open the chatbox?

Loyal fanbase, strong ratings, prime advertising. You'd be a mad man to cancel WWE.

Honestly, I see negatives, I just don't focus my life on them. You will big up a CM Punk who wasn't as over then as Ambrose is now, the 2010 Hardy who wasn't really main event quality, a still watered down Jericho and the forever hit and (major) miss Batista.

Ziggler Sheamus is their second PPV match. Barrett Neville makes absolutely perfect sense considering Barrett being KOTR but having lost before to Neville.

Funnily enough, the best "wrestling" show WWE have produced was their lowest ratings winner of this current run. And Rollins is being booked cleverly for my money. Especially if its Lesnar who will be coming after him.

Crimey's list of fun wrote:John Cena, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Edge, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Batista, Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy in 2010

Both of the names at the top are actually more interesting performers now. Undertaker and Michaels are two of the absolute best of all time and to think they'd be replaced so easily would be naive. Ambrose now is probably more universally interesting than Punk then. Rollins is as good a heel as HHH, but hard to compare them really. I'd say a lot of people thought HHH was their to the detriment of others at the time though. So lets say Rollins > Hardy. Reigns > Batista. Edge. Well, I'd put Ziggler as a better performer, but without the backing. Arguably, Bryan is above Edge by a way, but they have been unfortunate with his injuries.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Crimey's list of fun wrote:John Cena, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Edge, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Batista, Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy in 2010

Both of the names at the top are actually more interesting performers now. Undertaker and Michaels are two of the absolute best of all time and to think they'd be replaced so easily would be naive. Ambrose now is probably more universally interesting than Punk then. Rollins is as good a heel as HHH, but hard to compare them really. I'd say a lot of people thought HHH was their to the detriment of others at the time though. So lets say Rollins > Hardy. Reigns > Batista. Edge. Well, I'd put Ziggler as a better performer, but without the backing. Arguably, Bryan is above Edge by a way, but they have been unfortunate with his injuries.

I swear you say this stuff just to wind me up.

I do agree with your general point though, life's to short to live and die by WWE, I made a conscious decision not to get too hung up on the negatives and I'm enjoying the product a lot more, Cena vs Neville was brilliant this week.

Get the chatbox open

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Crimey's list of fun wrote:John Cena, Randy Orton, Undertaker, Edge, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Batista, Chris Jericho, CM Punk, Jeff Hardy in 2010

Both of the names at the top are actually more interesting performers now. Undertaker and Michaels are two of the absolute best of all time and to think they'd be replaced so easily would be naive. Ambrose now is probably more universally interesting than Punk then. Rollins is as good a heel as HHH, but hard to compare them really. I'd say a lot of people thought HHH was their to the detriment of others at the time though. So lets say Rollins > Hardy. Reigns > Batista. Edge. Well, I'd put Ziggler as a better performer, but without the backing. Arguably, Bryan is above Edge by a way, but they have been unfortunate with his injuries.

I swear you say this stuff just to wind me up.

I do agree with your general point though, life's to short to live and die by WWE, I made a conscious decision not to get too hung up on the negatives and I'm enjoying the product a lot more, Cena vs Neville was brilliant this week.

I'm not a big Edge fan. He was limited to some extent, and whilst he did get his storytelling on point at times he did so because he got the backing to. I don't know whether some of the products of the current era can do it consistently because there isn't enough chance to find out. Edge had so much history that he could do anything he wanted really.