WWE News: Wade Barrett Injury Causes WWE to Drop MITB from WrestleMania 28
Wade Barrett’s dislocated elbow could not have come at a worse time—not just for Barrett, but for the WWE as well.
Though the unfortunate injury to Barrett will halt his push and cause him to miss WrestleMania 28 (and the big payday that comes along with it), it turns out that the injury is worse than originally thought and thus, is having a domino effect that has drastically altered the WWE’s creative plans for WrestleMania and beyond.
Wade Barrett underwent surgery on his dislocated elbow earlier this week after suffering the injury during last week’s 10-Man Battle Royal on Raw SuperShow. WWE stated via company website that he would sidelined for at least six to eight weeks; the injury is more severe than the initial diagnosis. He is now expected to be sidelined for three to four months.
Barrett’s injury has caused change to the WrestleMania XXVIII card as a Money in the Bank Ladder Match was scheduled for the pay-per-view event with the English grappler pegged as the winner of the briefcase. With Barrett sidelined, the match has been scrapped altogether.
What a shame for all parties involved.
I feel extremely bad for Barrett because, after a paltry first half of 2011, he really came on strong at the end of the year and seemed poised to have a breakout 2012 that started with a major role at WrestleMania 28.
But I also have to feel for the creative team (for having to change up their plans) and for us, the fans.
Do you agree with WWE's reported decision to scrap MITB from Mania because of Barrett's injury?
It’s no secret that I’m a huge supporter of holding the Money in the Bank match at WrestleMania 28 rather than at an exclusive pay-per-view as was the case in 2011, and had Barrett not gotten injured on Raw a few weeks back, it appears that I would have gotten my wish.
That being said, I do think it’s pretty ridiculous that the WWE would scrap the MITB match just because Barrett can’t be in it now.
I mean, are you really telling me that there’s not one other WWE superstar who the creative team thinks is worthy of holding the briefcase?
Just off the top of my head, I can name at least five other superstars—Christian, Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Kofi Kingston, Zack Ryder, etc.—who would benefit in a major way from simply holding the briefcase, and I’m not even talking about them actually cashing it in.
Instead of choosing not to hold the Money in the Bank at WrestleMania at all, perhaps the WWE would have been best off by holding the show-stealing bout anyway and just having someone other than Barrett win it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?