Sheamus vs Daniel Bryan: Why Fast WrestleMania Finish Shows No Faith in Bryan
WWE may have had it’s reasons for its micro match between Daniel Bryan and Sheamus, but one thing is certain: it doesn’t believe in Daniel Bryan.
What the WWE did to Bryan, allowing him to lose his title in less than 20 seconds, wasn’t something it would have done to a top-level star, or a clear up-and-comer in the business. Cena doesn’t lose in 20 seconds. Neither does Sheamus, Orton, Triple H, HBK or anyone else that the WWE believes is a bankable star.
Despite the throngs of supporters chanting Bryan’s name, the WWE is smart enough to know who Bryan really is. He’s a good worker, but one with limitations. He’s a great in-ring technician that’s light on personality and doesn’t know how to make himself an attraction.
His supporters will defend him to the death, citing that the WWE doesn’t know how to push young performers, but there is more to it than that. Building a John Cena isn’t easy, and there is no true formula to it.
For every Cena, there has been a John Morrison that didn’t pan out. Cena, Rock and Steve Austin aren’t formulas. You can’t build them. You have to see the potential in there and find a way to harness it. Not everyone has that potential.
Who has the brighter future?
What’s lost in this all is how strong Sheamus looked. Perhaps Bryan is getting the short end of the stick, but in that it’s evident that the WWE has found that special something in Shaemus and it is determined to build upon it.
The WWE is right in doing that, too. Bryan’s potential is limited at this point and if it has to stifle his push to get over Shaemus, whose potential is sky high, then it’s exactly what it has to do.
Last night was a revelation of where both wrestlers stand with the company. Being a good worker and decent on the mic don’t amount to much. You need more, and Bryan doesn’t have it. His spot sucked last night, but it’s the way it has to be.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?