Dolph Ziggler Needs a Clean Win over Alberto Del Rio at Payback
Is Dolph Ziggler a bona fide main event star, or will he be another Money in the Bank experiment gone wrong? The way his match with Alberto Del Rio on Sunday is booked will go a long way in determining the answer to that question.
For "The Show-Off" to have any chance of becoming a legitimate top star, he needs a clean and decisive win over the "Essence of Excellence." Under normal circumstances, we could assume that WWE would book Ziggler to get a cheap win after some interference from AJ or Big E, because that’s just how heels are booked. However, the WWE can’t afford to do that in this situation.
Dolph was taken off of television for several weeks following a concussion he suffered soon after winning the World Heavyweight Championship. During that time, Alberto Del Rio had what seemed like hundreds of matches with Big E Langston. Langston even scored a victory over the current No. 1 contender to Ziggler’s title, and in all other instances, he put up a solid effort.
Booking a cheap win for Dolph Ziggler now will just make him look like a joke. Why should Del Rio be too much for Ziggler if he’s on even ground with Big E?
Looking back at the history of Money in the Bank, winning the ladder match seems like less of a ticket to the top and more like a kiss of death. There are a few winners who cashed in, hit the main event scene and then never looked back. But unfortunately, most Money in the Bank champions get a lacklustre reign as world champion and are sent straight back to the mid-card.
We’ve seen Ziggler slowly climb up the card for years and years. His potential is immense, and this is the WWE’s opportunity to unleash it.
Roster depth is a problem that has plagued the company for too long, and Ziggler is ready to explode to megastardom. The Show-Off has the big gold belt around his waist, but he hasn’t been booked to look like a champion since winning it. That needs to change on Sunday.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?