WWE Debate: Universe's Reaction to Rock and Reigns at Royal Rumble Justified?

WWE's first pay-per-view of the year, and traditionally one of the most exciting ones, was rather interesting this time. It highlighted the expanding separation of comprehension of the product between the fans and WWE Creative.

Unlike last year, this time WWE predicted the fan reaction, refused to work around it and strove to battle it head-on. In this tussle for supremacy, at the end of the day, the product will always suffer most. 

WWE's master plan involving Roman Reigns' superhuman rise to stardom has been heavily implied for months. Touted as the heir to Brock Lesnar's glory, there was not an ounce of doubt in people's minds that Roman will be WWE's guy. With an explosive wrestling style, good looks and a horrible talent for painful promos, he was yet another WWE product groomed to shine yet doomed to fail. 

Much like last year, fans enamoured with Daniel Bryan would have none of it. In a surprising move that embarrassingly backfired, WWE unleashed The Rock to generally receptive fans, who were nevertheless quick to heap scorn upon WWE's attempts to mask their blunt ire at the booking decisions. 

As a fan who always believed that Rock was given a lot more importance than he warranted with his performances in the ring (and even went as far as to call him worse than Cena) it was heartening to watch that after an initial cheer, fans were quickly back to booing Roman Reigns.

It drove the point straight through: Fans aren't fickle anymore, and not many things can truly alter their mindsets.

It established fans as the masters of the ring, the main influence on all booking decisions.

WWE's blatant rejection of this display of rebellion was just as heartening to watch. The night itself was built around both decisions that would knowingly anger fans and antidotes that WWE hoped would soothe them. Most antidotes, rather amusingly, failed.

The leader of the Yes Movement was eliminated quite early in the match, giving WWE time to win back fans with the rest of the match and prevent instant rejection of anyone else, had Bryan been one of the last few to be eliminated. Dolph Ziggler, Dean Ambrose and Bray Wyatt were all tossed out in the worst ways possible, and Roman ended up capitalising on a minor implosion within The Authority, thus ensuring that not one person actually ended the match looking strong.

The Rock was primed to be the remedy to all of it. The Rock made no difference in the end.

It was plain: Nothing could. It's important now to narrow down the major problem.

Was it the fact that Roman Reigns won a major match when Daniel Bryan didn't? Let's not forget that a year ago, Reigns eliminated 12 men in the Rumble and was the clear favourite over crowd villain Batista. 

None of Reigns' previous massive accomplishments were met with negativity, including the record-breaking Royal Rumble and Survivor Series performances. This isn't a case of Adam Rose being pushed to the moon; it's more of a superstar who once had the crowd behind him faltering under the immense pressure that engulfs the top echelon of WWE. 

Bryan, on the other hand, is fresh from a career-threatening injury that disrupted a major storyline between him and The Authority. Were we foolish to expect him to main event WrestleMania so soon, having observed the previous occurrence to be a disaster?

Or was it the stubborn dismissal of other crowd favourites like Ambrose, Ziggler and Wyatt by bland symbols of The Authority like Big Show and Kane? Were we justified in stamping our displeasure on every booking decision made, and are we only hurting the product by choosing to influence every storyline?

How many Royal Rumble victories and title bouts would it take before a small cult of fans start claiming Bryan doesn't deserve this push? Are we just quick to turn on anyone we feel is getting the spotlight because there is always someone else who isn't?

Looking forward to your opinions. Thanks for the read, all.