The Wrestling Observer has noted that the higher-ups in WWE feel that Shawn Michaels winning this Sunday's Royal Rumble match would be 'too predictable'.
They are looking at other options like having Triple H win and go on to face Sheamus at WrestleMania XXVI and then have Michaels win the Elimination Chamber in February to secure a title a shot against The Undertaker.
It makes sense on one hand.
But not on the other.
Look at last year for instance. It was 'too predictable' that Randy Orton would win the match.
And he did.
In fact, I would hazard a guess that over eighty percent of the Royal Rumble winners since its inception have been 'too predictable' going in. Hell, I won £500 at William Hill back in 2002 when I made a large bet on Triple H being the victor in that year's event.
William Hill has since stopped taking bets on predetermined sports. I'd like to think I played a part in that decision.
Back to Sunday - I like the idea of Michaels not winning and then going on to the Elimination Chamber and winning that but then we have the obvious hurdle of explaining why a Raw superstar is wrestling in a Smackdown match.
And wouldn't that be even more predictable when he is in that match and ends up winning it?
No comments:
Post a Comment