Marshall

Reminded me of that missed Benoit plancha against Booker T on Smackdown a few years back. The thing that's interesting me is how much of the show is scripted and how much the rookies are being made to improvise - that would be nice to know. Sounded like Wade Barrett's interaction with Jericho and Striker was improvised, while most of Bryan's exchange seemed more WWE scripted. Just makes you wonder how far WWE are going with the chances to see who will crash and burn on screen. On another note, I thought the Young loss in such quick fashion was a waste of a new character on debut, but then realised that whole angle put over how important the pros' input apparently is - Punk refusing to help meant that the influence that they have is apparently crucial in some cases, and helped give another dimension to that aspect of the show.

The thing about it was that Cole's ignorance to anything outside of WWE was so believable it was somewhat unsettling. His venom towards Bryan seemed very McMahon-fed - Bryan hasn't proven himself in WWE, so is instantly a nobody. The reality aspect of the show seemed like the commentators and Striker were being harsh, harping on whether the rookies had the 'personality or a lackthereof' - just seemed a bit over the top and aggressive to me. I'm guessing they'll get a fair shake, but the rookies came across as jabronis for the most part, - a stigma they might have trouble losing when they graduate from NXT. Overall, it was an interesting show. Different camera angles and a different style was refreshing, and it looks like an intriguing way of building new stars.

Carlito would be the best mentor ever - he just be too apathetic to do anything, and the FCW guy will just break loose and do his own thing! I expect great things from Carlito on this show

Watched Raw live this week and thought it was a pretty good show all round. While watching, I had an epiphany about DX. The majority of the comedy segments they've done over the years have been pretty poor and have been dished a lot of criticism. The epiphany that I had was regardless of whether the segments were excruciating to watch at times, I am going to admit that I think they were necessary. From watching them the last couple of weeks, I think it really shows just how good they are as performers - the subtleties in their performances are amazing. Maybe I've read too much into the performances but from a storyline plotting point, it's interesting to note how the characters have been altered slightly. Before the Slammies, Michaels never appeared on screen without Triple H - the group was united. But HBK's challenge to The Undertaker and confrontations with Vince and Bret were done solo. And you can sense Triple H's character doesn't agree with this direction - he's advised HBK against the confrontations again and again, and tonight seemed reluctant to allow Michaels to sell his pitch to Taker before the main event. This got me thinking about why I prefer WWE to TNA. The power of storytelling in the WWE is immense, hands-down. Just from the way Shawn Michaels stood side-on to Hart after their confrontation last week was enough to make you question the validity of Michaels wanting to bury the hatchet - was the old HBK in there or is he really a changed man? I realise the creative team sometimes miss with their storylines and their directions, but this past couple of years have really made me appreciate the sheer level of character-driven performers that are in the company. The Michaels-Jericho programme, the Edge-Mick Foley promo exchange before Edge-Taker in HIAC and CM Punk's straight edge promos are just examples of this, and it's something that TNA doesn't have right now. I read an article the other day that had Vince Russo answering fans' questions and he gave a revealing answer when asked 'which 5 wrestlers outside of TNA would you most like to utilise?' and his answer was 'Randy Orton, Randy Orton, Randy Orton, Randy Orton and Randy Orton'. Say what you want about Russo, and say what you want about Orton's abilities, but you can't deny that as a performer, Randy Orton is world class. From the way he walks to the ring, the way he moves about the ring and the way in which he'll calculate each move in the ring show he's mastered his character. Sure, he may not perform a dozen flips or even that much diversity in his offence, but I find the Orton character compelling viewing when handed the ball. The punt on Vince and the DDT on Steph were amazing segments, and some of the rare times in recent years we've seen interesting and unexpected angles. And that's the main problem I find watching TNA - I'll watch a multi-man X Division flipfest and not only forget what happened 10 minutes later, but forget who was even in the match. I rarely feel that way watching a WWE show. Wrestling is ultimately a character-driven industry; if we don't know who the athletes in the ring are, who cares if they can do a 450 splash? What TNA need to do instead of spending money on Hogan, Flair, Hall, Waltman etc is think about the characters who will be drawing the money in 5 years time, if they're still around. It's alright saying they draw eyeballs to the product, but if there's no reason to characterise the faces on the marquee, then who's going to pay money to see them? Sorry for the essay, but HBK greatness the last few weeks combined with that awesome Miz-MVP angle tonight really inspired me

I can categorically say that I don't especially care about the 'cliff-hanger' ending that they left. I could care less about Hogan's internal struggle between the old Hulk that would party with Bischoff and the nWo and the new 'corporate' Hogan who is all about giving the young stars an opportunity. This is 2010 - the characters in featured roles in this show are irrelevant. Period. Is wrestling really this difficult to book? Honestly? No-one wants to see The Nasty Boys, Orlando Jordan or X-Pac anymore. By the end of the show, there were so many 'shock' appearances that the one that mattered and was legitimately important to the wrestling landscape (Jeff Hardy) was completely overshadowed and glossed over as a non-event. I just don't get it. The general concensus on boards like this will be that the best part of the show was Styles vs Angle, because it offered exciting action with characters we cared about and have not overstayed their welcome. Is it really that hard to book a simple point of conflict between the two and let them tear the house down like they did tonight? What I'm saying is that with a roster like TNA's, I don't understand why they're still producing a television product that gives me a headache after watching it. It just doesn't make sense.

The Ultimate Warrior?

Could have sworn Triple H was going to say 'Back to the midcard, Chris Jericho!' and not for the first time either... Plus, anyone who picked impact over Raw was clearly in a dreamworld, hoping it would be good - instead they got a trainwreck, while Raw has been above average so far.

People will say they just need time. But they said that when they got PPV. They said that when they got TV. They said that when they got 2 hours - TNA is just categorically the number 2 promotion and won't be anything like number 1 without a serious overhaul that will never happen. If they gave the entire show to AJ, Joe, Daniels, Wolfe and even Angle in serious wrestling driven storylines, then it would be a show to watch - unfortuneately that probably won't happen. On a side note, here's Jeff Jarrett talking, as that's what we want to see in 2010...

I'm surprised anyone expected any different - an X Division scramble, a couple of decent knockout matches, a rushed match with two decent workers, a 20 minute Hogan promo and countless shots of Jeff Jarrett wandering around backstage. It's exactly as I expected...

To be honest, it feels like 'business as usual' from WWE with the different aspect being Bret Hart while TNA seem like they're scrambling to be taken seriously and as a relevant show. They're not succeeding in my view.

Hornswoggle and DX on at the same time as Desmond Wolfe - you couldn't time that anymore perfectly Nice interplay between Jericho and Hart.

Why do you think Cena's not supposed to be on Raw tonight?

YES! They're actually putting Maryse on every time the knockouts are on! Maryse > iMpact!

I bet they kiss - that'll get the ratings. No-one would see that coming. EDIT: I actually wasn't far off lol.

Eric Bischoff and the nWo or Michaels=Bret Hart face-off? raw it is i reckon... EDIT: I think the youngest person on a wrestling show atm is Sean Waltman, which is very sad...

*Spoilers* Bret Hart kicks off Raw, while Hogan argues with Hall and Waltman on impact - i think i've gone back in time...

Next 20 minutes is Hogan posing/waiting out applause...

And this strikes me as the main problem - from a storyline and angle point of view TNA have always sucked. The good points of TNA are all in-ring, so why wouldn't they focus on that? It makes my head want to explode!

Who's with Hogan if it's not Hall and Waltman? The Hitman?

Not even 15 minutes since Jeff Hardy surprisingly appeared before we're told Hogan is 'not alone' and Ric Flair turns up - there's too much going on, and not in a good way... EDIT: Oh yeah, and Bobby Lashley is in TNA - I'd actually completely forgotten...

And one of the top stars of 2009 has become 'just some guy' involved in the over-clustered X Division - great call, Jeff...

Should remember that TNA are showing an encore of tonight's show in their normal thursday slot, rather than new content. If I lived in the States, I'd be inclined to watch Raw and then watch iMpact on Thursday. Doesn't seem like a smart business move by TNA to be honest. Besides, iMpact gives me a headache so I'd probably watch Raw anyways