A lot of conditionals here, I know, but bear with me.
If 'Taker returns at WM31 for another match, he's going to need an opponent. Who?
Sting? There seems to be little or no chatter about a Sting- Taker match at Mania. Good. It'd be awful. Two over fiftys in a match nobody wants to see either of them lose.
Lesnar? I don't see how it could work from a commercial or a kayfabe point of view. Commercially, we all know Lesnar isn't going to be around for long after Mania, if at all. If he beats Taker again (which he must do), WWE is likely to gain very little from it, it comes down to little more than filler. From a Kayfabe point of view, who believes that 'Taker can beat Lesnar now, after last year, another year older? Nobody, it'd be a farce.
Wyatt? Hmmm, maybe. I'm not sure he needs the rub that much, he's getting over just fine by himself.
Enter Roman Reigns. A match with 'Taker at Wrestlemania keeps his momentum going into the biggest show of the year. Then he beats him. Reigns becomes one of only two men to have ever beaten Taker at WM. He's instantly elevated and he'll be around to properly capitalise on the rub it'll give him, unlike Lesnar. PLUS, it keeps a not-quite-ready Reigns away from the title scene, delays his ascent to the mountain top by another year to enable him to develop his gimmick a little more until he's truly ready, this time next year. Taker's lost once, to somebody he seems to have beef with personally, so I doubt he'd have a problem doing a job for Reigns.
The Setup? A number of ways. It's easy. My way- Reigns is doing his now customary Rumble schtick- eliminating people left, right and indeed centre, he looks a lock to win it. 'Taker appears. Takes out Reigns, costs him the match. Next Raw Taker says he had to make an impact, had to show he could still be a main event player and so he took out the hottest wrestler on the scene right know (More props for Reigns). Reigns wants revenge. See? Easy.
Thoughts? Abuse? Praise? Bring it.
If 'Taker returns at WM31 for another match, he's going to need an opponent. Who?
Sting? There seems to be little or no chatter about a Sting- Taker match at Mania. Good. It'd be awful. Two over fiftys in a match nobody wants to see either of them lose.
Lesnar? I don't see how it could work from a commercial or a kayfabe point of view. Commercially, we all know Lesnar isn't going to be around for long after Mania, if at all. If he beats Taker again (which he must do), WWE is likely to gain very little from it, it comes down to little more than filler. From a Kayfabe point of view, who believes that 'Taker can beat Lesnar now, after last year, another year older? Nobody, it'd be a farce.
Wyatt? Hmmm, maybe. I'm not sure he needs the rub that much, he's getting over just fine by himself.
Enter Roman Reigns. A match with 'Taker at Wrestlemania keeps his momentum going into the biggest show of the year. Then he beats him. Reigns becomes one of only two men to have ever beaten Taker at WM. He's instantly elevated and he'll be around to properly capitalise on the rub it'll give him, unlike Lesnar. PLUS, it keeps a not-quite-ready Reigns away from the title scene, delays his ascent to the mountain top by another year to enable him to develop his gimmick a little more until he's truly ready, this time next year. Taker's lost once, to somebody he seems to have beef with personally, so I doubt he'd have a problem doing a job for Reigns.
The Setup? A number of ways. It's easy. My way- Reigns is doing his now customary Rumble schtick- eliminating people left, right and indeed centre, he looks a lock to win it. 'Taker appears. Takes out Reigns, costs him the match. Next Raw Taker says he had to make an impact, had to show he could still be a main event player and so he took out the hottest wrestler on the scene right know (More props for Reigns). Reigns wants revenge. See? Easy.
Thoughts? Abuse? Praise? Bring it.