Is this the best roster that WWE has ever had?

[MartialHorror]

Back when I watched wrestling during the Attitude Era, I would mark out for The Rock, Triple H, Stone Cold, Kane, Taker, Big Show and of course...Gillberg! But there were also guys who bored me to tears like Viscera, Mideon, the Oddities and more. Most of these guys had maybe a distinct look, but weren't very good on the mic and generally sucked in the ring.

But ever since the Great Khali was let go, it has occurred to me that WWE has a really good roster right now. Even guys who are only there to be squashed, like R-Truth or Zack Ryder, have more to offer when talking or fighting than the majority of my childhood not-heroes. I might give Ziggler a lot of shit, but I'm always willing to acknowledge his ability to perform. Jack Swagger might have no personality, but he's an excellent wrestler.

On NXT, Baron Corbin kinda sucks, but I'd like to think either they're holding back on his skills or he's just green and will get better.

But for all the issues I've had with the writing and booking, I can't think of any real weak links in the roster. I suspect that a lot of the reasons that fans tend to gripe about 'so and so' not being pushed is because almost everyone deserves better than what they are getting. But what do you guys think? What period would you say had the best all around roster?

 

[Aquaman6686]

It's a matter of opinion. I feel the current roster is very weak, because I have no interest in most of the guys being pushed right now. There's almost unlimited talent on the roster, but it's being wasted while the guys with zero talent get the push. For me, main event matches with the likes of Dean Ambrose, Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Bray Wyatt, Ryback, etc. hold no interest and aren't going to get me to watch an event.

For me, I'd say the best time period in WWE was early 2002 to early 2005. With a defined Brand Extension where interpromotional matches were extraordinarily rare, both shows were putting on vastly different but very entertaining products. Every RAW, every SmackDown, and every PPV were must see. For me this was the best time in wrestling. It started to go downhill for me after WrestleMania 21. There have been other good periods, but I can't remember any time I was more completely invested in everything that was going on in WWE than that period.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I agree with the one before and is just a matter of opinion, My opinion would have been the 90/91 roster, Todays roster I feel has very little known household names comparable to other years the mid carders of previous I feel are better than the main eventers of today.

 

[Hem]

I agree that they have a strong roster right now with all three Shield guys, Bray Wyatt, Owens, Cena, Rusev, Ziggler and several others including NXT guys.

The only problem I see with the current day roster is that I find it very hard to get invested in characters. Like out of NXT, I really like Kevin Owens because I understand him. He fights for a purpose. I know who he is. He was given proper character development.

I don't feel the same connection with other guys though. Like Hideo and Balor are great talents and Balor has his uniqueness but besides that, who are they? Just international superstars who finally made it to the big leagues?

If characters are fully developed like Kevin Owens is..like Seth Rollins is..or John Cena and Dolph Ziggler and so on I'd like to care for them more so.

Otherwise as far as in ring wrestling and vocal abilities the roster is very good.

 

[cornerdon26]

In terms of pure in ring ability. Most certainly. With the Early Ruthless aggression era second. Pretty much the whole current roster could put on a decent 15 minute match if given the chance (even the likes of Big Show).

However in terms of draw, credibility as champions and mainstream appeal most certainly not. People even remember the comedy lower card from say The Attitude Era, the likes of Val Venus, Godfather, Kai En Tai and Goldust. If you ask fans in 15 years about Brodus Clay, Los Matadores, Adam Rose and Fandango I doubt they will remember

 

[dirtymonkey22]

I honestly agree with OP 100% , He's not asking about the entertainment value of the guy he's asking about the talent.

today's roster suffers from Bad writing and old men who have lost touch with today.
i honestly feel athletically today's roster puts on the best wrestling product ever, but at the same time I feel there are to many guys being crammed into segments, matches and let talk when they have nothing to say, personally I am tirerd of seeing the Athourity, big show , Kane, and J&J for no reason what are they there for .
there are tomany storylines that go nowere or get over used like DB and Kane
the Bellas hating eachother
anything Bray whyatt does
this stuff makes no sense, I'm going to MITB next week and the only match I want to see is cena /ko because its a real story , you have a father who wants his son to look up to him instead of a gimmick machine, the false Idle the golden caff .
everyone else is there just to take up time

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

There's a thread about this in the "Old School Wrestling" area of the forum

Link here: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=295591

While I think there is a hell of a lot of talent on the current WWE (and NXT roster) which isn't being utilised as well as it should be, I dont agree it's the best roster WWE have ever had. In my opinion (as I say in my post on the thread in the OSW forum) nothing can compare to the roster WWE had from 2000-2002, when they had a far wider array of TOP level superstar talent in the main events, and a mid-card boasting some of the best workers I've ever seen. They were able to bring in good talents from WCW and ECW who already had name value to strengthen the roster, and there was such strength-in-depth throughout the card that it was neccesary to split the rosters to utlise all the talent they had!

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

No way is the current roster anywhere near the most talented. The most talented roster WWF/WWE has ever had was from 1988 to 1992. There were so many performers who could get over and did get over with the crowd. The stars in them days included - Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Legion of Doom, Hogan, Warrior, Bulldog, Strike Force, Demolition, Oritent Express, Marty jannetty, Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Macho man Randy Savage,owen hart, Ted Dibease, and many many many more. The reason they were the best roster ever is because all of them came through the territory system and had to learn how to get over - and were not directed move for move like they are in the current roster.

WWF attitude era is a close second for many of the reasons I have said above for the Golden Era, but there was not as many talented in ring performers as the previous generations - and it was more storyline driven. What made the attitude era the most successful is the incredibly high company moral.

Whilst they came close with the ruthless agression era and they have had or still have performers recently like the shield, Orton, Lesnar, Punk, ZIggler and Daniel Bryan - they have not got the talent depth as previous generations.

 

[Messiah]

It might be the best roster ever, It's hard to tell since creative is so shit.. They don't know how to book storylines and build talent anymore, that's the problem with WWE. The talent hasn't been an issue for a while, they have great talent and they keep signing better talent. Creative seriously needs to step up their game.

 

[Prince Vee]

I wouldn't complain anything about the current Roster but at the same time I would say this is one of the best Rosters in the WWE history but not the best of all time!

But honestly I would like a Brand split with this kinda Roster. They have the real power to make more MainEvent stars. WWE had no place for Roman Reigns and Randy Orton in the last PPV. But they utilised Roman in a good way and making him get some good crowd behind him.

Even when the brandsplit is never likely to happen ever, this seems to be the best time to make the dreams of many IWC fans to come true.

Cheers!!

 

[Gavschenko]

2002 has to be the best all time roster, nwo austin rock taker lesnar angle etc, in my opinion the current roster has to be the weakest there is nobody other than rollins i care about and lately they do the same thing over and over again the top faces beat him up at the end of raw which is making him look terrible.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

Go watch the 1992 Royal Rumble Match. The amount of TOP level names in that match is absurd. Jam packed with Hall of Famers and borderline HOFers.

 

[TheFightFan]

No way is the current roster anywhere near the most talented. The most talented roster WWF/WWE has ever had was from 1988 to 1992. There were so many performers who could get over and did get over with the crowd. The stars in them days included - Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Legion of Doom, Hogan, Warrior, Bulldog, Strike Force, Demolition, Oritent Express, Marty jannetty, Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Macho man Randy Savage,owen hart, Ted Dibease, and many many many more. The reason they were the best roster ever is because all of them came through the territory system and had to learn how to get over - and were not directed move for move like they are in the current roster.

WWF attitude era is a close second for many of the reasons I have said above for the Golden Era, but there was not as many talented in ring performers as the previous generations - and it was more storyline driven. What made the attitude era the most successful is the incredibly high company moral.

Whilst they came close with the ruthless agression era and they have had or still have performers recently like the shield, Orton, Lesnar, Punk, ZIggler and Daniel Bryan - they have not got the talent depth as previous generations.

This.

Today's talent is very athletic but many have trouble telling a story in the ring. Honky Tonk Man could tell a better story in the ring than many of the guys on the current roster. It is what JR was talking about.

 

[SJ5522]

I'm sure its been said but the best roster is clearly the years following the death of ECW and WCW. Todays is weak as compared to that, not that that's WWE's fault, it's just near impossible to beat that era imo

 

[SJ5522]

I'm sure its been said but the best roster is clearly the years following the death of ECW and WCW. Todays is weak as compared to that, not that that's WWE's fault, it's just near impossible to beat that era imo

I mean they even did the brand split based on the strength of their roster after this happened, and they needed to as well. and even then guys like Booker T didnt win a World Title. final answer: 2001-2005

 

[MC_Live]

Here's the deal. WWE could, and by many facets should, have the best roster of all time right now. Look at the lower card guys like Ryder, Sandow, Titus, R-Truth, Slater, and so on. While they may not all be the best, they are all very talented and entertaining. Then you keep moving up the card, and names like Cesaro, Ziggler, Wyatt, The New Day, Cody Rhodes, Neville, and Wade Barrett pop up. Add that to the NXT guys of the future like Zayn, Balor, Breeze, Owens, and Joe, as well as the current main eventers in Bryan (when he's not hurt), Cena, Orton, Rollins, Ambrose, and Reigns, and you can see that WWE has a huge roster, full of very talented performers.

But, the problem is while all the people on the roster (and I didn't even include the women like Paige, Nattie, Charlotte, and Sasha) have a tremendous amount of talent, none of them are made to look like stars. WWE doesn't give any of them the proper opportunity to stand out and be stars. Everybody gets booked like crap with .500 win/loss records, and couple shitty booking with horrible commentary, and you have the perfect recipe for a "Nobody becomes a superstar" sandwich. WWE has talent, they just have no stars, because they haven't made any new stars. How many of those guys actually draw? How many names in the WWE actually sell merch, sell tickets, and sell the network? And it's their own damn fault.

Is the current day talent roster better than any other roster? I'm not sure. Athletically speaking, I think they are. Entertainment wise, they should be. But the problem is WWE has a roster full of performers today. Not stars. The attitude era was so great because the WWE had a roster full of stars, who people actually cared about. People loved the big names like Austin, Rock, Shawn, HHH, Foley, and Taker. But the lower card guys like Edge & Christian, the Hardyz, the Dudleyz, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho, and even Val Venis and Too Freaking Cool were entertaining and made people care about them. Everyone was over back then. Nobody is really over today. And that is the WWE's biggest problem.

 

[SJ5522]

Todays lowcard is talented but I struggle to recall a time where it wasn't.

10 years ago, the only match WWE would book Paul London in is one where he takes some crazy dangerous flip bump from a clothesline. That was basically his role, not just jobber, clothesline-flip-bump-taker. He might have been small, slim, screamed jobber to Vince but this is a guy who'd had classic matches in ROH's glory years

 

[LBGetBack]

After WCW folded and after most of them had made their way to WWE was the best. Around 2002-03, you had Rock, Austin, Taker, Foley, Angle, Jericho, Benoit, RVD, Edge, Christian, the Hardy's, Shawn Michaels, HHH, Lesnar, Eddie Guerrero, Orton, Cena, Mysterio, Kane, Goldberg, Hogan, Flair, Dudleys, etc. all pretty much at the same time.

WAY more star power, and tons of great in ring talent too.

Right now they have a fantastic roster in terms of talent in putting on a good match. But in terms of status and star power it's not a strong roster unfortunately.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

No. There are like 4 guys that are over.

 

[Headman]

In the 1980's the WWF's roster comprised of midcarders who would be main eventing and drawing big money anywhere else in the country. I would say their best roster was probably somewhere between 86 and 91.

 

[WhiplashUnited]

The roster that worked Royal Rumble 1992 is probably the best talent wise.

End of 2000/2001 Attitude Era comes really close.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Go watch the 1992 Royal Rumble Match. The amount of TOP level names in that match is absurd. Jam packed with Hall of Famers and borderline HOFers.

Agreed. Just the number of main event talents back then tops any other era I can think of.

Even while I'm enjoying today's product, this topic makes me ask one question: What would the present main event scene be like without the three ex-members of the Shield?

Really. Take Rollins, Reigns & Ambrose out of the picture....and what would the top echelon look like? Would we be watching Orton vs. Cena on every PPV?

 

[SJ5522]

Agreed. Just the number of main event talents back then tops any other era I can think of.

Even while I'm enjoying today's product, this topic makes me ask one question: What would the present main event scene be like without the three ex-members of the Shield?

Really. Take Rollins, Reigns & Ambrose out of the picture....and what would the top echelon look like? Would we be watching Orton vs. Cena on every PPV?

I don't think it would be quite that bare. Rusev, Ryback, Barrett, Sheamus would be in the scene which could be good, on the flipside, so would Kane and Big Show (Kane already managed to wedge himself on the MITB match). Owens would go straight in the mix. Then that would leave midcard titles to idk, Cesaro, Ziggler, whoever really

 

[MCMG]

Cena is kind of let down but let's say he cancels out Hogan and Austin at any point. In Hogan's day there were guys like Savage, Flair, Roberts, Hart, Piper, Taker among others. In Austin's day, Triple H, Taker, Kane, Foley. Oh, and that guy called The Rock.

Indeed, the top tier of the roster isn't as good as it once was. Even a few years ago there was Taker, HHH, Shawn, Edge, Jericho, Batista. I suppose Punk too but he came later. No doubt they are more impressive than Brock, Bryan and (at this stage of their careers) The Shield boys plus Wyatt.

The mid-card, however, is easily the best it's been. There are guys who are all-round great talents. Indeed, they have some superb wrestlers (Cesaro) and some fantastic talkers too (Miz). Rusev, Ziggler, Sheamus, Barrett, Rhodes, Neville, Owens, Cesaro, Harper, Kidd, Miz, Ryback. Plus, Zayn and Balor waiting in the wings. Guys who can do so much and the majority can put on great matches with ease. What fantastic depth.

In terms of depth of talent, this might just be the best roster of all time. In terms of overall quality, it just doesn't compare to the roster from the early 2000's. Finally, the top guys now definitely don't hold up to Hogan's era or The Attitude Era.

 

[SJ5522]

Cena hasn't got the guys around him to compare to, like Hogan and Austin did, but for me, the making of Cena is that in a post-Eddie, post-Benoit, post-Angle, post-HBK WWE, the vast majority of the great great matches that have taken place since have all contained Cena.
Cena/Punk, Lesnar/Cena/Rollins, Cena/Owens. His US open challenges directly after Mania were consistently Match of the Week
I think it gets overlooked how much Cena has developed in the ring