improper wrote:Stanford wrote:And then he had that match with Bryan where he got brutalized for ten minutes.
That match actually worked, though, at least assuming you're referring to Bryan/Brock. Bryan can play the underdog really well. Ambrose isn't suited for it. Ambrose is suited for brawls and hardcore matches like last night or his Ishii match in the G1. He could have had a great match with Brock, but it just can't be the same match that Brock usually works where he demolishes guys and then they get a couple of hope spots.
Reading between the lines, I feel one of the problems with Ambrose's plan in the Brock match is it wasn't considered one of the important matches going in, even with having Brock. So not only was it required to be a short match which rules out the type of "biggest beatdown of all time" match Ambrose had in mind, but they didn't want him going through an announce table for example (or maybe any table) because Shane was going to jump off HIAC through one shortly later.
I'm sure Ambrose's criticisms of Brock are valid, but some of the damage was done before Wrestlemania when the Ambrose and Brock feud wasn't very over, and some of that is on Ambrose. At some point with a dead feud the WWE decides that instead of trying to make this match people aren't that into steal the show, they're just going to cut their losses and make Brock look strong, keep it short and move on. I also think there's a world where with a different wrestler Brock's simplistic "I beat you up, then you grab a chair and make a comeback" plan might have actually worked. A lot of wrestling matches aren't that complicated storyline wise... and frankly I think Brock actually has good instincts overall on how to tell a story. Brock has had a far better WWE career than Ambrose and while physical talent has a lot to do with that, I would venture there's some things Brock understands that Ambrose doesn't