FanPost

Why Backlash Kept the Crowd

WWE.com

If you haven't seen Backlash, you should. The SmackDown Live reviewer loved the show, and with good reason. While there's a lot to praise about the show, there is something that flew under the radar, but was critical to the success of Backlash. Unlike recent WWE pay-per-view (PPV) events, this show kept the interest of the crowd. This wasn't by accident.

1.) Time

One of the top reasons they kept the crowd is the ppv wasn't too long. In the Network era, WWE main roster PPVs are getting increasingly longer. WrestleMania is a damn near 7 hour masturbatory affair, and SummerSlam is 5 hours plus when you include the pre-show. Even under the most ideal of circumstances, this is too damn long. Not everything needs to be on a ppv, and not every match needs to be a sprawling epic. Backlash was two and a half hours. It probably could've gotten away with being two hours and still been great.

2.) Pacing

Another reason for its success is the show was properly structured. The women's match opening the show served the purpose of warming the crowd up. If you put out a show stealing affair in the beginning, all you're going to do is burn out the crowd. This gave people spots to see and enjoy, capped off with a great moment, but they didn't overdo it. The show built towards two matches: Miz/Ziggler, and then Ambrose/Styles. In between, the crowd was manipulated accordingly, heating them up leading into the match, cooling them down after.

3.) Telling a story

One of the big problems with the booking in the modern product is that the main roster does not tell stories. They provide moments. People are booked 50/50 (or even worse as losers) until they are suddenly elevated to the top. This often gives a momentary pop, but it is never sustained, because people aren't invested in it.

Since the roster split, SmackDown has focused on three different stories. 1) AJ Styles is the best wrestler on the planet. 2) Heath Slater is a lovable goof you can't help but root for, and he has to win to stay on TV. Finally, 3), Miz is a coward who is being built up for someone to knock down to a thunderous reaction. WWE focused on telling all three stories they've spent now almost two months telling.

Before the Usos vs Rhyno/Slater, I was talking to a friend, and I noted that if the Usos won, the heat would be nuclear. He angrily responded "just let me pop for once, dammit!" The entire story was built around Heath Slater winning the titles and keeping his job. While there would be heat, sometimes you have to be willing to tell the story to keep the crowd invested.

4.) Results didn't kill the crowd

At WrestleMania, the heels won. A lot. In fact, they won almost every match. Sure, a babyface technically won the main event, but after a night of heels winning, and the crowd didn't like him anyway. At SummerSlam, heels won five consecutive matches. They won over the two most over babyface acts on the roster, for seemingly no reason. As a result, the crowd was killed dead for the entire show, and it showed as both title matches and the main events were fought to a largely disinterested crowd.

For example, had the Usos won, yes, there would be some long term heat. It also would have killed the crowd right before the main event, which defeats the purpose of the match, which was to prime the crowd for that main event. When Becky began the show by winning, this set the mood for the night in the crowd, and it was a happy crowd.

NXT does this better than anyone. Yes, babyfaces win almost every TakeOver match. Why is this a problem? Wrestling is ultimately a story based business, and most stories should end with the good guy winning. Its okay for the bad guy to win occasionally, but it has to serve the purpose of setting up a new hero to win. Far too often on the main roster, heels win solely for the purpose of "looking strong." They get the desired result. The main roster is dominated by heels, and there are zero sympathetic babyfaces the crowd is always behind week in week out for prolonged periods of time. Backlash took the first steps to correcting this imbalance. Clash of Champions will likely be a heel heavy show, and the crowds will be disinterested as a result.

Backlash was not a perfect show. SmackDown has real roster depth problems, and will require a very disciplined approach to continue their success. Yet last night was a sign they are more than ready to meet that challenge.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Cageside Seats readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cageside Seats editors or staff.