"What was the point in doing that?" - Zack Ryder's return could have been handled better, claims ex-WWE star

41 minutes ago 2

close

Former wrestler Stevie Richards recently took a shot at WWE's booking strategy with Zack Ryder. The 40-year-old star showed up on SmackDown last week.

Ryder was a surprise entrant in the Last Time is Now tournament. He had a long history with John Cena back in the day, and his return seemed like an appropriate throwback. However, the Browski couldn't get the win and lost to LA Knight.

This week on The Stevie Richards Show, the veteran wrestler detailed that Ryder would have gotten a bigger reaction on Monday Night RAW because it was closer to his home in Long Island. Stevie detailed that WWE could have simply switched Dolph Ziggler and Zack Ryder. He noted that Albany was still in New York, but the pop for the "Indy God" would have been much bigger if he had returned at the historic Madison Square Garden.

"Where was SmackDown last week? Albany, NY. Where was Monday Night RAW? New York City. Why did they bring him back? He would have got a much bigger reaction in the Garden, closer to Long Island. Dare I say it, Albany is still New York, but you're talking about way out by Syracuse and Buffalo, it's a world away. What was the point in doing that? Dolph Ziggler and him could have switched spots easily."

youtube-cover


Zack Ryder merch was available on WWE shop

WWE capitalized on Zack Ryder's return with t-shirts listed on their website after SmackDown.

The company struck a lucrative deal with the star that allowed them to sell merchandise and other collectibles under his name. Matt Cardona, however, still does not have a contract with WWE.

Given that his wife is employed by the company, it will be interesting to see if Zack Ryder comes on board as a full-time roster member in the future.


While using the quotes from this piece, please credit The Stevie Richards Show and add an H/T to Sportskeeda for the transcript.

Why did you not like this content?

  • Clickbait / Misleading
  • Factually Incorrect
  • Hateful or Abusive
  • Baseless Opinion
  • Too Many Ads
  • Other

Was this article helpful?

Thank You for feedback

Edited by Prityush Haldar

Read Entire Article