5 questions from WWE Hell in a Cell 2017 that most need answering

Hell in a Cell 2017 was a fairly impressive PPV by the WWE's recent standards. It wasn't perfect by any means, but two matches in particular really delivered and helped the event stand out as more than just a filler show.

Kevin Owens and Shane McMahon closed things out brilliantly with one of the best Cell matches in a long time, complete with an added twist and heel turn while the Usos and the New Day continued their excellent programme with a hard-hitting affair.

As ever, there was plenty to dissect when all the action was over. Here are 5 questions from Hell in a Cell 2017 that most need answering:

#1 Is this the feud of the year?

It's surprising to think that just a few months ago we were all speculating as to how the Smackdown Live tag-team division could go on with such a weak looking roster. After the split between American Alpha, in particular, things looked really quite bleak.

The arrival of the New Day onto the Tuesday night platform has changed all of this. RAW might still have the more exciting teams and a deeper roster, but the feud between New Day and the Usos has been nothing short of exceptional.

Here is a feud that exemplifies what can happen when a little effort is put into the promos/build up. Not only have we had entertaining mic segments, backstage skits and a rap battle, but the five of them have also treated us to great matches along the way.

At Hell in a Cell 2017, the show was kicked off in style with a great bout that saw both teams go the extra mile to please those in attendance. While it's still unsure whether tag matches really work in this kind of environment, the superstars used the cage sufficiently which made the whole thing more than just a wrestling match.

With Chad Gable and Shelton Benjamin waiting in the wings, we might be seeing a brief move away from this programme, but hopefully, the five will meet again and continue to show us what they're capable of.

#2 Is Dolph Ziggler the NXT momentum killer?

Dolph Ziggler has had a strange time of it in WWE recently. After a relatively decent 2016, 2017 has been pretty chaotic for the show-off. First, there was the unexpected and frankly uncalled for heel turn, and more recently, we've seen him embrace a weird new gimmick which essentially amounts to disrespecting WWE legends.

Another feature of Ziggler's year in 2017 has been sucking the momentum out of promising NXT graduates. Shinsuke Nakamura was his first victim. In a series of promo segments and matches, Dolph failed to get Nakamura over with the main roster fanbase. The WWE should have known better than to put somebody with limited English skills against a bland, vanilla talker.

And even when it came to facing the Artist inside the ring, Dolph's recognised ability to sell his opponent's moves seemed to disappear as well. He did nothing to make 'Strong Style' stand out as the new and exciting approach to Western wrestling that it should have been. How Shinsuke found himself competing for the WWE Championship a few months later is anyone's guess.

Now Dolph has been placed in a position where he is required to help Bobby Roode take that next step to the main event scene after a highly impressive run on NXT. The Glorious one's ascension should have been the easiest thing in the world — fans are very keen to see him with a world title and nothing he did on Wednesday nights led us to believe that he wouldn't be capable.

But instead, he found himself in a throwaway match against the NXT momentum killer that nobody really cared about. That is not to say that the decision to turn Roode face is a bad one, but he really needed somebody more able as an opponent. Having Ziggler lose the match due to a roll up and then proceed to beat down on Roode isn't the way to go about making a new star.

#3 Is this the worst state the WWE Championship has ever been in?

Back at the 2016 WWE Draft, it came as a bit of a surprise when Dean Ambrose defeated Seth Rollins and took the WWE Championship down to Smackdown Live. This has always been seen as the number one belt in the company, despite Triple H's efforts in the mid-00s to elevate the World Heavyweight title above it.

The early indications were that Smackdown was no longer going to be viewed as the B show. With such a prestigious belt on the line, one would have assumed that the best of the company's roster were going to be competing for it. Instead, we currently find ourselves in an unprecedented position where the legendary and historic WWE Championship is being reduced to an afterthought.

Hell in a Cell was a very telling PPV in this respect. Generally speaking, when you have a gimmick PPV like this one, the main title belt usually gets defended last and as part of whatever the gimmick happens to be. The only exceptions to this are the Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank. All other PPVs should dedicate their main bout to the belt.

Instead, not only did the WWE Championship match between Jinder Mahal and Shinsuke Nakamura not close out the show, but it didn't even happen inside the Cell. This is what usually happens with the mid-card belts or a throwaway grudge match with no real story or significance.

Yes, the Kevin Owens and Shane McMahon angle has been arguably Smackdown's best feud recently, but it's not as if there is this great amount of history between the two men that it warrants better treatment than one of the company's two signature championships.

Mix in the fact that the match itself was very forgettable and you really need to start looking at how far the belt, once held by Hulk Hogan and Stone Cold Steve Austin, has fallen.

#4 Did this match concentrate too much on Shane McMahon?

Some might argue that the Usos vs. The New Day stole the show from the main event, but not too many would argue against you if you thought Shane vs. KO was the match of the night. This was one of the best Hell in a Cell bouts in a very long time. Both men used the structure brilliantly and, as a fan, there were times when you felt genuinely concerned for the welfare of the two performers.

The only small issue with this match was that the action seemed to focus more on Shane McMahon than his younger, more promising opponent. Whenever you have a Shane match, you know you're going to see some risky high spots, and the commentary team will typically try to push the narrative that McMahon is a dangerous opponent because he is willing to go further than anyone else to pick up the victory.

However, there was a sense that this was a narrative that was told too strongly on Sunday night. Normally when you have somebody like Shane or Mick Foley who doesn't mind putting their bodies on the line, they do it in a way that makes the opponent look sadistic and evil. Think back to Undertaker throwing Mankind off the Cell in 1998 as the perfect example.

And while KO did get some good spots in on Shane, there were two moments, in particular, that kind of ruined things overall. The first was when Owens was on top of the cell looking as if he might jump down on McMahon's body which was laid out on the announce table. Rather than making the spot, he seemed to cower away from it.

Then towards the end of the match, Shane was the one leaping from the top in an attempt to end KO's career. What kind of story is this supposed to be telling exactly? Yes, Shane is willing to take risks, but what about Owens? Is he too much of a coward to even be in the WWE?

If he is not willing to do things his opponents are then this isn't the greatest way of getting somebody over as a dominant heel. Rather than using Shane's ability to take a hit as a way to elevate KO as a sadistic monster, the attention was too rigidly placed on how much we are supposed to admire the boss's son for the things he does in the ring.

#5 Does Hell in a Cell still have a place on the WWE PPV calendar?

It's a common feature of the WWE in recent times that they like to milk good ideas for all they are worth. Whenever the fans react positively to something, the company focuses all their attention on trying to get as much out of it as possible. One way they tend to do this is to take a match stipulation like Elimination Chamber or Hell in a Cell and make a PPV out of it.

Instead of having the odd Cell match on special occasions, fans are guaranteed at least two per year. While this might please some, generally speaking, it ends up watering down what was once a very respected and anticipated spot on the WWE calendar.

Another issue the current WWE has with Hell in a Cell matches is that the overall psychology that usually makes the stipulation effective just isn't a feature of the modern day product anymore.

In some people's opinions, the greatest ever HIAC match was the very first one between Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker. This worked so well because both men were masters when it came to telling a story by using the Cell itself. HBK played the cowardly, conniving heel perfectly, always on the backfoot and running away from the Phenom until he saw an opening. Taker, for his part, played the dominant babyface looking to issue out some harsh justice.

Nowadays, you don't really get the kind of heel that Shawn Michaels brilliantly played. Everyone is too keen to present themselves as badass, unflinching athletes whether they are babyface or heel. This is what makes promos basically sound the same — everyone just promising their opponent that they are going to beat them down and that they aren't afraid of anything.

Neither KO or Shane really bothered to present a narrative that the Cell structure was overwhelming or that it was intimidating to be locked inside it with their opponent. Despite some pretty decent spots throughout the main event on Sunday, was it that much different to your run of the mill street fight or no DQ match?

In some ways, the current product has moved away from gimmick matches because nobody really seems willing to focus on anything other than the in-ring action and looking tough. And this is somewhat of a shame for fans who appreciate good psychology with their wrestling.

Send us news tips at [email protected]