WWE Doesn’t Do Heel v. Heel Stories
This, I believe, is the main roadblock on Jinder’s road to the United States Championship. Dolph Ziggler is gone for now, but he’s due to come back, I believe. That has to be the payoff. If he just left, that would be weird.
With how WWE’s written the characters of both Dolph Ziggler and Jinder Mahal, it’s hard to expect a face turn from either man. Unless Dolph learns to not be a dick or Jinder learns to love America, there’s no way either of them become a face.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with heel v. heel matches. They can be cool. It’s like if Bane fought Solomon Grundy. Imagine Lex Luthor fighting Doomsday.
I think the main issue WWE has with heel v. heel matches is the question of who to cheer for. Think of a match between Baron Corbin and Jinder Mahal. Who do you want to win? The grumpy dick who likes hurting people, or the racist man who hates America? WWE doesn’t want you to cheer for the bad guys, because they’re supposed to be bad. If two bad guys fight, people will cheer, which is bad, or they won’t cheer, which is also bad.
They’ve experimented a bit with heel v. heel matches in recent history. Think of Brock Lesnar v. Samoa Joe, or Brock Lesnar v. Braun Strowman. Some of the matches at Survivor Series (Corbin v. Miz, Usos v. Bar) were heel – heel as well, but I think WWE wanted us to cheer our favorite brand more than anything.
It would be potentially cool to see a Dolph Ziggler v. Jinder Mahal match. Will it happen? Hard to say.
