Splitting the titles over two shows is always interesting - when there's only one title then it always makes all the sense in the world to have two; when there is two though, all anyone petitions for is for them to be unified. There's always good reasons for each arguement though.

My problem with the Cena/Brock story was... that there was no story. Brock did what he did and the question was 'where does Cena go from here?', but he came back the following week, looking stronger than ever; the talk continued as usual and he had a strong match with Lesnar the following PPV. The loss didn't formulate into a story - and I mean one way beyond 'turning Cena heel' - it's currently like it didn't happen but a main event title match like that for a top face should have been a turning point. Now, it's just something shocking that happened and that's all. (I do have unlimited respect for Cena for doing it though because I can't think of a single top guy that would have agreed to it.)

I'm getting a bit off-topic now but the Undertaker one is a tricky scenario. Completely agree that it would have been way better for WWE to have rolled the dice and given the Streak breaking to someone in the company they believe in going forward, not someone who has had 2 matches(?) since then and more than likely won't be around in a year's time. Booking Taker now though? I don't see the attraction of bringing Taker into a Mania going forward, plus him losing again at Mania? I dunno - I'm in favour of him continuing working if he wants to but make it a Summerslam or something - I think the Taker/Mania attraction should definitely be considered over now.