There something very enthralling about player ratings, particularly in rugby. On one hand you want to see how wrong one person's opinion is compared to your own. On the other, given that rugby can be extremely intricate, you want to see if you missed anything that would lead you to reassess your opinion of a player.
So how much credence should be given to ratings? None, if you're a graduate of the Joe Schmidt school of rugby. Well that's no technically true either. You should pay attention to them, but rather than 9's and 10's, you should be looking out for the all important 6.
Rob Kearney is the epitome of a Joe Schmidt player. He really blossomed under Schmidt at Leinster and then again with Ireland. Kearney is diligent, focused, athletic and, above all, he's exemplary under the high ball.
But, under Schmidt at least, he's rarely the swash-bucking full back that he once was for Ireland. And that's a good thing according to the man himself.
A perfect performance to me isn't scoring a couple of tries, a drop-goal and making a few linebreaks. For me, it's not making any mistakes.
But what does that mean for the all important player ratings? 6 across the board usually, with the addendum that he was solid without being spectacular. Which, on the Schmidt scale is, is about as close to perfection as you can get.
To me, solid is very good. You've caught every ball and you haven't given the opposition access five metres out, you've protected your corners really well. So if I see solid, I'm happy compared to how others perceive it.
With that in mind, we would like to formally apologise to the Guardian for having a hissy fit over their player ratings which we now know were the most complimentary things that could possibly have been written.
