To be honest, I don't think I've given a 5 star rating to any Bryan Danielson matches but he has allot of ****3/4 matches from me. I did give a five star to Richards/Danielson but I'm thinking about changing that to the border rating as well. Doesn't mean I think any less of Danielson but it's just that I don't believe he has that match yet.
How in the hell do you play up a review? Its an expression of one's opinion on a match. Am I just being naiive or something because I really can't follow that trail of thought.
Being natural means he doesn't seem to be trying to nitpick. In your review, you would never give the match a positive before stacking on negatives. It is giving people the idea that you are trying your best to make the match seem as if it sucked. Hence you are playing up to something. Like I would never write a negative essay about something I don't really like or care to much about where as if a match impresses me so much, I'll sing the positives of it. That's why I have a big argument as to why Strong/Stevens is 5 stars and there is a reason why I don't have book on why Chris Hero/Castagnoli was a waste of fucking time. Get it?
edit: It can also mean you have no real emotion to it as well I believe.