Given the performance of Smith so far in this series and Kallis in Melbourne (though he may have been a tad underdone), is it fair to say that their reputations are on the line? Why I suggest reputations is that they're enhanced if players perform at at least their best against the world's best. Surely Smith has to prove he's worth a 50+ average by making some runs against us and Kallis has to prove that he's worth a 57 average and the #1 ranking. If they fail again it may show that as some suspect the rankings are skewed by the number of average teams around. Some players manage double centuries and big series against the minnows but struggle against the best. While De Villiers' well known weakness against leg spin has been exposed, he has shown something for the future being a 21 year old but their big guns haven't fired.