Australia have 98 overs to secure six wickets and earn a huge upset series win at Cape Town today.
The Aussies gave themselves a strong chance of recording a 2-1 victory by sprinting to 5-303 declared in their second innings to set the Proteas 511 to win or 142 overs to survive.
The declaration was set up thanks to another scintillating ton by David Warner, who finished the series with an astounding haul of 543 runs at 91.
Check out the full scoreboard.
State of play: How to dislodge the master stonewallers
We’ve seen this all before – a South African batting line-up using their mental strength and sound techniques to frustrate an eager and equally determined Australian attack.
The Adelaide Test must still be a source of frustration for the Aussies, skipper Michael Clarke in particular.
Like here at Newlands, Australia dominated that match before being denied what seemed a certain win by dead-batting Proteas.
On that occasion, Faf du Plessis was the hero, batting for almost eight hours in making an unbeaten 110.
His staunchest partner in that innings was AB de Villiers, who defied his attacking instincts to make just 33 from 220 balls.
It is that pair, again, who South Africa will look to today.
Given that the home side manifestly are not going for the win, Australia will have the luxury of setting ultra-aggressive fields.
They can also risk employing expensive yet dangerously unpredictable part-timers like leg spinners Steve Smith and David Warner.
But, more than anything, Australia will rely upon generating reverse swing with the current weathered ball, before making the most of the second new ball.
The visitors shocked everyone by earning prodigious reverse swing with the old ball in the first innings.
Such exaggerated movement was not on display in the last session yesterday, although James Pattinson did remove Hashim Amla with a full delivery which ducked in late.
In between bursts of swing, Clarke will call upon tweaker Nathan Lyon to prove that he can be a fourth-innings match winner.
Lyon failed miserably in that Adelaide Test, rushing through his overs while delivering flat, uninspired off breaks.
The 26-year-old has improved measurably during the intervening 15 months.
But, while he is a fine first-innings performer, he still needs to become a more incisive operator late in Tests.
Will this day be his?
Point of contention: What the heck were Doolan and Warner doing?
Chris Rogers was switch hitting.
David Warner was switching between hitting bowlers to or over the fence.
That was how ceaselessly aggressive Australia were in the early stages of their second innings yesterday.
The Aussie openers bolted to 0-121 from just 20 overs in the boldest declaration of intent possible.
Then Rogers lost focus, failed to stretch for the crease and was run out.
Collective wisdom was that Australia’s favoured pinch hitter, Shane Watson, would lope to the wicket at number three.
Instead, the rather more obdurate figure of Alex Doolan appeared.
It seemed a strange decision given Australia had a lead of 329 and the South African attack at their mercy – a situation tailor made for Watson and his pyrotechnic blade.
Logic suggests that Doolan was given the role of batting sensibly while Warner continued his rampage.
It was not to be.
Doolan scratched around at the crease like an old chook early on, before finding a modicum of fluency.
At the other end, Warner went from conquering to being subjugated, partly as a result of negative bowling tactics and partly due to a lack of intent.
As each over went by with just another single or two added to the total, all hell broke loose among Aussie cricket fans on social media.
Doolan was painted as an arch villain who had hatched a wicked plan to stunt his side’s push towards victory. Never mind that he was scoring at a comfortably faster rate than Warner during their partnership.
As I mentioned, the Tasmanian is not the man I would have batted at three in those circumstances.
But it seems very unlikely he was sent out to slog instead of the far more obvious options of Watson, Brad Haddin or even Steve Smith.
Doolan appeared to have been sent in to provide a steady presence while others chanced their wicket. Australia were aiming for a 500-plus total and did not want to risk getting bowled out short of that by throwing the bat from both ends too early.
By the time lunch was taken, Doolan and Warner had added just 57 from 22.4 overs at 2.5 runs per over.
The former had contributed 36 runs and the latter 17.
Their bizarre partnership prompted all manner of theories. Was Doolan batting for his place in the side? Was Warner batting for his century?
Were they batting under instructions from the dressing room? Were Michael Clarke and Darren Lehmann delaying the progress of the game in order to set South Africa a more enticing chase?
At this stage, who knows?
Doolan’s much-maligned knock ended soon after the resumption of play. In came the designated blaster Watson.
The next four overs reaped 44 runs.
This tone of savageness was maintained for the remainder of the Australian innings as Australian finished on 5-303 declared from 58 overs.
Remove Doolan and Warner’s crawling stand, and Australia made 246 runs at seven per over.
Go figure.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I'm a fan of Parnell, I too have been waiting for what seems like years for him to get it. Hopefully, he'll be given a proper run at some point in the test team to see if he has got it.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Love to know exactly what O'Keefe has done, it's obviously something beyond the pale to not even try him once in test cricket.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
They might not lose that much bite without Kallis, they've got plenty of all-rounders to cycle through till they find a suitable one. I've always like Parnell, but I suspect his temperament isn't all it could be. He has talent to burn though.
Richard
Guest
Good points SAfan. Actually there was only 5 overs between the teams in the end in the context of the series, very closely matched. We just seam to have some sort of jinx over you in SA. With Harris at 34 and about to have a knee operation that is going to be a big set back for us. He has been the back bone of the attack and has been the main reason for our rise(IMO) together with Johnston's purple patch. Lyon's inability to take wickets on the 5th day shows up again!
Half Breed & Adaja Black
Guest
Drop Doolen. Move Warner to number 3. Watson to open. Henriques at number 6. Plenty of bowling in that line up.
Jack
Guest
If this was Facebook, I would 'like' your post. These are my thoughts, too. I would prefer young players to gain experience on the top level over being stuck in the nets day in and day out. Anyway, my thoughts on Alex Doolan: I like Alex Doolan, the guy is POTENTIALLY a very good batsman, but the guy really needs to work on rotating the strike at this level -- doesn't need to play big strokes, that's not a gripe. We have Watson and Warner who are more than enough for quick, belting sixes and fours. If you are the Number 3 batsman, however, you are supposed to be the stroke player and help set the tone of the game. If your orders are to be making runs at a quick pace, and you are stuck in your crease, noting that even Haddin who is in really bad batting form is still able to rotate the wicket (wicket is that good for batting), that's not good enough. The first innings of the third test saw every single Australian player with a SR of 50+, minus two of our players (Ryan Harris who went out for a duck and Alex Dooland with a SR of 30.30). The next slowest run maker was Clarke with a SR of 53.49 and 161* on the board. The second innings saw Alex Doolan with an improved SR of 42.53, but it's still not getting a run at least every other ball and simply not good enough. When he got his High Score of 89 in the 1st Test, his SR was 57.79. He is certainly capable of playing properly, so there's that. He needs to perform like that first test.
Jules
Roar Rookie
Yes, but we need to compare his average to those of the other batsmen. On that metric, he's certainly doing better than Bailey did and in the same mould as Rogers. For me, like Rogers, he's a stop-gap selection for a little while. I haven't seen enough of him against spin to know whether he should play in the UAE, but I don't see him being a 5 or 10-year test player. He's neither young enough -- like Hughes, Smith, Clarke, Ponting, S Waugh even Warner and the like were when they started -- nor assured enough -- like the more experienced campaigners such as Hussey or Trott were when they started.
SAFan
Guest
A few points before you count yourself as the real no.1 side in the world: (and please, I joined this site because there are just too many idiots on SA forums, so I hope you will take my comments into consideration before blindly flaming me) 1. You basically had 3 players in top form during this series - and I admit they are all game changers: Warner, Johnson, Smith. Even Clarke performed in only one out of six innings. Harris admitted that he felt 'like a bowling machine' after second test. 2. Like Clarke, Smith was in terrible form - so we never got a good start, especially against Johnson in top form 3. You dismiss Philander as top bowler, but consider for a moment that he too may just be in bad form. And do not forget that he was the main architect of the 47 scored on the Newlands pitch a few years ago. His name is in the record books, even though you insist his performances came against the 'weaker' teams. You played against those same teams, didnt you? 4. We had to do without Steyn in this decider, and that DID make a difference - just like the loss of Pattinson in Adelaide made a difference. 5. As with Johnson at the beginning of his career, we have been waiting for years for Parnell to fullfill his potential - and I am sure you will admit that he did show signs of test quality during the PE test. With him to add variation, plus the possibility that Morkel may yet one day leave his Mr. Too Nice Guy in the dressing room to become a real destroyer in the Johnson mode, will make for quite a good seam attack. But, YES, we do not have a spinner :( 6. The main reason this SA side never rose to the heights of the real greats, is their defensive mindset -who knows, a new captain may see things a bit differently! ;)
Richard
Guest
I disagree he came out with instructions and played to them.
jameswm
Guest
He's bowled better so far today, but too few still land in exactly the right spot.
Richard
Guest
I think the top orderr has looked so much more solid with Doolan in the team and the results in this series reflect that. It is worth comparing Watsons and Doolans record in the first three Ashes tests in Australia when the series was on the line, and these three tests in SA. Bearing in mind a few key facts. 1 This is Doolans first series, its on foreign soil and he played his most important innings in the first test. 2 The SA attack is better than the English attack 3 Watsons only innings of note in those tests was played in the 2nd innings of the 3rd test when the series was all but won and against a demoralized and tired English attack. Doolans average 31 at SR of 44.7. Watsons average 33 at SR 56.2. If you take out his 2nd dig 100 in the 3rd test his strike rate drops to 39. from the previous 5 innings) In the overall series context Doolan has been better when it counted at no 3 On top of this Watson averaged a paltry 27 in the UK. It amazes me how any sane person could argue for the retention of Watson at no 3 or anywhere near the top order..
anfalicious
Guest
When your audience wants a RomCom you don't pull out your Tarantino collection...
anfalicious
Guest
Your syntax was confusing, I also thought you meant we should be selecting for the future, not for now, when you meant the opposite.
JGK
Roar Guru
By the way, was Philander injured yesterday?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Doolan has encountered some very good bowling at times this series and yet has only once been dismissed before batting for an hour. He hasn't been particularly fluent but few players are at the start of their careers. He has been solid in defence against the new ball, whoever he has been facing, including Steyn. A lot has been made of the fact he doesn't get a big stride forward yet he hasn't looked vulnerable outside off vey often, certainly nowhere near as much as guys like Bailey, Marsh or Hughes did. His issue has been throwing away good starts. Hopefully he can overcome that, if not then he'll have to go. But I wouldn't be ditching a bloke based on averaging 31 in his debut series, batting at first drop, away from home against the best attack he could face in the world.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Before opening the champagne corks, Australia still have to get the 6 wickets. They will have to work hard today.
Steele
Guest
The attack has been successful, but they are anything but dominant now. The key word being NOW. The past is irrelevant. As I said, they've all bowled poorly bar Steyn, yet he never plays bad. Surely you would agree that Philander is nowhere near as good as his record suggests? And Morkel is just average. They lose bite without Kallis, so going back in time isn't a true reflection of their current attack. And where's the spinner? Granted they have dominated in the past, but I don't think their opposition has been that good compared to other generations, and that's not meant to be disrespectful of their achievements. You can only beat whats put in front of you.
Bearfax
Guest
There's a perverse logic in that statement Ronan, and I think the selectors are in the same mindset.
Christian D'Aloia
Roar Guru
He didn't want to risk missing out on his hundred - simple as that.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I'm looking forward to hearing the explanation after this Test is over.