Australia in a spin after Proteas maul toothless attack as Marsh defends selections but admits they misread pitch

This was an understrength squad before it even made it to South Africa. The XI that's played in matches so far has been chopped and changed, quite deliberately, to give guys time in the middle with bat & ball. If they were out to win this series, there's no way they'd be paying anyone but their best available team. I'm also not sure what spin twins you're referring to. If that's Agar & Zampa, they've played only one game together in this series and collectively bowled 19 overs 2 for 82, which is far from ineffectual. Just this before last match, Zampa bowled in two other games and again bowled 19 overs 5 for 90, so not sure how poorly you think he's going. Yes they clearly want to win every game because at this level, guys are super competitive (and nobody likes to get a hiding), but this is arguably the Saffers best team up against an XI missing at least 3 or 4 regulars. I don't think they're too concerned about results.

I'm afraid if Australia are using these games as practice games they should be very worried. Two big hidings in a row is not a great practice session. Both spinners have been ineffectual which must be a concern going to India. Compared to the two South African spinners the Australians spin twins did not compare very favourable. And let's face it South Africa is not exactly known for its great spinners.

From a Saffers perspective, they need a win in the next game or two for their confidence. They can't go to India if they don't have belief, which is tough if you're getting beaten by an understrength Aussie outfit. I also don't think they're getting enough out of Rabada. He should be either carving up sides or keeping things tight, yet is doing neither, which is not good enough from the leader of the attack.

I'm actually hoping they win the game tomorrow so it'll be a decider for the 5th game. Makes the contest more interesting. They do rely a lot on Quinton to get them off to a flyer, and their bowling is a bit hot and cold.

sage words ozinsa!

The way our middle and lower order played the spin (acknowleding it was turning sharply and they bowled well) was not encouraging for our chances in India. Labu and Smith both need to go

Watching this match in fits and starts, it's worth noting that the TMO had an absolute shocker. he spent 5 minutes trying to figure out a way to give the brilliant catch by Abbott not out, initially for touching the rope and then for the ball hiting the ground a al Mitchell Starc from Lords. He then gave Tim David out to the most obvious non-catch I've seen since the technology allowed decent slo-mo coverage. The SA commentary team were embarrassed by the decision. We weren't going to win anyway but it was the worst home town umpiring I have seen for a very long time

IMO you're 100% right Don. We need to reward performances and specialists. That's the take-away for mine. I might be wrong of course, but if you pick specialists who are in form, IMO you will do much better 100% of the time....

They certainly did their job less than Marsh, Head and Warner. Gordon is blaming all this on Marsh...batting, captaincy, not bowling himself... It's is wrong. You can believe Marnus and Stoinis lungeing out of their ground to spinners deserve less challenge than Marsh; I don't. I watched the whole game and Marsh batted beautifully.

I think teams now see 50 overs as a purely extended T20 - the idea that one player carries through the 50 overs scoring at a run a ball is a bit 5 years ago now. 300 is a par, or often under par score and you see teams, particularly England, who have lead this, trying to go hard at 8s or 9s for as long as possible. They've batted guys like Buttler, Bairstow, Brook and Malan all at 3 - none of whom you would argue are run a ball players - I see what Australia are doing with Marsh, and I'd stick with it particularly if you have the flexibility of Smith coming in after him.

No Gordon. It is NOT his role. You are way back in the days before powerplays when 220/230 was a good score. There was a place in a team then for Geoff Marsh, John Dyson, Andrew Hilditch. That has not been the role of a 50 over #3 for over 25 years. You are being particularly dishonest by suggesting he just slogged for only 4 overs. He came in at the 8th over and was dismissed at the end of the 15th over.

Is he a better gloveman? I think they are on par - and actually Carey's been making a few mistakes of recent times. I think you lose very little either way with the gloves - it should really come down to purely who offers more with the bat, which on current form would have to be Inglis.

No one let the team down Don, they just got out. Head did a pretty good job, but played a very poor shot when he was well set and they were scoring at 10 an over. Warner looked really good most of the time but could easily gotten out to some bad shots about 3 times, including in the first over when he almost hit the ball down the throat of deep mid-off. But I agree Marsh looks really good at the moment, very clear in his thinking and shot selection, surprised to see him get out like that, misread the amount of turn perhaps.

No, the knives were out for Cummins as well. Maybe they're just a bit blunt for Pat!

I don't disagree given Carey's current form but if he was in top nick, he's a very good ODI bat (IMO at least as good as Inglis) and a better gloveman. That's why I reckon selectors will give him as many games as possible to find form. What I hope doesn't happen is selectors exclude Inglis too often from these leadup games. He needs time in the middle so IF Carey doesn't work out, Inglis is ready to play.

Completely agree. I was actually amazed Australia had done so well in recent weeks against them in both formats. They've got a stack of quality players yet only Bavuma seems to be in half way decent form. Touch wood their squad gets a lift from this performance and they can really kick on, both in this series and the World Cup.

That’s EXACTLY his role. All 7 specialist batsmen have different tasks which is why for example, we have guys like Steve Smith & Glenn Maxwell in the team. Each has a different role therefore each has a different skillset. The position that needs to be the most adaptable is number 3, which is why teams have Kohli, Ponting, etc batting in that position. These are players who can bat according to conditions and the state of the innings. You also seem to think a 50 over game is done and dusted after 15 overs. Teams at this level have a clear expectation that one of the top order will steer the innings because they have the best chance to bat long. If they can’t, that falls onto the next guy in the order. That’s again why guys like Ponting and Kohli bat at 3, so they can control the innings. Getting out for a well compiled 30 at a run a ball isn’t good enough long term for an ODI number 3. It might work in T20’s, but not in this format.

We need to have a cultural shift at CA so that players no longer call the shots at selection time. Selection and coaching staff must drive this.

We agree there. Maxwell has entered the 'old man's injury' category and Stoinis is there in the hope could emulate his New Zealand performance At least Smith and Green will be there as ready made replacements Head, Labuschagne and Marsh make up a top five I'm beginning to think that Carey could hand over to Inglis as well. But I guess he doesn't wish to give a sucker any chances to supplant him

I think that is worth a look - particularly if the plan is all out attack in the powerplay.