64th over: Australia 192-4 (Head 111, Boland 12) Where’s that come from? Boland has played a back-foot punch off Rabada for four! Not advisable, he saw a few teammates get out yesterday playing that, but on this occasion he times it perfectly and gets away with the decision. Saw a bit of width and went for it, in the same way he got out to Jansen in the first innings, but that time had left-arm angle across, and this time it was going on straight from the right-armer.

63rd over: Australia 187-4 (Head 110, Boland 8) Deficit is down to 139. Four catchers around the bat, hoping that the big fast bowler with the blade will take an awkward step and pop up a catch from Harmer off the pad. Short leg, silly mid off, silly point, slip. No leg slip, if Boland gets one off his hip. He’s not going to play an aggressive shot, so why not have that man in? Boland is in the groove now, big step down and defending with the bat angled back, safety first, the b-b-b-b-bomb squad defusing grenades one at a time. So far Harmer’s grenades have been the plastic Halloween type. Tis the season.

62nd over: Australia 187-4 (Head 110, Boland 8) Runs keep coming. Rabada is back for Jansen, Bavuma ringing the changes. Not great bowling though. Rabada bowls too short outside off, uppercut for four. Too full and straight, and driven behind point for four. Then outside leg stump, and deflected away for two leg byes. But anyone who’s been to a yard sale knows that if you rummage around in junk for long enough, you can find a gem. Rabada bowls that one, beating outside edge and off stump by a millimetre apiece. Around the wicket to the lefty, a little angle in and seam away, gorgeous stuff.

Technically the stats will say that is Head’s first century away from home. He has the one from the World Test Champs final in London, but that’s counted as neutral. He’s played a few ‘neutral’ Tests, with two finals plus a Pakistan series in the UAE when he started his career.

I take issue with this kind of stats categorisation. Those performances are still ‘away’ from home, regardless of who you’re playing against. The useful information in cricket is whether the conditions were foreign, more than how well the bowlers knew them.

60th over: Australia 177-4 (Head 102, Boland 8) Doesn’t waste any time! Two boundaries in the Jansen over, and Head doesn’t stay in the 90s long enough to be nervous, twice going through the leg side, once fine and once through midwicket. A friendly middle-stump half volley to get your ton? Yes please. Jansen can’t create any pressure.

That’s a remarkable innings. Fairly restrained by Head’s standards, brisk by anyone else’s, and it has kept his side in the contest. Also a good sign for Australia is that most of his hundreds become pretty big ones, he’s not so inclined as others to reach the mark and get out.

57th over: Australia 168-4 (Head 93, Boland 8) Again, a single for Head first ball of the Rabada over, driven to deep cover. They have a sweeper back now. One probably always should for Head. It nearly brings about Boland’s downfall, but instead his nick hits the rope for four. Almost ran the ball away rather than edging it. Why he was running it at first slip, I don’t know, but it somehow bounces and squeezes between the two slippers and away for runs. He even follows up with a single to pinch the strike.

A few revisions of the equation, I think the target for the day was 82 overs at the beginning, so 79 after this one.

55th over: Australia 162-4 (Head 92, Boland 3) Head is happy to take the single first ball of the day! That’s interesting. He’s batting with the usual No11, Boland was nightwatch last evening, but if they were looking to bat time, then perhaps Boland facing Rabada second ball of the day would not be ideal? I guess it’s also a good thing for Head to play normally and try to score normally, because that’s the way to keep a slight nudge of pressure on the bowlers. Even when runs don’t matter much, they still don’t like strike rotation and being scored from.

In any case, Boland handles Rabada comfortably, blocking a yorker and then working a run to leg. Head threads his first boundary of the day through point! A bit of a warm-up over from a bowler sending down his 12th of this innings after 12 more in the innings prior.

“Shame about the rain hope it doesn’t ruin an exciting last day,” writes Tom Barrington. “As a UK based radio cricket enjoyer, I had to find an Australian feed yesterday. I tuned in during the collapse and was amazed at the funereal atmosphere, it really was striking how down the team were and the calls for an enquiry were starting. I think they had a point re Maddinson, but this is still an extremely successful side who have a great chance of winning the series still and ultimately the World Test Championship.

“Do you think this is part of the difference between the culture around cricket in England compared to Australia (ultimately borne out in results), in the lack of acceptance of failure? I’ve listened to many worse England collapses and there is much more of an acceptance of fate, combined with some gallows humour.”

In a word, yes. My theory from my experience working a lot in both countries, which others may dispute, is that broadly speaking the English are good losers and bad winners, while Australians are good winners and bad losers. Caveats! Generalisations! Do not deluge me with contrary case studies, I’m talking broad social averages here.

The theory being that because Australians expect to win, they move on from it quickly and don’t wallow in smug gloating to the same extent, but when their teams lose, they are shocked to the core that such an outrage could happen, and can’t cope with it.

All out for under a hundred is UNACCEPTABLE to an Australian mind, it is the province of weak teams from weak countries that do not have our indomitable pioneering spirit born of the hardscrabble clay, or something. There’s a lot of hypernationalist myth mixed in there, and a lack of ability to be philosophical about failure.

But those complaints also have a point, that a lot of flaws in this current team have been visible for a while, and haven’t been addressed, so when a Test falls apart because of those self-same weaknesses, people get stroppy about it.

“I’m following Australia vs South Africa all the way from Seattle and it’s 2:10 AM. Trust me, there is nothing more Seattle-like than a rain on a weekday. This Test makes me feel included even if I have to sit and wait here at 2 past midnight! On the other hand, the rain reminds me of the South Africa exit in the 1992 world cup against England. Cheers!”

Not sleeping… in the largest city in Washington state… if only there was a film reference that I could employ. Still, that is serious dedication, Muhammad Najib, to be waiting up all night to read the rain delays. We salute you. Go Orcas.

“At risk of overcooking the Shield chat,” writes Eamonn Maloney, “you don’t have to select from a bunch of mediocrities averaging 35 when it’s early in the season and the small sample size is inflating averages. Made a big ton? In you go son!”

If they had more than four days between matches, you might be right, the emergency calls may be going out. Though on the other hand, the current regime is happy to ignore Shield cricket completely when they feel the vibe is more compelling: Maddinson, Connolly.

Assuming that Green is fit for Cape Town, then somebody has to go: you’d assume Maddinson, Webster, or Labuschagne. And if Inglis is fit and firing, he’s a calm head they they like, so the changes might be dual.

That said, Labuschagne ‘failing’ in the high 30s is not the worst problem a cricketer can have. And I think they’ve botched Webster’s career by making him peripheral, batting seven and bowling the odd over, rather than backing him at six as part of the top-tier batting unit. He had such a good start but has faded badly in recent matches, and I’d point at least one finger at a lack of clarity about what his job is.

Pondering that, there may indeed be some layoffs from this Australian team if they lose here and need to win in Cape Town to take the series.

I see the Australian team situation as having been the same for a while. A very good bowling attack, whatever their age, but suspect batting. Mostly the bowling is good enough that the batting only has to scrape enough runs together – see Durban, see Mackay. On the occasions when the bowlers don’t dominate, which no group of bowlers always will, the batting can’t cope. See Darwin, see Gqeberha.

You can email me, of course, like Simon D has done: “I’m a pom - living in Aberdeen for my sins - I’m not in the slightest bit bothered about the three way hit and giggle fest going on in Pakistan at the minute. But this... this is gripping. I bloody love Test cricket.”

That’s the stuff, Simon. Though I will say the concept of an ODI tri-series is now also sufficiently retro that it almost belongs in the same category. Things to please traditionalists. In fact, there are two ODI tri-series happening simultaneously. England and Sri Lanka are in Pakistan, as you say, while Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are up to the final of their own version in the UAE.

There’s also an Ireland-Namibia ODI series, India are playing all formats in New Zealand and are halfway through a T20 right now, and Australia’s women are playing New Zealand’s women in a T20 starting any minute.

But here, we’ve got the real quiz.

What say you, traveller? Tarry by the fire a minute? We may trade tales of desperate glory.

A bit of that ahead of us today, or at least it needs to be if Australia hope to save this game. This is a team that was forced to follow on yesterday, then lost four more wickets second time around, and they’re still 170 runs behind.

The equation is this. To take on the task we have Travis Head nearing a hundred, Scott Boland nightwatching at the other end, then it will be Steve Smith with a crook neck, Alex Carey of the horrible shot yesterday, and the bowler trio of Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood.

Between them, this lot need to bat for three sessions, with perhaps a slightly early end for bad light. Or, if they’re able to score as well as bat time, they could try to make that 170 and get into the lead, where every run is worth double because South Africa would need time to score them back.

Admittedly that’s unlikely given the four wickets to have fallen, but if things did pan out that way, Australia could kill the game sooner than three sessions by getting far enough in front.

Far more likely is that South Africa’s bowlers will be refreshed by a night’s sleep, and will pick them off in time, with six wickets to get.

The series will stay live if South Africa pull this off. High stakes. You in?