You are far more optimistic than I am. The players and boards are chasing the money. The money is 90%+ in India, India wants and will get 10 months or more of IPL related content.
Tests, if they survive the next ten years at all, will not be getting the most talented players, and as such will not be the “pinnacle of the game” – South Africa and West Indies already show that with players lost to franchises during test tours. Even us Test die-hards will struggle to care when there is no longer even a pretence of the best of the competing nations.
The Ashes will likely survive a little longer, mostly because ECB and CA have a little more money than most boards – but still negligible compared to the BCCI, so even they won’t last much longer.

Do day-night Tests actually get a higher attendance? Adelaide this year, despite the day game and no weekend play, still got similar numbers. of course, it was played at a better time of year than is normally the case so the comparison isn’t quite like-for-like. And they do get more TV viewers.

The ball, while dramatically improved from when it was first rushed in despite turning grey in tour games within 30 overs, it is still questionable.
A certain style of pitch still is prepared to protect the pink ball. And while a bit more grass on pitches is to be applauded, it doesn’t suit all conditions. (And may explain part of BCCI reluctance, a grassier pitch is less likely to become a plated dustbowl.)
Many venues are completely unsuitable due to dew. What CA and others could perhaps try is using the daylight better. Most of the east coast has daylight saving, if Hobart was to ever get a Test again (they won’t) dusk and sunset are late enough close to the solstice that an 8pm finish with the red ball is entirely feasible. Similar probably applies to NZ south island (maybe not Dunedin, where its so unlikely to be a clear sky).
However with T20 taking prime spot in the calendar, it seems CA have no interest in doing what is best for Tests other than Melbourne and Sydney.

Oh, and on “a couple of decades later, daytime ODIs had all but been totally eclipsed” … true in Australia. Even here it was only the SCG with lights for a few years post-WSC. Not so much elsewhere, where a mix of day and day/night was still common 20 years after the first official day/nighter. Again, not a fair comparison as most venues in wealthy nations had lights available before the first pink ball Test, which was not true with the first D/N ODI.
And, of course, day games are still very common in some parts simply because they either don’t have adequate lighting or the cost of the lights outweighs any benefits.

It may not be T20, or at least T20 alone.
Bat tech could play into this as well. Players have adopted techniques for getting the most power out of their bats with larger sweet spots. T20 has probably advanced what players know they can get away with, but to get the most out of the bat opening the stance a little and not getting pad right next to the bat allows a freer swing on attacking strokes. And as those attacking strokes have more room for error on modern bats, they are more common and the risk/reward changes from the days of tight defence first. Both technically and mentally.
Without that tight defence, playing a long digging in style innings is much more difficult even if it is a learned habit.

And the way junior cricket is set up in some countries, perhaps none more than Australia, with forced retirements and short games – even at the elite level (Victoria’s premier colts system is set up to produced Stars and Renegades, not Bushrangers, so T20 definitely plays a role there).
A sound defence, technique and mindset, doesn’t advance a team like slogging over midwicket. Winners don’t defend, and all too often don’t get taught a defence when a parent-coach is looking to win.

Referenda in Australia are – at least federally – only for changes to the Constitution.
Other questions taken directly to the people are plebiscites, and not binding on the parliament.

I doubt they grew a conscience. More likely they spent millions of dollars on market research and found “Australia Day Test” turned just as many people off as not mentioning Australia Day and made a commercial call.

For good or for ill, 26 January has historic significance. To NSW.

Just move the SCG Tests to include that date, then if we ever get an actual Australia Day then NSW Colony Day can still be used for a Test. And maybe the SCG Test will get less weather interruptions (which, to be fair, were surprisingly not a big issue this summer – and looking at rainfall trends it might make no difference).
Perth, with the second biggest stadium capacity, can have the new year Test and see what crowds they can get when not encumbered with crappy slots in the calendar.

From a cricket point of view, its a shame that (already) one of the best players in the game won’t be tested in the toughest series he could play. But whatever brought this about must be a much bigger thing than even Test cricket, presumably close family illness or death, and is no doubt be the right call.

Possibly, except this Friday is a public holiday.

Collingwood have the AFL and the whole of the Melbourne media as their PR section.

That’s my preference as well. BBL when the WBBL is normally held, across October and early November, leading into T20I and ODI and the Shield and ListA season. Then Boxing Day is probably first or second Test of the summer. More people have days off in January and can watch largely daytime Test cricket.
Some flexibility in domestic scheduling when an ODI or T20 WC is early in the year, so players can prepare the correct format in the lead-up to those.

Broadcasters and CA want the BBL over school holidays though, for obvious reasons. Smaller kids can’t stay up and watch midweek during school terms. And Tests can’t run too far into the BBL, as it means picking players out of playing an almost entirely different sport whenever a mid-series replacement is needed.

The ICC basically are there for the BCCI to pretend there is an international body. No way will the BCCI (or ECB or CA) do the right thing by the game.

That isn’t really possible when allocating five days for potential play and a mandated three days between matches. A Thursday start, followed by Friday, was possible though.

I really did not see anything wrong with that pitch. There was movement, but not unduly so or greatly variable bounce. The groundsman seems to be putting his hand up for something that was absolutely not his fault. A good pitch should have some movement.

It was more that both sides bowled well, and one side has almost no experienced batting while the other is largely out sorts and shuffled its order around but still won by a wide margin. Players, much more than pitch, made it a short game.

Why the game didn’t start on Thursday is beyond me. That still would have allowed for the mandated three day break in the schedule before a long weekend Friday start in Brisbane.

So, by the end of January, there won’t be any cricket designed to get viewers? Only the Shield, and maybe the ListA Cup moved to later in the summer.
Or they’ll extend the BBL back out and run it for three months.

Really, its the exact opposite of what I would like to see; but there’s no way CA will move the BBL to the start of the summer and run Tests in January when more people have the day off work and school for a largely daytime pursuit. (By this point of the month less so than in the first week of Jan, but still moreso than November and December.)

I think Cadael is saying this

Year 1 : 50 over World Cup
Year 2 : WTC Final
Year 3 : 20 over World Championships
Year 4 : WTC Final
with no Champions Trophy

Maybe add Womens 20 and 50 over titles in years 2 and 4? A Womens WTC is too far off to be a consideration at this stage. The womens T20 calendar isn’t yet destroying international cricket, and not enough teams play Tests again yet.

The ICC are the rubber stamp body, the BCCI are the ruling body.

What else can they do though? If they refuse NOCs, players capable of getting T20 gigs beyond the CPL will simply refuse CWI contracts and make more money with zero international availability.

The smaller boards simply cannot pay players enough to have them turn down the T20 circus. And the big nations will not allow, or fund, the ICC to do the right thing and directly pay players a decent base amount for international appearances.

Will getting US players really make a dent in the US market, already overloaded with multiple high-profile sports? Do Australians give any more of a toss about baseball because a few Aussies play in the major league? And baseball, like American Football, has all the advantage of the American cultural dominance that TV and movies provide.

Its difficult to see any sport making even a tiny ripple beyond the ex-pat communities. The NRL, a bit like Port’s games in China were, are largely sponsor driven and not likely to impact the host city one iota. At least RL can be understood by Americans Football fans, just no forward pass, less specialist players and team swaps, and every tackle/down is “goal” rather than yardage (e.g. 4th and goal, rather than 4th and 15).

If targeting nations for international growth, why not look to nations which have not traditionally had a middle class with leisure time and have fewer rusted on sports – more scope for something different to take hold in at least a few minds. China and India being very big examples, but even in those cases a few sports already hold the public’s imagination.

Australian Football doesn’t really need to be bigger than it is, if somewhere outside Aus there eventually is a semi-pro league, then great – and I’m all for the International Cup and the AFL providing low key assistance to the amateur leagues that do exist; but trying to create an international revenue off practically no base while the AFL neglects suburban and country footy seems the wrong priority for the game.

Accumulating openers are fine, if they accumulate. Openers who can provide a steady platform as often as not are preferable to those who fail regularly and succeed occasionally, imo. There are five days, there isn’t a need to rush early in an innings.
At this stage, Renshaw is my slight favourite to move into the opening spot. Bancroft certainly also is a viable option to try. I do wonder if there are any issues between him and Smith though, which might play into selectors thinking of team cohesion. We know they love what the team perceive as a “good bloke”, sometimes way above a good player.

The question then becomes the number three. This is the position where the most versatile, not necessarily the best, should probably come in. he can protect the middle order if an early wicket falls, 0or capitalise if coming in after a high opening stand. Currently, is Labuschagne that player? His 2023 form has not been that good. I’m not suggesting dropping him but maybe at some stage this summer a temporary move down the order might be an idea. Head could play at #3, in form and capable of switching gears as situations demand. Labs at 6, Marsh while his (to me, highly unexpected) purple patch holds up moving to 5. That could occur with or without Warner.

And, yes, tour game preparation is vital. More than one game is preferable, but boards aren’t prepared to put the time and money aside. Manuka is a very not-Australia-like deck at its paciest, the rain preceding the game made sure it was slower than even its normal.
At least CA put out a fairly strong PM XI, instead of the usual set of developing players who have barely played a FC game or state third elevens we often see (similar underwhelming teams are usually the case overseas as well). And, no, that is not all the fault of T20.

I seem to recall that was the original plan with the new stadium. Some Shield, ListA Cup and lower-drawing tests would have been played at the WACA. With the downgrade to 10k capacity it seems the WACA won’t be used for mens internationals.
A modernised 25k capacity would have been fine for low drawing Tests and ODIs, and potentially as a base for a third WA AFL side against lower drawing opponents until that third side grew.

The biggest problem with the BBL is the timing. Unfortunately it has to be played in such a way that it screws over the First Class season and gets players into bad habits that might get a Test call-up later in a series.
But because it exists simply for marketing to appeal to broadcasters and kids it gets played in the school holidays; leaving no option (financially) but to screw over the needs of cricket.

Manuka is a docile pitch by Australian standards at the best of times, and was slow and low on day one even by Manuka standards. Pace and bounce won’t be as friendly to Pakistani batsmen on any of the Test decks, even if preparation is similarly hampered by rain in the week or two leading into games.

Oh, there are things I would do with the domestic summer but none are realistic as they all mean moving BBL away from splitting the FC season in two over school holidays.

Two simple (but yes, costly financially) fixes:
– all 12 teams in the WTC, meaning the likes of Afghanistan, West Windies and Zimbabwe (the latter two for as long as they play Tests, the possibility of West Indies splitting is very real) actually get Test cricket
– ICC to pay players an appearance fee directly for Tests and white ball ICC events, boards that can afford it can pay on top of that; this gets money to players by-passing the boards which cannot all be trusted to pass on player payments

That still leaves big issues, but at least ensures international cricket is a career path for those able to get there. First Class and ListA competitions, and player payments, are still huge issues.
And of course the lure of the much higher paying T20 circuit. Even with ICC backed appearance money, for those not playing regularly enough being available for any of the financially smaller nations may well be a large backwards step financially.

It is a sad thing for the Shield, and has been that way pretty much since the advent of pay television. The BBL drawing domestic away from state sides and toward city franchises comes on top of the additional international availability of the game through firstly pay TV and now streaming. And other sports, as cricket itself is failing to attract migrant families except from south Asia and falling rapidly toward a second-tier sport in this country (like rugby’s drop).

People just don’t watch the second tier much. I would like to see each state move two games a season outside the capital city – on weekends where the national team is not playing. Cities which don’t get international games may still get a thousand or so on the Saturday to a state game, if the promise of the national team players is there. CA would need to drop their minimum standard for First Class venues though, most states don’t have a venue outside the capital meeting conditions. I think only NSW and Qld probably do (Tas and Vic have ListA and T20 suited but not First Class).
No more than two games though, others need to be at the Test venues so that after two seasons in the Shield any Test prospect will have played at all the home Test venues and gotten at least a tiny familiarity. There is additional cost associated with that though, no home team hotel rooms need to be paid for in the capital city where the players live.