The rumbling noise coming from the Adelaide Oval on Saturday wasn't just the sound of falling wickets; it is the impending collision between players and authorities over the day-night Test cricket experience.

Seizing their public relations advantage, being able to strike first, Cricket Australia and Channel Nine pre-emptively declared the venture a success before the second day started.

Supported by bumper crowds and television ratings, invigorated by an attractive broadcast spectacle, CA's James Sutherland cited "glowing" feedback, saying the ruling body was "really keen" to play more day-night Test matches. If Sutherland was getting on the front foot, Nine's head of sport Steve Crawley was three steps down the track, declaring: "I feel sorry for the people who didn't watch it … It was something ... that was just a beautiful thing."

In the build-up to the event, CA, Nine and the viewing audience have been in alignment, seeking to "save" Test cricket. The players, by contrast, have been cast as cautious at best, and Luddites at worst. While current players have held their tongues, their representatives at the Australian Cricketers' Association have led the euphemistic "wait and see" department.

Even after the first day's play, the two players put forward as spokesmen were reluctant to share in the euphoria. Peter Siddle and Trent Boult, who as bowlers were supposed to be jubilant, instead confined themselves to positive comments about the atmosphere. "The atmosphere out there today was amazing," Siddle said. "With a crowd like that, it's definitely surprised a few of the boys." Boult added: "It was a great buzz out there.. It's amazing to be playing Test cricket in front of that many people."

Siddle and Boult were notably non-committal on the overall concept, however. "We need to see a bit more of it," Boult said. "We've got to see how this one goes and how it pans out." Siddle, reading from the same songsheet, said, "We haven't spoken too much about it yet. In time throughout this match there will be a bit more spoken about it."

None of the CA/Nine triumphalism and celebration there. And as Saturday's play proceeded, the gap between off-field and on-field perceptions of 'success' widened. Australia's use of a masseur as its substitute fieldsman was one of many indicators of lowered professional standards, not least of which was the quality of batting from both teams.

The respective top orders had no-one to blame but themselves. Adam Voges's deficiency against the swinging ball was perfectly consistent, whether the ball was red or pink. Shaun Marsh's self-destruction took place not in the atmospherics of the day-night match but the turbulence between his ears.

The kindest thing that could be said about his dismissal was that it was him and not his captain who ended up walking off. His younger brother would make an excellent bowling number eight in this team; a number six he assuredly is not. Only when Nathan Lyon joined Peter Nevill did the bats, rather than the ball, begin swinging. By then Australia were slogging their way out of a hole.

Smith made a stilted half-century, batting for his team, for the game, and for the Game; more than enough to handle. He then dropped two catches in the night session. Brendon McCullum and his batsmen failed to take their chance, beaten as much by a fatalistic attitude in the evening conditions as by the opportunistic bowling of Josh Hazlewood and Mitchell Marsh. Many will enjoy the ascendancy of the ball, but this has not been a game of high-quality cricket, and the players' performances have in some way justified their hesitance about taking part. Or the hesitance has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The captains' thoughts at the end of the game will be interesting to hear.

More interesting still will be their feedback behind closed doors as cricket digests what has happened. No doubt Smith's and McCullum's mood will be coloured by the result of this match. All they want to do is win, and the crowd and television numbers do not weigh as heavily on the scales for them as for others.

This is the ultimate debate for cricket to hold, and it's going to be difficult to balance conflicting interests. There is nowhere near the same positivity about the pink-ball game on the field as there is off it.

Bear in mind also that the Trans-Tasman Trophy is not at stake in this game. The question must be framed in a hypothetical sense, just as the question about Australia's recent batting highlights must be assessed against a speculative context.

How well would Joe Burns, Voges and the Marsh brothers fare against top-class swing bowling in the toughest conditions? No better than in the past, it would seem.

And how willing would the players be to stage the deciding match of an Ashes or a Border-Gavaskar series in the day-night format? When that question is asked, the truth will come out.