What would the late, great Shane Warne have made of it all? A deep point in position for Australia's first delivery of the series? A first-day declaration with Joe Root in full flow? Two batters stumped on the opening day of the Ashes - the first time that's happened since Lord's in 1890?
Everywhere you looked at a raucous Edgbaston, there was discombobulation to be found, as England laid out their summer's manifesto with a performance every bit as unfettered - and borderline unhinged - as the Bazball revolution had promised it would be.
And in response, the Australians went … well, a bit "un-Australian" in the words of the former England captain Alastair Cook on Test Match Special - and had that exact same sentiment been uttered by Warne himself, it would probably have counted as the most excoriating verdict ever to have been uttered in an Ashes contest.
As it was, Australia's commentators for the most part kept their counsel on a day that arguably ended with their side in fractional command in terms of the scoreboard, if not so much of the narrative of the contest.
"They've gone defensive straightaway," Ricky Ponting said in hushed tones on Sky Sports, adding that he was "not a huge fan" of Cummins' deep backward point to Zak Crawley, which soon became four boundary riders when the cut-savvy Ben Duckett came onto strike during his brief stay.
"Yes the bad ball might get cut, or square driven through backward point. But you've got to be able to protect yourself, protect your good ball and keep the batsman on strike," Ponting added. "If the scoreboard continually ticks over, batsmen never feel under pressure at all."
Writing in The Times, Gideon Haigh remarked that Australia's field placings were "so negative they were almost inert", while pointing out that the same bowling attack in Australia had dismissed England for fewer than 200 on six occasions out of ten.
"Cummins did not so much revert to defence as embark from it," Haigh added. "Within a few overs, more fielders were patrolling the perimeter than lurking in the cordon -- an umbrella field of a different kind, complete with sou' wester and oilskin coat, as a precaution against a deluge of boundaries."
Kevin Pietersen on Sky Sports didn't mince his words either. "Australia have got it wrong, but from an England perspective it is fantastic to see Australia so defensive," he said. "I think that they went straight to plan-B."
Geoff Lemon in The Guardian, however, had no such issue with the tactics, and preferred to focus solely on the day's outcome. "When the action finally got under way at Edgbaston, Australia coped just fine," he wrote. "Dynamism and controlling the flow of the match are well and good. On this pitch though, however it came about, keeping England to 393 would have the Australians well pleased.
"In the end, the surprise declaration was the only truly Bazball moment that Stokes could inject into the day," Lemon added. "It could be characterised as brave or as reckless, and probably that assessment would change depending whether it worked. In this case it didn't."
Writing in Australia's Daily Telegraph, Robert Craddock wrote of the message the declaration sent.
"On paper, Ben Stokes' declaration failed because Australia was 0-14 at stumps and licking its lips at the prospect of batting on a docile deck. England could pay for being so bold. But don't underestimate the force of a message that says 'we are coming at you hard ... from head-on and occasionally left field'."
Over in the Age, Daniel Brettig compared the early exchanges to the Rumble in the Jungle.
"Famously, Ali absorbed a flurry of Foreman's punches on the ropes in Kinshasa before breaking through to land a knockout blow in the eighth round," he wrote. "Australia's cricketers, having finally been confronted with the fearless tactics and mindset of England, now have a firsthand idea of what their own path to Ashes victory will have to comprise."
Nevertheless, we're only one day into a five-match series, and for Simon Wilde in The Times, this summer's psychological battle is only just getting started.
"Australian teams love to dictate terms and would have hated being dragged around like this tactically," he wrote, "being made to do things they do not normally do, seemingly at the whim of an England team who when they last met could not have been more pliable, more supine, and barely landed a punch all series.
"While Australia will naturally consider themselves very much in the game, this sense of being buffeted by a storm they are still trying to comprehend will disturb them. Might they sleep on the thought that England left some runs out there, that they themselves might be able to go well past 400 and set themselves up for later in the game … and in the process just get ahead of themselves?"
It was a theme that Tim Wigmore also explored in The Telegraph. "It is always disingenuous when teams proclaim to have no interest in how their opponents play," he wrote. "The question that lurked behind Australia's opening-day display was whether prudent planning had become something else: Focusing on the opposition's strengths at the expense of their own."