You are viewing times_xwd_times

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Times 25111 - for leather!

Solving time : 10:51, so on the easier side, though I groaned at the cryptic definitions and shook my head at a few others. Bit of a mixed bag this one, which may mean there's something for everyone, right? I was surprised to see the device L used for a Roman numeral in two places (leading to three L's indicated as numbers) in the grid.

There's even a triple-dose of cricket hiding in here.

Away we go!

1I'm going to get the across omission out of the way early
5BOSOMY: SO(thus),M(maiden, cricket reference #1) in BOY. Reuben always reminds me of the sketch from "Not Only, But Also"
8ROC: first letters of Republic Of China
10TREASURY: TRY around (A,RUSE)*
11BONBON: NB(nota bene - be attentive) in BOON
12GUYS: I think this is a reference to Guy Fawkes and Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital?
17MARVELLOUS: O between Andrew MARVELL and US
20PILL: P(ounding) then ILL
25MAIDEN,HOOD: the MAIDEN is a good over and our cricket reference #2
26ADD: The thousand could be 500+500, so D,D Edit: I messed this up in writing the first version and had LL instead of DD
27ADONIS: take the first letters away from sAD,sON,hIS
28SNOWFALL: NOW in S,FALL(baseball playoffs are also known as the "fall classic")
2ARCHERY: Cricket #3 - the new ball in cricket is called A CHERRY, so move one of the R's to the top
3HERE'S,Y: Y being the end of conformitY
4LIVERPOOL: R in a game of LIVE POOL
6SKINNY-DIP: cryptic definition
15TOUCH(just a little),DOWN(depressed)
16let's leave this out of the downs
18A,L,ARMED: another Roman numeral making an appearance in L
21INDIANA: DIANA is the female hunter succeeding IN
22WINDOW: N in WIDOW(partner, after loss)


Mar. 15th, 2012 01:42 pm (UTC)
Hey man, slow down!
6:03, finishing with MONSOON (7dn) and BONBON (11ac).  Held up in the SW corner by a cocky MIRACULOUS at 17ac (MARVELLOUS), and less badly at 7dn by a speculative MIN—, but otherwise a reasonably smooth solve.

I'm with ulaca on "good over" = MAIDEN.  Any ascription of goodness comes from a certain point of view, but here there's a clear default, because an over is tied to a given bowler (barring e.g. sudden injury, I suppose, though I don't know what the protocol is for continuation afterwards) in a way that it's not tied to a given batsman.  Of course, a batsman might be said to have had a good over, just as a commentator might; but I think it's fair for a setter to treat a good over tout court as one that's good from the bowler's point of view.