Does anyone know of a site with printable crossword puzzles ? I don't much like the mag.rack variety (poor quality paper). Brill's Content Magazine has some great puzzles by Matt Gaffney, but not every issue. Joanne in culturally challanged Arkansas

The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com) offers its crossword puzzles for a subscription price of $9.95 a year. You have to register first at the site (that's free) and then click on the 'diversions' link to sign up.

electronic Telegraph, the online version of Britain's Daily Telegraph has a crossword (It's even got a java scripted version so you can do it online!) you need to register but it's free. Of course, cryptic crosswords really test your language and this is a british crossword, using british spellings and references. I find american crosswords very difficult because of the various geographical references although I just about see the sporting references since I watched some baseball during the race to 70 home runs (I know what an RBI is). How's your knowledge of cricket? What's a LBW?

Find it at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Phillip, it's a leg-before-wicket, which puts the batter (or is it batsman?) out, is that right? I always found that foul interesting because no baseball batter would even think about blocking the plate with his leg! Does LBW show up in British crosswords as often as does RBI in American ones?

To get back to the original question, links to the NY Times, LA Times, CrosSynergy Syndicate, and Creators' Syndicate crosswords are at http://www.cruciverb.com. That site is also a very good resource for constructors.

The aforementioned puzzles may require registration; certainly the NY Times puzzle charges $9.95 per year for access, as has already been stated. I believe that these puzzles all require the Across Lite software package, which is available for both PC and Mac users at no cost. That software is available on the NY Times site and elsewhere.

In addition, the Washington Post has printer-friendly versions of its crosswords at http://wp4.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/crosswords/util/archivepage.cgi. The general crosswords page for the Post, which has online-solvable versions that are perfect for killing time at the office, is http://wp4.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/crosswords. Across Lite is not required for the Post puzzles.

Good luck and happy solving!

The Guardian (or affectionately called The Grauniad, in recognition of its penchant for printer's devils), has free access to its website, though you have to register.

Here's where it puts its crosswords:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crossword/

You get to play with the 'easy' (or general knowledge) version as well as the cryptic version. In addition there are notes on how to do cryptic crossowrds (so you don't have to go through the painful process of learning by experience that we stiff-upper-lipped Brits did). You can do them online, or print them out.

For reference, The Guardian is to the left-wing what The Telegraph (Torygraph?) is to the right wing in the UK.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Defnitely batsman (I'm not sure what they are caller in womens' cricket - I guess the female version - batsman)

Batter does make rather good pancakes though and I can see the connection.

Isn't a batter in rounders? Definitely not a batter in cricket. This was a word on Countdown this week and they specifically said not a cricketing term. Though they though batter was good for fish rather than pancakes.
LBW does come up from time to time although some of the other cricketing terms are more obscure; googly, yorker, silly point - do you know these.
As for the Guardian it's a wishy washy liberal paper and as a good socialist I'd rather read a paper where the bias is clear (plus I never can get me head round the crossword in the Guardian!)

Check the following site:
http://www.fleetingimage.com/wij/xyzzy/nyt-links.html
It includes the Wall Street Journal Friday puzzle. and others.

just a note to all you good folks providing links: you too can make your links hot using the peerless AWAD editor, just by following the guidelines given by the hot link located just above the reply boxes, which reads "you may use markup in your posts."

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

like this?

http://nytimes.com/

Ah, cool. Thanks again (you pointed out this mark-up thang once before; now, I believe it's finally sunk in).

Googly, I've heard, but only in Jerry Seinfeld's American Express commercial. But I have no idea what it is, nor am I familiar with a silly point or a yorker. What are they?

Without delving into the mid-on and mid-offs - silly point is a fielding position in cricket - just picture the dumbest place to stand if you don't want to be beheaded by a fast moving cricket ball and you have silly point.

One of the many reasons that cricket is a superior tactical game to baseball is that the fielding positions are not fixed but altered by the captain to suit the bowlers attack and the batsman's style. Silly point is a close in fielding position designed to get a catch off a batsman who is playing defensively (another difference, batsmen stay in until got out by being caught or bowled or run out or whatever so defensive play, where you protect the wicket until the bowler bowls a lose ball is ok. This tests the stamina and concentration of both batsman and bowler). A version of silly point is very silly point followed by suicide point at which point cricket becomes a contact sport. A yorker is a ball bowled at the batsman feet not likely in itself to get the batsmen out but designed to break his concentration. A googly is an offbreak ball bowled with a leg break action, ie a ball that is signalled to do one thing but actually does another.
As you can possible see cricket is very much a game of mental concentration and stamina. People who complain that it takes to long miss the point of the game which is to test mental stamina. As a beside the cricket ball is just as hard as the baseball and the bowler runs up so the speed of the cricket ball is faster than that of the baseball. More than one batsman has been killed by being struck on the head by a ball.
With regards to baseball I'm in favour of raising the mound back to it's full pre 1969 height.

To add to Philip's erudite post...

In cricket, there are two notional 'sides' to the wicket (or pitch, the strip between the batsman and the bowler). The 'off' side is the side on which he/she holds the bat. The 'leg' side (also called the on side) is, therefore the side where his/her legs are.

An off-break, therefore, is a ball bowled so that, when it pitches (bounces) it spins from the off-side towards the leg side. (In practice, it is an off-break even if it pitches on the leg side and then moves even further towards leg.) The leg break, by analogy, is a ball that does the opposite.

The googly is such a famous ball because, as you may understand, a bowler has to hold the ball in a distinctive fashion to bowl either an off break or a leg break. Good batsmen watch the bowler's hand to figure out what sort of ball to expect. In a googly, however, the action looks like one type of ball, but the spin is the opposite to what one would expect. The current master of legspin, Shane Warne, has a good googly, but the most legendary googly I ever remember was the one 'patented' by the Indian spinner Chandrashekhar (playing in the '60s and '70s).

I agree with Philip that cricket certainly taxes both tactical skills and stamina (how many other games are regularly played over a five day period?), but I am not sure of the claim that it is tactically 'superior' to baseball. I just think the tactics are different.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

I suppose I think cricket is tactically superior because there are so many more variables to consider in cricket than in baseball. However, I'm not suggesting that it's a superior game. (It is but I'm not suggesting that.). Unfortunately the match fixing scandel has rather taken the edge of the game at the moment. Hopefully the game will rise afresh much as baseball has done after the strike.

I agree. The Corinthian ideals with which we invest cricket ("It's just not cricket!" - what more resonant expression could there be of a sense of fair play?) appear to have been sorely besmirched by this scandal.

The only funny thing I heard about it was the one about the bookie who wasted money because he bribed the English team to lose! (The current state of the English cricket team is nearly as depressing as the match-fixing scandal, IMO.)

I also agree that cricket seems, at least to me, to be one of the subtlest, and 'best' games around. But then that is probably more a result of my upbringing than any innate superiority in the game itself. And I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed my one baseball viewing experience (Wrigley Fields, and the Cubs actually won that one).

cheer

the sunshine warrior

I was taken to lords a few years ago. It was a lovely sunny day for a pleasant doze and the Sunday papers - cricket is a big yawn. I was impressed by Angus Deayton (sorry, another UK reference) who put it in Room 101 alongside BBC's Radio 2.

Baseball has got to be more interesting.

As one might tritely say, "it's all a matter of taste". For cricket fans, Atherton's unbeaten 180+ in South Africa a few years ago was possibly the greatest achievement in English sport since, perhaps the '66 World Cup. For others, it's a tale told by an idiot, full of...

cheer

the sunshine warrior

I love baseball. Yet I've never seen a cricket game. Thanks for the insights, y'all from Over the Pond. I lived abroad (in the so-called "Third World") for so long that when I came back to the US, baseball was sort of a comfort thing to me. Still is :-) ... *ahem* Go BRAVES!

Over here in the US there has been lots of fine writing about baseball over the years (Roger Angell, fiction editor for The New Yorker, leaps to mind); baseball seems to lend itself to very lyrical prose. I'm wondering if there is anything comparable in the world of cricket.

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

Oh, I don't know that I would agree that cricket is tactically superior to baseball. For one thing, your premise that the fielders' positions in baseball are fixed is incorrect. The only fixed positions are the battery (pitcher and catcher -- had to throw some vocabulary in there). The other seven fielders may play anywhere on the field, in fair or foul territory. And in fact, they move around quite a bit, depending on the pitcher, the batter, the presence of runners on base, the wind, etc. There are also considerations of substituting players, stealing bases, bunting (squaring the bat over the plate and gently pushing the incoming ball to the turf), sacrificing (hitting the ball to an easy fielding position for the purposes of advancing a runner when there are fewer than two outs), and many others; to my knowledge, none of these are important tactics in cricket.

I have watched a few cricket matches, and the game is somewhat interesting. Here's a question, though: why don't the fielders ever run? I see them jog over to a batted ball, but no one seems to be in a hurry to field it. Meanwhile, the batting team is scoring run after run.

A great resource for learning baseball strategy and tactics is Leonard Koppet's The New Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball. It's well written by a journeyman sportswriter, and it explains the decisionmaking inherent to all facets of the game. Is there a similar book for cricket? I'd love to pick up a copy, if there is.

I wonder if metagrobologists in the UK need to know as much cricket lore as we in the US need to know about baseball?

(just trying to connect all the dots here... :)

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

Here's one that's a little closer to the topic: What, in your opinions, are the most frequent appearances of baseball-related answers in crossword grids? I see RBI and ERA quite a bit, also EVERS (the second leg of the Tinker-Evers-Chance World Series triple play). I wonder if anyone has clude "RHE" as the initials at the end of the linescore?

Oh, of course that's "clued" and not "clude." And I hda consdired usnig teh spellchekcer, to.

OTT and ALOU because they're short names.

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

I did know that the fielders in baseball move about within some confines, in cricket there are few confines and the field settings are much move varied. Quite simply there are a few more fielders and the field is twice the size. I'm not suggesting baseball is without interest, it has many points of interest and some similarities with cricket (mostly the commentators comments about what snack there currently eating). However, I still hold that cricket has a greater tactical element. Take, for an example, the ball. All the current discussions in baseball as to the changes in the hardness of the ball equally apply in cricket, plus in cricket there is a question about the colour of the ball (red or white), all the ball tampering aspects are much the same, but in cricket only one ball is used at a time and it is played with until fairly worn, so the age of the ball becomes another factor in considering fielding positions, a new ball is faster, but an old ball my give better and less predictable spin.
Finally one of the most fascinating aspects of cricket is the variation between the varied nations that play from all around the world.

Whilst still refusing to throw in my lot with the 'cricket is tactically superior' crowd, I would like to point out that one element - the state or condition of the pitch, is vital in cricket, whilst much less important in baseball since the point there is never to bounce the ball towards the batter.

The 'equivalent' of the bunt might be considered to be the concept of 'keeping the strike' at the end of an over, where the better batsman in a partnership is concerened with changing ends on the 5th or 6th balls, so as to reduce the chance of his less able partner having to face a full over.

That fielders appear to jod instead of run is, IMO, attributable to two reasons:

1. Most games are not played in the spirit of high athleticism. When played at the club level, cricket should only be a little more energetic than gold. The key element is the sandwiches in the high tea that divides the innings!

2. Most experienced players have a very good idea of how many runs, in principle, a certain shot might produce. If two is the safe limit, then there is little point in the fielder pouncing on the ball to try to 'prevent' it. Chances are the two is safe, while any attempt at three would be suicidal. To that extent, the fielder and the batsmen, are playing the percentages.

Neither of these considerations should, or do, apply in international cricket at the highest level, where athleticism and sharpening of the percentages, is taken for granted. In one day cricket today, you will see singles taken that would never have been contemplated by professional cricketers 30 years ago. Similarly, you will see fielding agility, form an entire team of fielders, that was once the preserve of perhaps one man in an entire generation (a Colin Bland, say).

Finally, to end this long post, and to address an earlier one in this thread (from tsuwm?), cricket has been blessed with a long and vigorous tradition of fine writing. Perhaps the most famous of all cricket writers is the late Neville Cardus, but more recent wwriters have also performed well with the pen - John Arlott and others.

In fiction, I have yet to find descriptions of cricket matches (or golf, for that matter) to amtch those of Wodehouse. The great Pelham Grenville's school stories, based on the fictional Wrykyn, are unsurpassed in that aspect.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

>Finally one of the most fascinating aspects of cricket is the variation between the varied nations that play from all around the world.

I'm not really joining in here as I haven't got a clue what you are all talking about. I did, however notice this comment on the internet and I thought it would link to other threads:
The three differences between Americans and the British according to comedian/actor John Cleese :
- The British speak English.
- When the British have a "World Championship" in sports, they invite teams from other countries.
- When you meet the head of state, you only get down on one knee.
(Caldernet Mailing Lists)

I agree with Shanks that the skill of players has generally improved over the years but, I do believe, that the skill of baseball players is much higher. You may see an outstanding catch in cricket but you almost certainly will see some amazing infield play in professional baseball. So whilst I contend that cricket is a more tactical game baseball is general a more skillful game (mind you for the money the players get I'd expect it.)

A few more cricketing terms for those trying British crosswords.
Slip - a fielder placed roughly behind the batsman to catch a ball that glances off the bat. (There no such thing as a foul ball in cricket)
Duck - a score of no runs "He's out for a duck" out without scoring
Over - a series of six (or eight) balls bowled by the same bowler. At the end of the over a different bowler then bowls from the other end.
Maiden - An over from which no runs were scored as in the phrase "he bowled a maiden over" which can also mean to impress a young women as in "He bowled the maiden over when he bowled a maiden over."
Test - An international match.

There have been few films about cricket but a few years ago an excellent television series called 'Bodyline' was produced about a English Test tour of Australia in the 1930's which was both very entertaining as a story and highly informative about the tactics of cricket. It had similar qualities to the rather good "In a League of Their Own"

There's a new and generally entertaining series on US tv regarding the daily goings-on in the White House, called "West Wing". In tonight's episode the president (nicely portrayed by Martin Sheen) was telling a member of his staff that he was planning, at the end of yet another long day, to have a beer and watch a women's softball game on cable; upon being teased about this, he responded that it was "either that or a cricket match" between (x) and (y) -- I think this nicely sums up our attitude regarding cricket as a spectator sport. <g>

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

>There no such thing as a foul ball in cricket

Yes there is, when the bowler oversteps the line (crease), or when the Umpire deems the ball to have been thrown, instead of bowled. However that action is really difficult to determine. The Umpire will signal "No Ball", and the batting side scores an extra run, while the bowler gets to deliver another ball, giving the batter another opportunity to score. That will make the Over seven (or 9) runs.

I think a 'no ball' is much more like a baseball 'ball' (a ball pitched not in the strike zone) in that it is a bowler/pitcher error. A foul ball is a ball hit into a none playing area (behind the batter) and is a error by the batter. Their is no foul area in cricket and this sort of error by a batsman ( letting the ball hit the bat and glance backwards) can result in an out if the ball is caught by the slips.
There are several mistakes than can result in the batting side getting extra runs.
A wide - a ball bowled way off target (there are two 'strike zones' in cricket: the small wicket, which if hit results in the batsman being 'bowled out' and a wider zone, basically the area that the batsman can reach with his bat at full stretch, which if missed results in a wide and a run being given to the batting side)
A bye - a run scored because of a fielding error where the ball is not hit but the fielding side don't stop the ball before the batsman makes a run (a tiny bit like a stolen base)
These runs scored because of bowling or fielding errors are not give to the batsman individual score but added as 'extras' to the batting sides score. Fast bowlers who run at speed before releasing the ball can often make mistakes, but are also sometimes very effective when on target, so you get the situation where extras are the largest single part of the score for the batting side.

Is all this british culture getting to much in culturally challenge Arkansas?

BBC Radio4 Broadcasts live on the web. I tried to listen to the cricket today - but although it's on the radio, it didn't seem to be on the website http:// http://www.bbc.co.uk/audiovideo/. Maybe there are other links where people can hear Cricket and Baseball commentaries, so they can listen to some of the terminology that has been discussed and make up their own minds about the relative strengths and weaknesses.

There's a fascinating book 'Beyond the boundary' by C R L James, published in the late forties (I think) and recently reprinted. It's a history of West Indies cricket and is a mix of cricket and politics and race issues. It's apparently something of a classic among books about cricket.

>>this sort of error by a batsman ( letting the ball hit the
bat and glance backwards) can result in an out if the ball is caught by the slips.<<

in baseball, this sort of "error" by a batter can result in an out if caught by any fielder. I emphasize error because the 'pitch' may be basically unhittable, in terms of putting it efficaciously into play, and a skillful batter may purposely 'foul' it off (if he already has two 'strikes') to prolong his 'at bat'.

I think that we should all just agree that cricket and baseball are different.

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

"I think that we should all just agree that cricket and baseball are different."

But that takes the competition out of discussing competitive games. Rather misses the half the point of sport if your not competitive about it.

> Rather misses the half the point of sport if your[sic] not competitive about it.

You're{!} right, Philip... baseball is better!

8-)

http://members.aol.com/tsuwm/

I recognise Tsuwm reluctant acknowledgement that he is not the arbiter of what is, or is not to be, discussed on this Bulletin Board.
I thank him for pointing out a simple error that I have made (twice in one short post of two sentences). I shall take this lead and point out some errors in manners of his. He has on at least two occasions taken it upon himself to speak for all members of this BB ("I think that we should all just agree that cricket and baseball are different." and "but we digress; this is the stuff of political forums."). I find this offensive. Tsuwm is perfectly at liberty to disagree with my posts, ignore them or even be abusive about them but to pretend to speak for others is at best a very careless use of language and at worst a partonising violation of others independence.
His bland "baseball is better" without any supportive statement in response to my series of posts about the terminology and qualities of cricket and baseball (which included some praise of the qualities of baseball) appears, to me, to be a dull attempt to quench a topic which he does not feel in control of.
No bracket or other 'smileys' as I am very cross.

Perhaps those of us who post regularly to the group should agree on a few rules of engagement, now we are coming of age.

In my limited knowledge of group dynamics it is perfectly normal to pass through to a stage where everyone is very polite to each other to another, where people feel more able to be critical. Another issue (and its not only related to testosterone levels) is some kind of bid for leadership. Anyone who's read "Lord of the Flies" will know the natural conclusion.

Amongst adults there are a number of possible end points which include - (i) acceptance of a hierarchy (it involves less thinking) (ii) a code of practice which recognises people's individuality or (iii) murder.

Whilst option (iii) can be very cathartic it has unpleasant consequences for society and is best avoided. Given the nature of the group option (i) is unlikely to work as:
(a) people will come and go; (b) we are all computer literate intelligent adults, capable of thinking; (c) the internet (at least at this early stages in its development) it a kind of anarchic environment (at least in so far as it defies traditional structures) and this type of environment does not always respect traditional leadership styles.

So, I have a few proposals for discussion & to follow one of my rules I will move over to miscellany to post it. Follow me if you dare!

An additional comment with regards to Tsuwm posting.

I personally think he was trying to cover a go at me by pretending to make a joke. I'd rather he was straight forward as I shall undoubtable be accused of not having a sense of humour. It's a cowardly preemptive attempt to deflect someone's anger and I've come across it often before. If it had just been the sentence "You win - baseball is better" it, of course, would have been a joke but the function of that 'joke' in the context of the whole message is clearly not to be ironic or humorous but to undermine my possible responses.

To some extent we've all had a go at quenching a topic. As we've seen elsewhere, sometimes it works, sometimes not. People are all independent and decide whether to carry on a post or not. I think the point here might have been the extent to which it had strayed from the original subject. of course, I have never been guilty of such a thing! I've noticed that it really doesn't seem to matter too much anyway.

The problem with e-mail (especially as Anna describes this group) in slo-mo is that we can't gauge someone's reaction to our comment. In face to face communication we can always backtrack when you realise that you are going down like a lead balloon. In a couple of a cases here I have gone back and deleted postings shortly after I made them as I've later realised that I've missed the point. I've notice that others have similarly back-tracked.

I'm off away for a few days so I won't add any more. You'll be bored to death with me by now!

Tara

I'm a bit bemused by this idea "To some extent we've all had a go at quenching a topic".

If I find a topic has no interest for me or I can think of nothing to add I ignore it. There are other topics around which I can contribute to. This is not a pub where the noise from one discussion impinges on others. The only reason for wanting to quench a topic in a forum such as this, that I can see, is an attempt to exercise control, for it's own sake, over a discussion. However, I'm open to be enlightened if there is view as to why not ignoring a topic that has no interest for an individual is an appropriate response.

Isn't it odd that a topic that started out as "crosswords" quickly deteriorated into cross words?

Come on, guys, there has to be some disparity, and thank goodness for that. Please let's enjoy the forum for what it is - a place to discuss and appreciate the fun of the language we use. Let's celebrate our differences, and learn from them and leave out the personal barbs.

Let's also accept that our levels of learning differ, and that there will be those whose use of language might not match the expectations of others.

I joined this forum for fun, learning and a means of communicating with others who share my interest in English. Ain't that what it's all about?

I think that the discussion should be closed. Anybody feel otherwise?

Hi Philip,

Batter was the Victorian term for batsman in cricket. I haven't verified this but it can be found in the novel 'Flashman's Lady' by George MacDonald Fraser. A work of fiction that incorporates many factual, historical incidents.

Late in coming but the website www.ireland.com gives both the Simplex and the Crosaire (Irish for crossroads) crosswords in both printable and Java versions.

Although not a crossword puzzle, I've been having fun on the
http://www.m-w.com/game/ site. Kind of addictive

Yes, screen!
I've been playing these games for some time now. Some are
better than others, but all are a fun way to learn some
new words! I also enjoy their 'words for the wise'.

If anyone wants a gentler introduction to cryptic crosswords than plunging into the newspaper ones (which by the way usually have easier ones on Mondays!), you might want to try http:// http://thinks.com/crosswords/cryptic/cryptic.htm which has simpler ones with both British and American references and a minimum of cricket, golf, and baseball references, any of which throw me into a bit of a tizz.

Bingley